Haarms should be Vince's primary backup. No one else took the job at the WUGs and all the other jobs re filled.
Matt Haarms
- Thread starter ReedRJ
- Start date
First, I think Vince is great. When he committed after his junior year I tweeted him saying Purdue would love his versatility and I rarely, rarely tweet. The difference it appears between some and I, is I admit I don't know since I haven't seen him or heard anything from Matt to indicate how much, if any, he might be a force this year. I really don't know and that is why I wont speculate in how many minutes this one and that one gets.
I know you know that the five out on the floor must provide more scoring than being scored against. This doesn't mean the best individual five play or that the five most offensive or defensive play, but rather the effect of the team in a positive manner whether it be offensive, defense or just the net effect of both sides since the players unlike football must play both.
All that said Haarms appears to be agile and relatively mobile for one his size. Based upon his video (old I know) he would have just as much of a chance to guard a decent 4 as a decent 5..knowing full well that "individual abilities" of those being guarded affect how well he would do with both as well as the particular whistle for that match-up.
Vince, who I think is great, has versatility as his greatest contribution. Vince can do it all in a decent fashion. If Vince is shooting it well, the drive (although a little slow) is there. Vince has had some difficulty scoring inside when the big boys are inside...thinking D.J. Wilson and some previous games. Vince has improved his athleticism, but he is a more skilled player than athletic. Had Vince been quicker, he would be playing a 3 and still might under the right scenario. Haarms could give space and slowly give ground on a drive until a few feet where that 7'3" height poses a problem. Had Vince been quicker (and he may be quick enough for Haarms) then he could beat Haarms off the dribble. Course when they change ends, then someone must guard Haarms. What is the net effect? Is it easier to scheme for Vince and his 4 or Haarms and his four or does Vince find time at a 3 and Haarms at a 4?
You see, I haven't seen these kids play and have no idea who can do what and how the whole of a group of five works against the whole of a group of five. If Haarms plays a lot or doesn't play much...it won't surprise me because I really don't know anything about him or how a "team" might work with him. I do think 7'3" and being what appears as agile and mobile a huge positive, but that is all I know.
What if Taylor had played last year with Haas and been as effective as he seems today? Would we have found many games where Biggie played a 5? Personally, I doubt it...but would in special situations. I also don't think that Vince would have split most the time with Biggie at a 4 although he would have split some. I think Vince would have played more at a 3, but the lack of depth inside for someone to play with his back to the basket placed Vince at a 4...none of this is to say that Vince is or is not better suited as a 4 for the team. We know career wise, Vince's future is better if he is a great 3 rather than a 4...but he is at Purdue and what makes for the best team AS WELL as player development? Had that scenario played out last year (Taylor playing) and Vince had played the 3 mostly...would any perceptions of the 4 be different today? The best scenario for Purdue would be for Haarms to play a 4...since he appears to be able to stretch the court like Vince (can Haarms put the ball on the court?), but Haarms may not be good enough to do that at this time...I just don't know.
This is the part of basektball I enjoy...seeing how the pieces go together. We know the four seniors are going to play most the game, but after that there are a lot of combinations to play out.
The only twin towers were Taylor and Haarms and Haarms couldn't play. That left no depth at the five and a shuffling of several other players into other areas of need when needing to rest one or the other. Having depth at the five, allowed for less movement of the other players. Still, Matt may not have the players he thinks are best for a twin towers, but the WUG removed Haarms from the experiment and of course...Haarms may not be ready...I just don't know. It is the "team" effect that Matt seeks, not a player and that experiment was not possible IMO and like you and some others...may not exist down the road either.
I don't think it has to but I do think it can. Either is viable and you just do what fits your personnel. Purdue looks like they can do either.
I see Taylor primarily playing the 5. I believe Purdue will end up with an 8 to 9 man rotation looking something like this:
PJ/Eastern
Carsen
Dakota/Cline
Vince
Haas/Taylor
I think these guys will be the only ones to reach over 10 minutes a game. There could be a 9th man in this rotation, but Purdue will not be going 11 or 12 deep.
That would be my anticipated 8 and I agree that Purdue will not get deep enough to see 11 or 12 on a regular basis. Personally, I think it is difficult to play more than 8 on a regular basis.
