Purdue vs. IU Overview:

[nagemj02]

When: Tonight

Where. Ass. Hall, Bloomington IN

Tip-Off: 8:30 PM

TV: ESPN


Head Coaches:

Purdue: Matt Painter (11th season as PU HC)

IU: Tom Crean (8th season as IU HC)


Projected Starters:

Purdue:

1 #3 P.J. Thompson 5'9 180 So.: averaging 5.4 PPG, 2.1 RPG, 2.7 APG, 0.4 TPG, 43% FG's (40-94), 82% FT's (45-55), 39% 3PT's (22-56), and 22.2 MPG in 27 GP

2 #35 Rapheal Davis 6'5 215 Sr.: averaging 9.2 PPG, 3.8 RPG, 2 APG, 41% FG's (71-173), 72% FT's (42-58), 39% 3PT's (28-72), and 28.9 MPG in 23 GP

3 #12 Vince Edwards 6'8 215 So.: averaging 10.1 PPG, 5.4 RPG, 3 APG, 43% FG's (97-225), 82% FT's (50-61), 37% 3PT's (29-79), and 26.5 MPG in 27 GP

4 #50 Caleb "Biggie" Swanigan 6'9 245 Fr.: averaging 9.7 PPG, 8.5 RPG, 2.9 TPG, 43% FG's (95-220), 75% FT's (44-59), 30% 3PT (18-61), and 25.8 MPG in 26 GP

5 #20 A.J. Hammons 7'0 250 Sr.: averaging 14.6 PPG, 8.2 RPG, 2.6 BPG, 2.2 TPG, 58% FG's (147-254), 72% FT's (68-95), 50% 3PT's (4-8), and 24.3 MPG in 25 GP


IU:

1 #11 Kevin "Yogi" Ferrell 5'11 180 Sr.: averaging 16.6 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 1.2 SPG, 5.6 APG, 2.6 TPG, 45% FG's (143-317), 83% FT's (106-128), 42% 3PT's (56-134), and 34.2 MPG in 27 GP

2 #4 Robert Johnson 6'2 190 So.: averaging 8.3 PPG, 3.6 RPG, 3.2 APG, 44% FG's (77-177), 64% FT's (23-36), 43% 3PT's (46-107), and 25.4 MPG in 27 GP

3 #30 Collin Hartman 6'6 205 Jr.: averaging 5.2 PPG, 3 RPG, 2.8 FPG, 46% FG's (50-109), 82% FT's (14-17), 41% 3PT's (26-64), and 21.6 MPG in 27 GP

4 #5 Troy Williams 6'7 210 Jr.: averaging 12.5 PPG, 6.2 RPG, 1.1 SPG, 2 APG, 2.8 TPG, 53% FG's (122-231), 67% FT's (79-118), 32% 3PT's (15-47), and 25.4 MPG in 27 GP

5 #31 Thomas Bryant 6'10 230 Fr.: averaging 11.6 PPG, 5.5 RPG, 1 BPG, 2.8 FPG, 70% FG's (123-175), 68% FT's (66-97), 29% 3PT's (2-7), and 22.1 MPG in 27 GP



Projected Regular Reserves:

Purdue:

1 #1 Johnny Hill 6'2 180 Sr. (graduate transfer from Texas-Arlington; previously at Illinois State): averaging 5.5 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 1.1 SPG, 2.1 APG, 53% FG's (49-92), 80% FT's (49-61), 20% 3PT's (1-5), and 18.1 MPG in 27 GP

2/1 #31 Dakota Mathias 6'4 190 So.: averaging 4.7 PPG, 2.1 RPG, 2 APG, 38% FG's (43-114), 93% FT's (13-14), 35% 3PT's (29-82), and 17.9 MPG in 27 GP

2 #14 Ryan Cline 6'5 180 Fr.: averaging 4.3 PPG, 35% FG's (37-105), 56% FT's (5-9), 38% 3PT's (36-94), and 13.9 MPG in 27 GP

5 #44 Isaac Haas 7'2 280 So.: averaging 10 PPG, 4.1 RPG, 57% FG (96-170), 71% FT's (77-109), no 3PT's attempted, and 14.8 MPG in 27 GP


IU:

1/2 #15 Harrison Niego 6'0 175 Fr. (walk-on): averaging 0.7 PPG, 40% FG's (4-10), 33% FT's (1-3), 40% 3PT's (2-5), and 5 MPG in 16 GP

