No thread about how Purdue played ZONE DEFENSE!?
- Thread starter Boiler Addict
- Start date
Well I am not really questioning the coaches and the decisions surrounding Colvin I’m just commenting on MY own interpretation of what I am seeing in his body language and reactions from the bench during the games. I might completely wrong but I am not getting good vibes and believe he appears unhappy, frustrated and not very engaged. Maybe it’s because he’s been told that he’s hot going to get time, who knows? I hope he’s committed and doubling down on his efforts to improve on things the staff have surely communicated to him. I believe he could become a special player by doing so. It’s just in Myle’s court and up to him and his support system to get trough the year and show what he can do in practices and pre season next year if he decides to stick it out and come back.Fans ALWAYS question coaches and their decisions and it will continue until the end of time.I'd be shocked if he goes anywhere and do expect him to see minutes next year and although I try not to be a glass half full OR half empty...just that the glass is twice the size needed.
I can't go from zone to man at a certain point being in play without another review due to 1) Zach followed his man in one alignment down the the basket as others were still in spots. 2) I need to see who all was out on top when Trey was high with Braden as well as Lance and Fletcher low. Now if all those had players around them then yes a sagging man giving the appearance of zone and switching at a certain time could be true. That said in the 1-3-1 alignment Berry had nobody defending him and if you are going to give the appearance of zone, but change into man you prefer to have those players close to who you want them to defend when you go man. Ideally, this would be best when all your players are 6'5" to 6'8" or so where they could take whoever was around them.
There are ways to keep players from switching when not desired sometimes. I think you "could" be on something with ISO, but not a switch to get the player you want by the offense. If that is the case a pure zone handles that anyway. Now along the lines of Domask who we know Illinois will clear a side of the court and let him go one one on.
Before you start making zones look more like man and man look more like a zone...in the most fundamental aspect of a pure zone is the defense of an area and the many disadvantages of that. However, in a pure zone there still exists more coverage of a given area when half the court is cleared for an ISO. The disadvantage is they see zone and don't go ISO but take advantage of the problems with a zone. Now, if you played man and then adjusted your rules when they cleared half the court 3 bodies defending 4 on the other side of the court "may" allow another to quickly double to help and then possible recover back to their players since they are a bit gathered together on the other half of the court. Whether any of that is an attempt to work on certain actions in certain areas when teams pose a threat I have no idea.
What happened was so quick with player locations and such I need to check those times not only for Purdue's unusual alignment to make sure the intent was not to match up in man while pretending to be in a zone because THAT would explain the same signal for two different alignments. Whatever was going on they were in it and out so quick only the staff knew exactly what they were trying to do.
He could be all that and still know he needs to stay. Too many Purdue ties IMO to cut this early IMO.
I assume the video of Matt previewing Wisconsin will be available on youtube sometime. I also belong to ON3 and don't want to take their work here, but in the video around 8:14 Brian asks if that was a zone. Those with access might want to listen if interested. So if I were to review the 15:40 or so time...I would see Trey's man in the screen I assume. Matt verifies it wasn't a zone...they suspected an ISO and just loaded up that area and then they passed out of it and Purdue then was in Man. This explains the different alignments and same signal and the oddities if it were a zone. Now, will this get work prior to Illinois or was this mostly a Northwestern thing? Time will tell.
When you say Matt "verifies" it wasn't a zone, that doesn't tell the whole story. I too have ON3 and to get the whole story you need to read the article on this subject. I don't think we are supposed to post any of that here so I won't. But I would love to post that short article here. Very informative. Call it whatever you want, after reading that article it is very clear that Lusk and Johnson want to try some different looks and they finally got to do it. I for one am glad they did. It's not about playing NW in January, it's about being ready for March.
If you have access to the article please read it. It really gives a lot more information than the video with CMP. It also reinforces how aware the staff is of the word "zone" and how they don't use that word. Made me laugh when I read that.
Yeah, it is very clear after reading article on ON3 the defensive guys want to try some different stuff. For all of those on here that don't like it when the word "stubborn" is used you really need to read the article. Lusk has a great quote where he doesn't use the word but he is for sure alluding to it.