I'm not saying that he can't stay with Vince, but Vince does a nice job moving without the ball and Haarms would need to show a lot of agility for a 7'3" player. I'm not saying that it is impossible for a 7'3" player to have that kind of agility. Ralph Sampson and Yao Ming come to mind as players of similar height who moved very well. My main point is that I hope Haarms is that agile because he could be a real game changer if he is.
THAT is my hope! When I watch him on the bench and even rebounding for others before a game, I see more quickness and mobility than most his size. I see physical attributes that are an anomaly in the population. Again, all I have to go on is his old video and the few times I see him on the bench and rebounding. Matt thinks he was a steal and thinks someday he will have a bright future. He chose Purdue because of the previous success with the bigs and Matt has said he is a great learner. When he will be a force, we do not know. That was Matt's comments after last season for those with perfect attendance to the games. In an equal opportunity offense, where reading the D and adjusting accordingly, those physical anomalies "can be" a nice advantage. "IF" Haarms can get it together, the potential is great and that is why I'm intrigued with him. He is more of a wildcard for me than the others...
I have mixed emotions. I know al l about the reasoning behind bringing Haarms to Purdue. it was either that or he'd lose a year of eligibility. And I know by doing so, he ca n learn the system, practice with our players, use our training facility, and attend classes and get a jump start on academics. there were a lot of plusses coming to Purdue.
I also remember Caron Butler. he and Purdue had an agreement. he went to some prep school in Maine, and then was stolen by UCONN.
my mixed emotions are based on do all those pluses outweigh actual game time situations / competition? And this question seems rather dumb after watching a lot of AAU games where the star players very seldom play more than half of a game.
I think Haarms and Wheeler are different than Ewing and Taylor. I view Ewing and Taylor as strictly one position players. I think Haarms could play both frontcourt positions.
I could see Haarms paired with Taylor and Haas and playing outside with Taylor or has playing inside.
I could also see Haarms paired off with Ewing with Ewing playing inside and Haarms playing outside.
I can't see taylor being paired with Haas.
is it possible to have a frontcourt of Haas, Haarms and Edwards? I believe that would be intriguing, but doubtful.
Rather than positions, I'll reassess. I see a backcourt of 3 positions and 120 minutes for 6 people to share. And I see a frontcourt of 2 positions and 80 minutes for 6 to share. Obviously I believe Haas and V Edwards will probably take up 55-60 of those 80 minutes. Maybe Haarms will get more minutes than I predicted. if he does, it will be at the expense of Taylor, Wheeler, and Ewing.
I'm of the opinion Grady saw as man y minutes as he did because the competition was weaker, and Painter knew his minutes would be limited once our season started - much the same with Sasha. he was on the team, and it's nice to play some minutes.
I could see Haarms paired with Taylor and Haas and playing outside with Taylor or has playing inside.
I could also see Haarms paired off with Ewing with Ewing playing inside and Haarms playing outside.
I can't see taylor being paired with Haas.
is it possible to have a frontcourt of Haas, Haarms and Edwards? I believe that would be intriguing, but doubtful.
Rather than positions, I'll reassess. I see a backcourt of 3 positions and 120 minutes for 6 people to share. And I see a frontcourt of 2 positions and 80 minutes for 6 to share. Obviously I believe Haas and V Edwards will probably take up 55-60 of those 80 minutes. Maybe Haarms will get more minutes than I predicted. if he does, it will be at the expense of Taylor, Wheeler, and Ewing.
I'm of the opinion Grady saw as man y minutes as he did because the competition was weaker, and Painter knew his minutes would be limited once our season started - much the same with Sasha. he was on the team, and it's nice to play some minutes.
Wheeler is a different kind of player and athlete than Purdue fans are used to. From my info...Wheeler is seen as a '3' at Purdue for what CMP would like to develop him as. If that is the case, he would be potentially taking over for Mathias and having a back court of Carsen, Eastern, and Wheeler...that's about as athletic a back court Purdue has had in my memory.
If that is the case with Wheeler, what you may end up seeing is something along the lines of this:
G: Carsen
G: Eastern
G: Cline
G/F: Wheeler
C: Taylor
With this lineup, you have what many would consider two very good outside shooters in Boogie and Cline while having versatility in Wheeler and Eastern to match-up and defend based on the opposing team. It's a very interesting thought and one many Purdue fans will probably rack their brains around this time next year.
