Michigan was 6 for 25 from 3 (24%). As dominate as Haas was on offense he got torched in man to man defense. So many fouls came when the help defender got to the rim late and fouled. That begs the question...
Poll Question: Zone
- Thread starter hamcoboiler
- Start date
I'm confused was the 6 for 25 from man defense or from a zone? Michigan can play and many times have played 5 beyond the arc. The only "pure" zone "this team" could play would be a 2-3 and that would put PJ, Carsen and Spike defending the 3 ball about a foot smaller than Wilson and Wagner shooting the ball and and about 8 to 9 inches shorter than Irvin and Robinson. Still, I bet you meant a match-up since that is the zone almost all teams in college play.
Throw a zone at Michgan and they would have burned us for 20 more points with their outside shooting. Thank God we played man-to-man and chased them off the 3pt line.
Would we have won ? - sure we would have, if we had played Isaac and Biggie at the same time ! You play to "YOUR" strengths, not try to match up to your opponents.
Given the 16 layups we gave up, we could have "EASILY" given up more 3s in return for less putbacks, less offensive rebounds, less FOULS on our big men, & more fouls on them trying to get rebounds.
I think people seem to think that it's better to give up 2s than 3s, but they lose sight of the 2nd chance points and offensive rebounds because we are out of position trying to help stop the drives. They also lose sight of the fact that 15-20 ft shots are tougher than 2 ft ones and that we pick up FOULS trying to defend 2nd chance attempts, with no depth on the bench.
One thing is for CERTAIN - We wouldn't have had to worry about Biggie, Vince and Boogie being in foul trouble. Something which will be a BIG concern in the NCAA tournament. I personally want them on the floor at the end of the games - without one or more, we are toast !
Given the 16 layups we gave up, we could have "EASILY" given up more 3s in return for less putbacks, less offensive rebounds, less FOULS on our big men, & more fouls on them trying to get rebounds.
I think people seem to think that it's better to give up 2s than 3s, but they lose sight of the 2nd chance points and offensive rebounds because we are out of position trying to help stop the drives. They also lose sight of the fact that 15-20 ft shots are tougher than 2 ft ones and that we pick up FOULS trying to defend 2nd chance attempts, with no depth on the bench.
One thing is for CERTAIN - We wouldn't have had to worry about Biggie, Vince and Boogie being in foul trouble. Something which will be a BIG concern in the NCAA tournament. I personally want them on the floor at the end of the games - without one or more, we are toast !
I feel like anyone who says we should play Biggie and Haas more at the same time hasn't seen them actually play together and just feels like it would be better since they're both big. Like they're onto something next level that Painter hasn't considered. I've got news for ya, playing those two at the same time has not been one of the strengths you would like us to play to.
Cmon, you realize they missed at least 1 or 2 layups/putbacks and were torching us from 3 pt land. And who needs Carsen, Vince & Biggie when you can run the slow mo three man weave up top to burn shot clock.
last 10 games (descending), haas & swanigan together =
+10, best lineup overall (best w/Haas), vs MI
+1, 5th best overall (best w/Haas), NW
-4, worst overall (worst w/Haas), IU
+2, 3rd overall (2nd best w/Haas), MI
+9, best, PSU
+4, 3rd overall (best w/Haas), MSU
+4, 3rd overall (2nd best w/Haas) , RU
+2, 4th overall (2nd best w/Haas), IU
? (vs MD no data)
+7, 2nd overall (best w/Haas), NW
Last edited:
I agree this is the best scenario when we are late in the second half with a lead. Having both of them on the floor together after wearing on the other team seems to be the best way to get good looks in close every time. Biggie seems to hit a lot of his threes when we play the high low game with both bigs. Throw in Vince, Dakota and any of CE/PJ/Spike and I think we close a couple of games we dropped.
And . . I can tell you are new to the board too ! I predicted this was a bad match-up for us in our patented man D, just like I predicted Penn State was a bad match-up. I also said Louisville wasn't a good jumpshooting team and could be hurt with the zone. Well, I bet you didn't watch Duke outscore them the other day by 15 when they went to a zone.
When you get these kind of match-ups with tall teams, you have to go BIG, not small (7'2-6'9 -6'8 ! !) and dare people to beat us with jumpshots and NOT layups !