As long as we have the ability to show different looks…whether that be in man or zone or whatever, I think is positive and a step in the right direction IF something like that is ever needed. Not saying we have to do it all the time, but it’s encouraging that we finally (as fans) got to see something different and that it proves to others here that the coaching staff DOES actually think/know about other defenses other than man 😂
Good post.
Some on here are hell bent on trying to explain why it isn't a zone and then CMP makes that coy response. I couldn't care less what he or we call it. I'm just glad to read that the defensive guys are trying to suggest and push for trying different looks. It's obvious Lusk and Johnson have some ideas for some different defensive strategies. It's all I've ever wanted, just have some different tools ready to use. Obviously we need to practice said strategies if they are going to have a chance for success. Trying to put something in the week before you try it isn't ideal.
I think Matt opened that dusty Mackey Suggestion Box and read one of the 3 pound slips of paper on zone defense.
I will read it (it is there in the video times I posted),but coaches are always giving different looks even in games nobody notices.
I knew it was a different look with all the things I mentioned that pointed out something different than some zone. The last posts DwaynePurvis and I were discussing trying to make sense of what was going on was loading up an area with some help in man and then more man at some time rather than after a pass that Matt said. Not knowing I mentioned previously that it looked like Purdue was trying to prevent some action around the FT line previously..
The masses immediately jumped to zone because Robbie stated such most likely and they really didn’t see the other things that disagreed with that. Same signal for two different spots for Purdue players tells you it was man dictated and yet a particular concern for and area. I think it was the 1-3-1 look where Zach quickly follows his man away from the middle of the 3 AND had cam down low in which would start out under the rim, but Cam is in the right corner with a man.
The video times didn’t tell you what Purdue was trying to do, and why, just what took place. Here we see first hand the versatility of man morphing as desired to certain people like Boo as needed or screens and such in a certain area. Not sure if we will see it again unless it was Illinois, but if not there will be other adjustments on D for Illinois at the start and during the game most likely. Robbie obviously knows the game, he just has so much to be aware that when he saw some people helping so far off their man he thought zone as did the masses that either saw or heard him
I can’t say I dislike any word, but stubborn as typically used implies a fan knows more than Matt and that simply isn’t true. The common use of that word implies Matt knows the fan is correct but refuses to do the correct thing. No doubt there are things the coaches do that are missed in every game.
If this is what you refer, then you missed that this agrees 100% with what I posted. The difference is it didn't look like a zone and it certainly didn't walk like a zone. I pointed out the things in my comments for all to see. I broke all this out in comments on video times and they are still there for any to see. Yes, it was man, but man can morph how you want as I said for many, many years.
"If it looks like a zone, walks like a zone and talks like a zone, is it a zone?
“It looks like a zone, but it wasn’t particularly a zone – coach Painter doesn’t play zone,” said assistant coach Terry Johnson, who oversees the defense with assistant coach Paul Lusk.
But here’s what everyone should agree on – it wasn’t a straight-up, man-to-man defense that’s been a staple of Painter’s program for as long as he’s roamed the sidelines. (Brian's comments)
Last edited:
read on. Matt is not going to search for thoughts in this site...although my very quick reviews of Facebook leads me to believe this site is significantly better in understanding.
TJ, I really don't care what you or anyone else call it. If you read that entire article and can't see what Johnson and Lusk are saying, I don't know what else to tell you. It's obvious that as long as CMP is here you won't hear him or one of his coaches use the Zone word. It's obvious that Lusk and Johnson want to try some different stuff and they sure as hell aren't going to call any of their suggestions a zone.
So everyone can call this and any other different things they try whatever they want. As long as they keep trying to implement different looks I'm happy.
You are putting just parts of the article in this thread. If we are able to put the entire article on here, I think everyone can judge for themselves what the assistant coaches are "really" trying to say. If that is allowed then post the whole article. I didn't think that was allowed so I haven't done it.
What word do you think Lusk was referring to? Forget about fans, I'm talking about the Lusk quote.