2 #2 Nick Zeisloft 6'3 195 Sr.: averaging 6.5 PPG, 42% FG's (56-133), 87% (13-15), 42% 3PT's (51-131), and 18.5 MPG in 27 GP

3/4 #3 O.G. Anunoby 6'6 205 Fr.: averaging 4.2 PPG, 2.6 RPG, 55% FG's (42-77), 55% FT's (17-31), 43% 3PT's (9-21), and 12 MPG in 26 GP

4/3 #13 Juwan Morgan 6'7 (with the high-top fade) 200 Fr.: averaging 2 PPG, 56% FG's (14-25), 74% FT's (14-19), 40% 3PT's (2-5), and 8 MPG in 22 GP

4 #0 Max Bielfeldt 6'7 230 Sr. (graduate transfer from Michigan): averaging 8.2 PPG, 4.7 RPG, 1 SPG, 53% FG's (88-167), 69% FT's (27-39), 43% 3PT's (18-42), and 17.7 MPG in 27 GP


Who Might Play:

Purdue:

2 #21 Kendall Stephens 6'7 195 Jr.: averaging 6.5 PPG, 35% FG's (47-135), 60% FT's (12-20), 32% 3PT's (37-116), and 14.7 MPG in 22 GP

4/5 #23 Jacquil Taylor 6'10 225 Fr. (RS): averaging 2.2 PPG, 53% FG's (8-15), 44% FT's (4-9), 50% 3PT's (2-4), and 5 MPG in 10 GP

IU:

3/4 #10 Ryan Burton 6'5 210 Sr. (walk-on): averaging 0.9 PPG, 56% FG's (5-9), 0% FT's (0-1), 57% 3PT's (4-7), and 3.7 MPG in 16 GP


(tbc)

 

[SIBoiler2]

Thanks for this. It has been missed. Glad you're back among the faithful!!!

 

[nagemj02]

Thanks, I appreciate it. I'm definitely feeling better than I was basically all of November, December, and early January.

These are all stats and various things that can be looked up by anyone here, but it gives fans a clearer idea and can be "digested" better (IMO; what to expect from each player/team in general) when one can just read it right off of a post or thread and then discuss it.

Boiler Up

 

[dumpsterFyre]

Troy Williams is gonna get his points with Biggie guarding him. I have every confidence AJH will shutdown Thomas Bryant.

So, it's gonna come down to Yogi. We need to wear down Yogi with PJ and Johnny...3/4 court defense.

 

[Summy1]

Huge game Saturday on primetime tv. Gonna be fun

 

[boilerpete1]

DEFEND THE 3!

 

[BoilerFan#35]

DEFEND THE 3!

Yes! Don't really have room to double in post or for much help side D.

 

[nagemj02]

Troy Williams is gonna get his points with Biggie guarding him. I have every confidence AJH will shutdown Thomas Bryant.

So, it's gonna come down to Yogi. We need to wear down Yogi with PJ and Johnny...3/4 court defense.

If CMP plays a one-man zone like he has done with Hammons and Haas at times, Williams might not reach his average. That seems to be the only other halfcourt D they have played besides man (from what I've seen) this season. Defending the 3PT's well, containing Ferrell, and controlling the tempo are definitely points of emphasis. The Boilers can play uptempo every now and then (i.e. Michigan State game), but against IU it's probably more beneficial to keep it to more of their halfcourt-oriented approach. It can frustrate them if they do a good job with time of possession.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

run them off the 3 and funnel them to aj. and keep them off the offensive glass, thats how they bit iowa. boiler up!

 

[nagemj02]

run them off the 3 and funnel them to aj. and keep them off the offensive glass, thats how they bit iowa. boiler up!

Also, I hope they don't double-team Bryant or Williams or use help D too early in the play, leaving guys wide-open for IU's drivers to kick the ball out to and move it around until they have an open shot.

 

[Schnelk]

Just win baby. Just win.

 

[nagemj02]

Just win baby. Just win.