I just happen to think we could be a final 4 team that way , since it would keep our bigs out of foul trouble and would keep Isaac off the perimeter.
If Painter wants to save face by not calling it a zone then have plan "B" zone ready when needed against quick athletic teams and call it a switching man to man.
I had to read that comment a few times. It's getting ridiculous.
A zone does us zero good when we are turning the ball over and missing shots and missing free throws.
Get off the zone kick, it's not happening nor does it even need to. Our defense is fine the way it is.
I have laid out Purdue players with a zone and zones in general and most people that want a zone I'm not sure understand it is a matchup zone that most teams play when the talking heads mention zone. Every single defense has strengths and weaknesses and none of that is to imply that all are equal in that regard. People have this idea that a zone stops penetration or that you can rebound out of it when in fact passes still penetrate and the gaps cause major problems as well. If penetration was the number one priority ALL that could be stopped by sagging off the ball or with helpers...sagging to the ball.
Thinking high school zone effects would continue with college effects may not be a valid assumption. There are fundamental reasons why you see more zones in high school and more man in college and although some could be teaching man...mostly it is about inferior skill sets in high school. I have thought for a long time that I wouldn't be opposed to a match-up zone being in the bag, but all that would add to the exisitng man is the ability to create "different" switching rules and probably would go unnoticed in most games.
Most teams do not play pure zones without man principles and most teams do not play man without zone principles. You have pure zone and tight man with denial at opposite ends of the spectrum and almost all teams find themselves somewhere in between with a hybrid of those. After a pass or two does a 1-3-1 look like a 1-3-1? Does a 1-2-2 look like a 1-2-2? Almost all zones after a pass or two take on a similar appearance which logically concludes that those pure zones that guard an area first, man second disregard the area (alignment now different) and now shift due to man. The only difference between man and matchup zone is that matchup tries to switch or handoff players so that the D stays in the basic area where hopefully the player has honed in better D skills for that area. Man does that too but is more tempered to staying with a preferred man as opposed to a preferred area...but both can look identical for most the time.
If Purdue wanted to only play two bigs at a time and went to a match-up out of a 2-3 or even 2-3 on D with the existing players...we would find Dakota or Cline playing the backside on the scoring side and Vince (with Biggie in teh middle) or Biggie (with Haas in teh middle) playing the rebounding side of the matchup or pure zone. Flooding a Big on O or to just go after the board in space with Cline or dakota under the bucket might not be pretty. Anyway, Purdue has a cerebral team that is skilled, slow, and not athletic... and if speed or quickness is a heavy factor in any game...that could be a problem for Purdue. We all know this and have known this for some time. Matt spent time on the zone for a few months and Kansas State destroyed it in the short corner. I'm sure with a few more months or teaching it and actual game experience Purdue could get better, but where does a coach spend his time? Next year could be a different year with teh players coming in, but I doubt Matt goes to a zone after Purdue's attempt in the past and the comfort level Purdue has in man
Great post and you hit on a very good point. There is only so much time a coach has with college players to practice and work on things and putting a zone should be the least of our concerns going forward.
Plus, there is a tad bit of zoneism to our man-to-man at times but that said, your post gives the best explanation I have seen as to what a zone is and why we aren't running it.
I think people are looking for some magic bullet that will somehow fix all of our weaknesses we have on defense, which aren't many to begin with, yet that simply does not exist. When you go from one type to another it creates other weaknesses and is by no means perfect.
It is the same magic bullet that it a coach gets out coached or not, when it is almost always the players not executing. If things don't work out, it is always easier to blame a single entity than maybe list a few things that led to teh demise
The issue in playing zone with Haas and Biggie would double the effects of what Purdue tends to struggle with right now on defense. If Haas is playing the middle, you are going to leave Biggie on the baseline trying to defend out to the perimeter....with him being a touch slow, that forces the high parts of the zone to over rotate to compensate, leaving the zone much more vulnerable. If you truly wanted to play a zone with the personnel that Purdue has, it would be so easy for teams to simply exploit the fact that you would either have slower players on the baselines (Biggie/Haas), smaller players on the baselines to be posted up against (Mathias, Cline), shorter players on the top to be shot over (PJT, Carsen), or slower players to rotate at the top of the zone (Mathias, Cline).