From all accounts, Wheeler is essentially looked at like Troy Williams from IU with better skills and a higher ceiling.
I think it take about six weeks to get there but by mid December, yes, that the likely scenario.
I can solve your conundrum. He wouldn't have gotten PT. That would make the decision very clear I'd think.
I am admitting I am too lazy to look up who corrected me on the post about Haarms playing center...but you are correct in saying he is listed as a forward on the official roster. If that is the likely scenario (I still stand by the fact I believe he'll be a guy who plays in a lineup of 3-4 guards and he'll work outside-in as opposed to Biggie who worked inside-out), I do wonder if CMP believes he has the needed skill to, at certain times, play him alongside Haas/Taylor.
I think the likely scenario is with Taylor and Haarms at the same time because those two can both step out to defend on the wing against some what less athletic bigs...and let's be honest, not every school can put a 4 and a 5 that will be able to take our bigs off the dribble. It would permit the two bigs to rotate with each other and provide better switches against a team that operates a 3 guard-2 forward lineup at times. In my mind, the likeliest of scenarios to see this would be this lineup:
G: Carsen
G: Mathias
G: Vince
F: Haarms
C: Taylor
From what you can see here, there could be some rotational issues between the 3 and 4 and could leave Taylor/Haarms guarding a perimeter player if there is a switch. However, pairing the two bigs with the three best wing defenders Purdue has likely allows it to happen.
At the end of early season games if Purdue is up, CMP might want to experiment with the following lineup to provide a change of pace and a chance for the some starters to get extended rest:
G: Eastern (6'6)
G: Cline (6'5)
G: Wheeler (6'9)
F: Haarms (7'3)
C: Taylor (6'10)
I personally find this lineup quite interesting as it contains a lot of the things CMP wants in a lineup but with incredible size (nobody shorter than 6'5). The issue becomes defending a point like Carsen on the opposing teams where Eastern would need to do so...but again, with two bigs in Haarms and Taylor it could work in defending the paint (but heavy interior defensive rotation may become a problem that leads to open three point shooters...like against Israel).
I think the likely scenario is with Taylor and Haarms at the same time because those two can both step out to defend on the wing against some what less athletic bigs...and let's be honest, not every school can put a 4 and a 5 that will be able to take our bigs off the dribble. It would permit the two bigs to rotate with each other and provide better switches against a team that operates a 3 guard-2 forward lineup at times. In my mind, the likeliest of scenarios to see this would be this lineup:
G: Carsen
G: Mathias
G: Vince
F: Haarms
C: Taylor
From what you can see here, there could be some rotational issues between the 3 and 4 and could leave Taylor/Haarms guarding a perimeter player if there is a switch. However, pairing the two bigs with the three best wing defenders Purdue has likely allows it to happen.
At the end of early season games if Purdue is up, CMP might want to experiment with the following lineup to provide a change of pace and a chance for the some starters to get extended rest:
G: Eastern (6'6)
G: Cline (6'5)
G: Wheeler (6'9)
F: Haarms (7'3)
C: Taylor (6'10)
I personally find this lineup quite interesting as it contains a lot of the things CMP wants in a lineup but with incredible size (nobody shorter than 6'5). The issue becomes defending a point like Carsen on the opposing teams where Eastern would need to do so...but again, with two bigs in Haarms and Taylor it could work in defending the paint (but heavy interior defensive rotation may become a problem that leads to open three point shooters...like against Israel).
There's no rule that you have to play a 5 or a center. Just because a guy is 7 foot doesn't mean he's going to live in the paint.
Haarms isn't a back to the basket type like AJ or Haas. He's a face up guy who can step out to the three point line and shoot. Other teams will likely put their 5 on him just from a matchup standpoint but if Haarms can open the floor with his shooting, there's no reason to believe he's going to live in the paint.
if as you say, he doesn't live in the paint, and he's just a very tall perimeter player, then Purdue badly needs somebody who DOES live in the paint to play along side him. Maybe that player is Williams, Taylor , Haas (this year) or Ewing. We will definitely need somebody to grab that offensive rebound.
There are two ways to be a good offensive rebounder.
Recognize where the shot is going to come from and get position opposite early...
Or, recognize where the ball is going as it flies and flash to it from elsewhere.
Biggie did both. That's one reason he was so good at it.