Be the smarter, tougher, more "alpha-male", will-exerting team in the process.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

When: Tonight

Where. Ass. Hall, Bloomington IN

Tip-Off: 8:30 PM

TV: ESPN


Head Coaches:

Purdue: Matt Painter (11th season as PU HC)

IU: Tom Crean (8th season as IU HC)


Projected Starters:

Purdue:

1 #3 P.J. Thompson 5'9 180 So.: averaging 5.4 PPG, 2.1 RPG, 2.7 APG, 0.4 TPG, 43% FG's (40-94), 82% FT's (45-55), 39% 3PT's (22-56), and 22.2 MPG in 27 GP

2 #35 Rapheal Davis 6'5 215 Sr.: averaging 9.2 PPG, 3.8 RPG, 2 APG, 41% FG's (71-173), 72% FT's (42-58), 39% 3PT's (28-72), and 28.9 MPG in 23 GP

3 #12 Vince Edwards 6'8 215 So.: averaging 10.1 PPG, 5.4 RPG, 3 APG, 43% FG's (97-225), 82% FT's (50-61), 37% 3PT's (29-79), and 26.5 MPG in 27 GP

4 #50 Caleb "Biggie" Swanigan 6'9 245 Fr.: averaging 9.7 PPG, 8.5 RPG, 2.9 TPG, 43% FG's (95-220), 75% FT's (44-59), 30% 3PT (18-61), and 25.8 MPG in 26 GP

5 #20 A.J. Hammons 7'0 250 Sr.: averaging 14.6 PPG, 8.2 RPG, 2.6 BPG, 2.2 TPG, 58% FG's (147-254), 72% FT's (68-95), 50% 3PT's (4-8), and 24.3 MPG in 25 GP


IU:

1 #11 Kevin "Yogi" Ferrell 5'11 180 Sr.: averaging 16.6 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 1.2 SPG, 5.6 APG, 2.6 TPG, 45% FG's (143-317), 83% FT's (106-128), 42% 3PT's (56-134), and 34.2 MPG in 27 GP

2 #4 Robert Johnson 6'2 190 So.: averaging 8.3 PPG, 3.6 RPG, 3.2 APG, 44% FG's (77-177), 64% FT's (23-36), 43% 3PT's (46-107), and 25.4 MPG in 27 GP

3 #30 Collin Hartman 6'6 205 Jr.: averaging 5.2 PPG, 3 RPG, 2.8 FPG, 46% FG's (50-109), 82% FT's (14-17), 41% 3PT's (26-64), and 21.6 MPG in 27 GP

4 #5 Troy Williams 6'7 210 Jr.: averaging 12.5 PPG, 6.2 RPG, 1.1 SPG, 2 APG, 2.8 TPG, 53% FG's (122-231), 67% FT's (79-118), 32% 3PT's (15-47), and 25.4 MPG in 27 GP

5 #31 Thomas Bryant 6'10 230 Fr.: averaging 11.6 PPG, 5.5 RPG, 1 BPG, 2.8 FPG, 70% FG's (123-175), 68% FT's (66-97), 29% 3PT's (2-7), and 22.1 MPG in 27 GP



Projected Regular Reserves:

Purdue:

1 #1 Johnny Hill 6'2 180 Sr. (graduate transfer from Texas-Arlington; previously at Illinois State): averaging 5.5 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 1.1 SPG, 2.1 APG, 53% FG's (49-92), 80% FT's (49-61), 20% 3PT's (1-5), and 18.1 MPG in 27 GP

2/1 #31 Dakota Mathias 6'4 190 So.: averaging 4.7 PPG, 2.1 RPG, 2 APG, 38% FG's (43-114), 93% FT's (13-14), 35% 3PT's (29-82), and 17.9 MPG in 27 GP

2 #14 Ryan Cline 6'5 180 Fr.: averaging 4.3 PPG, 35% FG's (37-105), 56% FT's (5-9), 38% 3PT's (36-94), and 13.9 MPG in 27 GP

5 #44 Isaac Haas 7'2 280 So.: averaging 10 PPG, 4.1 RPG, 57% FG (96-170), 71% FT's (77-109), no 3PT's attempted, and 14.8 MPG in 27 GP


IU:

1/2 #15 Harrison Niego 6'0 175 Fr. (walk-on): averaging 0.7 PPG, 40% FG's (4-10), 33% FT's (1-3), 40% 3PT's (2-5), and 5 MPG in 16 GP

2 #2 Nick Zeisloft 6'3 195 Sr.: averaging 6.5 PPG, 42% FG's (56-133), 87% (13-15), 42% 3PT's (51-131), and 18.5 MPG in 27 GP

3/4 #3 O.G. Anunoby 6'6 205 Fr.: averaging 4.2 PPG, 2.6 RPG, 55% FG's (42-77), 55% FT's (17-31), 43% 3PT's (9-21), and 12 MPG in 26 GP