Just because you see it work in high school for a team that has one 6'6 guy and a bunch of midgits, doesn't mean it'll translate to every single team. The reason it works at Syracuse is because they recruit specifically to that type of player. The reason that Pitino can switch between man and zone frequently is because....he recruits high level athletes who are long. Purdue doesn't and has never had that type of athlete unless you want a roster full of Patrick Bade's, Jacob Lawson's, and the other athletic bigs that aren't as skilled to thrive in Painter's offensive system.
CMP has a system that frequently places his team's in the top 40 in defense and an offensive system that frequently places around the same or higher.....the issue is a team that has taken on its' coaches inability to close tight games and play well down the stretch of the season when games matter most. CMP took that blame on himself last season when he said, after the UALR loss that he 'needed to become a better coach.' Hopefully this week goes to show what improvements he has made in a years time.
I have absolutely no faith that "a zone is needed" will not surface again and again, no matter what anyone types. I have dissected it in theory and with personnel amongst a variety of pure zones and matchup, but none of that matters. Good Luck
I'm not getting into this debate again (should PU use some zone) it has been beat to death and some have taken it way too far from both sides. It has become like a political issue on this board. There are teams that use it effectively and there are some that don't. It is a basketball defense, it isn't magic. It has nothing to do with High School or being easier or harder to teach. Some coaches believe it can help them and others don't. CMP is a MTM guy and I have accepted that.
With that said, please don't say that there isn't time to teach more than 1 defense. PU doesn't use zone because CMP doesn't believe it will help them. It has nothing to do with not enough time to teach it. I watch way too much basketball (non-PU games) and see teams playing multiple defenses (zones, full-court pressure etc...) those teams have the same amount of time as we do. Again, I'm not questioning our coaches decision, I have already done that many times, I'm simply saying that "time" has nothing to do with it. It is a coaches decision based on personal philosophy and personnel. I will give 1 very easy example. Huggins at WV. He made the decision before the 2014 season he was going to make a change. That is when he went to pressing (in multiple forms). He didn't all of a sudden get more time, he simply had a change in defensive philosophy. Good article on how/why he made the change.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/how-we...ions-most-intimidating-defense-043329998.html
Like I said, this has become a hot topic on here with passion on both sides. I personally have stayed out of the threads recently that were discussing it because I know nothing is going to change this season and typically they end up in petty fights anyway or lead to the snarky comments about zone whenever a team wins or loses. I was reading through this one and saw the mention of time and just wanted to give my opinion on that aspect of the argument.
With that said, please don't say that there isn't time to teach more than 1 defense. PU doesn't use zone because CMP doesn't believe it will help them. It has nothing to do with not enough time to teach it. I watch way too much basketball (non-PU games) and see teams playing multiple defenses (zones, full-court pressure etc...) those teams have the same amount of time as we do. Again, I'm not questioning our coaches decision, I have already done that many times, I'm simply saying that "time" has nothing to do with it. It is a coaches decision based on personal philosophy and personnel. I will give 1 very easy example. Huggins at WV. He made the decision before the 2014 season he was going to make a change. That is when he went to pressing (in multiple forms). He didn't all of a sudden get more time, he simply had a change in defensive philosophy. Good article on how/why he made the change.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/how-we...ions-most-intimidating-defense-043329998.html
Like I said, this has become a hot topic on here with passion on both sides. I personally have stayed out of the threads recently that were discussing it because I know nothing is going to change this season and typically they end up in petty fights anyway or lead to the snarky comments about zone whenever a team wins or loses. I was reading through this one and saw the mention of time and just wanted to give my opinion on that aspect of the argument.
************************
to add to it..I don't think it is "time" for a zone in a vacuum, but perhaps "time for a zone" incomparison to other things deemed to have more of an effect on the results for the allotted time...right or wrong...at least that is how I take it. The high school reference is due to "SKILL SETS of high school teams" more than teaching it, but also know some high school coaches have difficulty teaching man. Lastly, FWIW...I truly expected and stated so at the time a couple of years ago that I thought I would see more zone presses and half court zones in the future DUE to shot clock reduction...assuming of course that the personnel fits the zone. It has been beat to death as to whether to use a zone or not, but certainluy not beat to death on the pros and cons in theory and the application to Purdue this year...THAT has been MIA
CMP clearly doesn't think a zone would help this team. Maybe next years team he will feel differently. In either case time will not be the determining factor. If he thinks it will help, there will be time to teach it.