Point is, if the whole team blocks out and goes after the ball, you don't have to have a lane eating monster to rebound.
Think Dennis Rodmann versus Moses Malone. Both very good but very different.
I would agree with that in principle. However, when biggie shot a three pointer, very seldom did Purdue set themselves I n a position to grab an offensive rebound the 60% of the time he missed and it made it a one shot possession. I'm fine with Haarms bombing away from 3 point range if we have an inside presence who can grab an offensive rebound., because when he shoots a 3 , the likelihood of him grabbing his own rebound is very low, and I doubt he makes more than 50% of his attempts.
One other thing I've noticed with many players on many teams. they love to watch their 3 point shot as it leaves their hands, and very few follow up their shot anticipating a miss. Just on pure historical data, their shot is going to miss 50% of the time, yet they stand and watch their shot. if you watched Valentine play, he collected a lot of rebounds following up his shots. This isn't just a Purdue thing. it's the same in high school, AAU, college and the pros. it's sort of like baseball players watching their home runs rather than running it out. and many times, you get burned or outhustled when you miss.
it's Ok to have a Haarms on the perimeter if you have a Rodman crashing the boards. I' m fine with have a 7'4 wing player, if you also have an inside force.
Good points. Haas is a lane eating monster and a giant human being but he's an average rebounder simply because he's not quick to the ball is he has to move for it. Being big doesn't guarantee being a good rebounder.
Vince is actually a really good offensive rebounder. If Haarms can pull a big away from the bucket, I like Vince's changes against most other 6'8-6'9 guys going for the rb.
while we are on this specific thing...I would expect the 2 and 3 guy to get some O boards when the 4 is shooting out on the perimeter. Long boards, long bounces leave Haas out many times...
Yes. Someone has to rebound defensively and try to rebound on offense. All I am saying is it doesn't have to be ONE guy and he doesn't have to be 7' tall and weigh 290 and he doesn't have to have two feet in the paint all the time. A perimeter oriented team must have multiple "out of area rebounders". There are always lots of ways to skin the cat.
You need to shake that Magic 8-ball more....some of us can't afford to wait that long.
Agree.....the Boilers have the capability to do it "by committee," but that will take a commitment by more than a few and a buy-in of the concept. I agree with those stating VE has skills particularly to hit the offensive glass. I think JT may surprise on the glass, we shall see.
No way a team can "replace" what Caleb Swanigan did on the boards (or everywhere else for that matter), but I don't think the Boilers are in as dire shape in the rebounding department as some might think. Gotta not only want it, though...but be willing to fight for it.
If we learned that we have to box out better from playing in the WUGs, and we start doing that well, rebounds will go up.
Boxing out is good. But anticipating the ball and grabbing it is better. I've seen many times teams (all teams) box out and touch the ball, but don't come down with the ball, or they will tip it rather than grab it. What made rodman so great was both his anticipation, and ability to grab the ball and come down with it. Cartwright and Grant were great centers for the Bulls. But Rodman's entire focus was rebounds. And most times even when under the basket, rather than put it in, he'd kick it back out.
Rodman had pros and cons to his game. he never really tried to score, so the other team didn't worry about guarding him. However, he had a way of alluding being boxed out. he used his quickness to get around defenders.
Something that is not being said , but is being talked about. ... I know.. trust me, I'm making sense. You are talking that having a perimeter game will make the ball bounce farther, and HAas can't get out there to grab that rebound. if we took shorter shots and drove to the basket more, Haas would be in place to grab the misses. if we continue to bomb away from three, those shooters need to follow up their shots to grab the rebound rather than watching their shot fly and going back on defense. I see that a lot where a guard will shoot, and then run back on defense before the shot hits the rim. I guess that gets us in place for defense, but does not create very many second shots. if our guards follow up their missed shot, it provides us second chances, but also means we might be too slow to get back on defense. that's a risk! it's sort of like playing hockey without the goalie.
Rodman had pros and cons to his game. he never really tried to score, so the other team didn't worry about guarding him. However, he had a way of alluding being boxed out. he used his quickness to get around defenders.