4/3 #13 Juwan Morgan 6'7 (with the high-top fade) 200 Fr.: averaging 2 PPG, 56% FG's (14-25), 74% FT's (14-19), 40% 3PT's (2-5), and 8 MPG in 22 GP

4 #0 Max Bielfeldt 6'7 230 Sr. (graduate transfer from Michigan): averaging 8.2 PPG, 4.7 RPG, 1 SPG, 53% FG's (88-167), 69% FT's (27-39), 43% 3PT's (18-42), and 17.7 MPG in 27 GP


Who Might Play:

Purdue:

2 #21 Kendall Stephens 6'7 195 Jr.: averaging 6.5 PPG, 35% FG's (47-135), 60% FT's (12-20), 32% 3PT's (37-116), and 14.7 MPG in 22 GP

4/5 #23 Jacquil Taylor 6'10 225 Fr. (RS): averaging 2.2 PPG, 53% FG's (8-15), 44% FT's (4-9), 50% 3PT's (2-4), and 5 MPG in 10 GP

IU:

3/4 #10 Ryan Burton 6'5 210 Sr. (walk-on): averaging 0.9 PPG, 56% FG's (5-9), 0% FT's (0-1), 57% 3PT's (4-7), and 3.7 MPG in 16 GP


(tbc)

I still believe the key to beating IU at home is getting refs that will ignore the crowd and let the players decide the game. While IU has more pure talent Purdue honestly has the advantage where coaching is concerned, and they have the advantage in the paint. IU has the better outside shooters as we all know, and IU's bench has improved a lot this year with Max and Annuoby. Purdue can't forget Hartman, and they have to beat the hell out of Yogi and Zeisloft every time they touch the ball. Yogi hates to have to play physical and struggles when he's hammered early and often. I'd beat on Yogi so much his mama would be making posts on her blog during the game. Zeisloft can not be allowed any freedom to shoot open shots unless they're from inside the arc. Painter has to make sure Swanigan plays under control, and if he's not get him out. Big stage for Troy today and I think he tries to take over the game....and screws the pooch. Crean will make his usual bad decisions especially if Purdue is ahead with eight minutes to go....he can't handle pressure at all.

I won't predict a winner or a score, it's IU's to lose at Ass Hall if the refs call it close. If they're allowed to play, PU can pull a surprise. Boiler up and POTFH.

 

[tjreese]

When: Tonight
Where. Ass. Hall, Bloomington IN
Tip-Off: 8:30 PM
TV: ESPN
Head Coaches:
Purdue: Matt Painter (11th season as PU HC)
IU: Tom Crean (8th season as IU HC)
Projected Starters:
Purdue:
1 #3 P.J. Thompson 5'9 180 So.: averaging 5.4 PPG, 2.1 RPG, 2.7 APG, 0.4 TPG, 43% FG's (40-94), 82% FT's (45-55), 39% 3PT's (22-56), and 22.2 MPG in 27 GP

2 #35 Rapheal Davis 6'5 215 Sr.: averaging 9.2 PPG, 3.8 RPG, 2 APG, 41% FG's (71-173), 72% FT's (42-58), 39% 3PT's (28-72), and 28.9 MPG in 23 GP

3 #12 Vince Edwards 6'8 215 So.: averaging 10.1 PPG, 5.4 RPG, 3 APG, 43% FG's (97-225), 82% FT's (50-61), 37% 3PT's (29-79), and 26.5 MPG in 27 GP

4 #50 Caleb "Biggie" Swanigan 6'9 245 Fr.: averaging 9.7 PPG, 8.5 RPG, 2.9 TPG, 43% FG's (95-220), 75% FT's (44-59), 30% 3PT (18-61), and 25.8 MPG in 26 GP

5 #20 A.J. Hammons 7'0 250 Sr.: averaging 14.6 PPG, 8.2 RPG, 2.6 BPG, 2.2 TPG, 58% FG's (147-254), 72% FT's (68-95), 50% 3PT's (4-8), and 24.3 MPG in 25 GP

IU:

1 #11 Kevin "Yogi" Ferrell 5'11 180 Sr.: averaging 16.6 PPG, 3.9 RPG, 1.2 SPG, 5.6 APG, 2.6 TPG, 45% FG's (143-317), 83% FT's (106-128), 42% 3PT's (56-134), and 34.2 MPG in 27 GP