I don't even consider HS when talking about zone/no zone. Two completely different animals. Not really sure why that has even come up. I think someone thought people wanting zone had watched HS games maybe??
I really like talking about the different defenses and wish we could have a rational conversation on here about it. But that isn't possible because of extremes on both sides. I just saw the "time" mentioned and pointed out that IMO that has nothing to do with CMP not using it.
Our team couldn't be any more poorly formed for playing zone. Painter loves M2M defense but the reality is we couldn't play an effective zone even if he wanted to. Yes we are bringing in some players next year who would be more effective but they would also be more effective in a M2M defense.
There is only so much practice time to go around during a season. With grander issues to work on as opposed to learning a new defense, even if CMP wanted to there probably isn't enough practice time to do it considering the more important things to address.
This is where we disagree. If he thought it would make a positive difference he would do it. If you watch much basketball especially outside of the B1G you see teams every night playing multiple defenses. They had time to teach it and so would CMP. It's not like those teams don't have other things to work on also.
I'm not arguing zone/no zone. CMP does not believe it would help this team . It has nothing to do with the time it would take to work on it. With different personnel next year he may feel differently, but time constraints won't be the reason for a change in philosophy.
I'm not arguing that either. What I am simply saying is that there are more important things that CMP is working on and that there is a time constraint to try add currently because there are higher priorities at the moment let alone the lack of personnel to do it effectively to begin with.
The problem with your statement is that you say other teams playing multiple defenses and have the time to teach it and while that is correct, college basketball isn't that static.
You know from my perspective, it seems like you guys are saying the same thing here.
painter from a couple years ago agreed,
as they dedicated practice time to it (preseason and some during season)
i do not recall an outcry then that he was wasting time
Last edited:
You had previously said there wasn't time "during a season" to work on multiple defenses. I'm certainly not talking about him literally implementing a new defensive strategy right now. That would be a terrible idea I think. I was talking and referring to the comment earlier about there being only so much practice time during a season. No serious changes should be done now, the time for that was months ago and what I was referring to.
**********************
I think next years team would be "better" suited as well. I mentioned high school, because the skill sets may be defended better by zones in high school as there are many played inhigh school adn that I think there is more man in college. Both levels share defenses, but one seems more prevalent in high school and one more prevalent in college. Some on here have talked about a "pack defense" but that is nothing more than man defense tweaking it the way you want. Bottom line, the lines of demarcation can be very blurred between zone and man depending on how you want it tweaked. You either start out in some form of a zone and tweak it to the man or you start out in man and tweak it to the zone your man is in. Both could end up "in theory" doing the same thing depending on what you want to tweak. "IF"...adn I don't believe this to happen, but "IF" Haams is crucial enough to align some things around him..and could play the four on offense, he could play low with Haas in the middle of a zone and that would be a huge backline on D and a huge frontline on O. IF that were to happen...does Vince play defender side and Haams rebounder or vice versa all assuming Biggie is gone
I think the length coming next year will be interesting. If nothing else, we should have the personnel and numbers to do whatever CMP wants to do.
Yeah, yeah I know, sometimes I like to clown with you guys. However, since you mentioned it, when Ryan, PJ, and Dakota run it, don't you virtually negate the penetration option? Also, and this is truly my own observation, does it sometimes feel to you like our guys virtually look like they are just going through the motions when they run this weave or whatever the coach types call it. It's like man, do we have to do this again, can't we just attack the basket already? It's like the guy with the 3 coconut shells and the little red ball. When his hands move slowly, I know where that little ball is, but when they move quickly and crisply, I get confused.
Keady ran it...Izzo runs it adn yes sometimes it looks like they are going through the emotions
Yep. It's slow.
I would enjoy that set but after lulling the d to sleep a few times do the following:
Get Carsen on the left wing moving toward Dakota who is bringing the ball across to the middle for yet another dribble hand off. But this time the 5 comes up to set a ball screen for Carsen and Vince fades out to the right corner. This should create a driving lane, a pick and roll, or if Vince's man helps, a kick to the corner with Vince's man moving the wrong way to recover.
Similar threads