Something that is not being said , but is being talked about. ... I know.. trust me, I'm making sense. You are talking that having a perimeter game will make the ball bounce farther, and HAas can't get out there to grab that rebound. if we took shorter shots and drove to the basket more, Haas would be in place to grab the misses. if we continue to bomb away from three, those shooters need to follow up their shots to grab the rebound rather than watching their shot fly and going back on defense. I see that a lot where a guard will shoot, and then run back on defense before the shot hits the rim. I guess that gets us in place for defense, but does not create very many second shots. if our guards follow up their missed shot, it provides us second chances, but also means we might be too slow to get back on defense. that's a risk! it's sort of like playing hockey without the goalie.
Reply hazy, try again later.You need to shake that Magic 8-ball more....some of us can't afford to wait that long.
We may find that the lessons from the WUG final game are the driver for the most important improvement for this group this year. I hope they have it figured out by mid November and are a rebounding machine (multiple parts assembled to work together to execute a specific function) early to put together a very solid December for once.
The most important lesson from your post is for the young adults on this sight. "Be very careful when you pull the Goalie".
Next year, when Haarm figures to see significant playing time, Purdue will have Williams. Williams dominated many tournaments in rebounding. He is an elite rebounder and thrives in the paint. He can the hoss down low and allow Haarms to drift out. The thing is, he will likely need to be able guard the paint in some situations. I can't state how important of a signing Williams was. He is exactly what Purdue needed. I hope he continues to improve, because he is a great passer from the paint and an incredible rebounder already. He has also showed a decent touch and plays well with his back to the basket. I don't mind the 7 footer taking open 3's with Williams to clean up. I think his numbers will be similar to Biggies as a freshman. 10/10 isn't out of the question.
Purdue has a lot of versatility and options with players like Eastern, Wheeler, Ewing, and Haarms. If Purdue lands Hunter, they improve that versatility with another player that can play multiple roles. If Painter manages to land a 5 star in the next two years to go with the current building blocks, they will be scary good.
Side note, I hope they land Castleton. He can play the 4-5. He can defend both positions, play out, or play in the paint. More versatility and he will be one heck of a college ball player.
I don't know where in this thread to actually place what I'm typing and the video with it. Concerning Haarms it starts around the 5 minute mark and gets more specfic into Haarms around the 5:58 mark or so. Basically, Vince thinks Haarms is going to be a big help (this year...now who'd a figured
) and a surprise to some people. He talks specifically about him and JT playing together and how they can handle the ball screens and allow other ways of defending due to them being mobile.https://purdue.rivals.com/news/for-purdue-now-comes-the-real-benefit-of-the-world-university-games
I don't want to read a whole lot into this, but this was what came to Vince's mind as he was talking about D and such rather than a pointed question about Haarms. THAT is nice that Vince thinks Haarms can be a help this year, becasue he has seen him play and plays with and against him. He says those two can actually guard guards since they are mobile...and I know that has "some" hyperbole in it.
Still...7'3" mobile guy that has a perimeter shot has a place...AND if he can put the ball on the court...HUGE potential.
Last edited:
This plays into what you and me and several others have been discussing for a long time.I don't know where in this thread to actually place what I'm typing and the video with it. Concerning Haarms it starts around the 5 minute mark and gets more specfic into Haarms around the 5:58 mark or so. Basically, Vince thinks Haarms is going to be a big help (this year...now who'd a figured
https://purdue.rivals.com/news/for-purdue-now-comes-the-real-benefit-of-the-world-university-games
I don't want to read a whole lot into this, but this was what came to Vince's mind as he was talking about D and such rather than a pointed question about Haarms. THAT is nice that Vince thinks Haarms can be a help this year, becasue he has seen him play and plays with and against him. He says those two can actually guard guards since they are mobile...and I know that has "some" hyperbole in it.
Still...7'3" mobile guy that has a perimeter shot has a place...AND if he can put the ball on the court...HUGE potential.
Playing with two 4's rather than a traditional 5.
These two bring the added benefit of not only being mobile but also averaging 7 foot tall.
I by no means want to chase Haas out the door but I think at times, with certain matchups, the other two could be a formidable defensive tandem. And next year they will really shine.
Except that they both had damn good guards as well.
And those bigs weren't all slow. Karnowski is, sure, but Zach Collins was anything but slow.
Karnowski was their starting 5. He was big and slow. Same for North Carolina's guy and I think the same for the Cavs and Warriors. The basics of basketball will never change no matter how many rules they change.
Similar threads