2 #4 Robert Johnson 6'2 190 So.: averaging 8.3 PPG, 3.6 RPG, 3.2 APG, 44% FG's (77-177), 64% FT's (23-36), 43% 3PT's (46-107), and 25.4 MPG in 27 GP

3 #30 Collin Hartman 6'6 205 Jr.: averaging 5.2 PPG, 3 RPG, 2.8 FPG, 46% FG's (50-109), 82% FT's (14-17), 41% 3PT's (26-64), and 21.6 MPG in 27 GP

4 #5 Troy Williams 6'7 210 Jr.: averaging 12.5 PPG, 6.2 RPG, 1.1 SPG, 2 APG, 2.8 TPG, 53% FG's (122-231), 67% FT's (79-118), 32% 3PT's (15-47), and 25.4 MPG in 27 GP

5 #31 Thomas Bryant 6'10 230 Fr.: averaging 11.6 PPG, 5.5 RPG, 1 BPG, 2.8 FPG, 70% FG's (123-175), 68% FT's (66-97), 29% 3PT's (2-7), and 22.1 MPG in 27 GP

Projected Regular Reserves:
Purdue:
1 #1 Johnny Hill 6'2 180 Sr. (graduate transfer from Texas-Arlington; previously at Illinois State): averaging 5.5 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 1.1 SPG, 2.1 APG, 53% FG's (49-92), 80% FT's (49-61), 20% 3PT's (1-5), and 18.1 MPG in 27 GP

2/1 #31 Dakota Mathias 6'4 190 So.: averaging 4.7 PPG, 2.1 RPG, 2 APG, 38% FG's (43-114), 93% FT's (13-14), 35% 3PT's (29-82), and 17.9 MPG in 27 GP

2 #14 Ryan Cline 6'5 180 Fr.: averaging 4.3 PPG, 35% FG's (37-105), 56% FT's (5-9), 38% 3PT's (36-94), and 13.9 MPG in 27 GP

5 #44 Isaac Haas 7'2 280 So.: averaging 10 PPG, 4.1 RPG, 57% FG (96-170), 71% FT's (77-109), no 3PT's attempted, and 14.8 MPG in 27 GP
IU:
1/2 #15 Harrison Niego 6'0 175 Fr. (walk-on): averaging 0.7 PPG, 40% FG's (4-10), 33% FT's (1-3), 40% 3PT's (2-5), and 5 MPG in 16 GP

2 #2 Nick Zeisloft 6'3 195 Sr.: averaging 6.5 PPG, 42% FG's (56-133), 87% (13-15), 42% 3PT's (51-131), and 18.5 MPG in 27 GP

3/4 #3 O.G. Anunoby 6'6 205 Fr.: averaging 4.2 PPG, 2.6 RPG, 55% FG's (42-77), 55% FT's (17-31), 43% 3PT's (9-21), and 12 MPG in 26 GP

4/3 #13 Juwan Morgan 6'7 (with the high-top fade) 200 Fr.: averaging 2 PPG, 56% FG's (14-25), 74% FT's (14-19), 40% 3PT's (2-5), and 8 MPG in 22 GP

4 #0 Max Bielfeldt 6'7 230 Sr. (graduate transfer from Michigan): averaging 8.2 PPG, 4.7 RPG, 1 SPG, 53% FG's (88-167), 69% FT's (27-39), 43% 3PT's (18-42), and 17.7 MPG in 27 GP
Who Might Play:
Purdue:
2 #21 Kendall Stephens 6'7 195 Jr.: averaging 6.5 PPG, 35% FG's (47-135), 60% FT's (12-20), 32% 3PT's (37-116), and 14.7 MPG in 22 GP

4/5 #23 Jacquil Taylor 6'10 225 Fr. (RS): averaging 2.2 PPG, 53% FG's (8-15), 44% FT's (4-9), 50% 3PT's (2-4), and 5 MPG in 10 GP
IU:
3/4 #10 Ryan Burton 6'5 210 Sr. (walk-on): averaging 0.9 PPG, 56% FG's (5-9), 0% FT's (0-1), 57% 3PT's (4-7), and 3.7 MPG in 16 GP
(tbc)

Random basketball thoughts on the Purdue and IU game

Like many I’ve witnessed some surprises over the years in this rivalry. However, typically it is a hotly contested game that comes down to the last few minutes in determining the winner. I expect the same today as that is the rule rather than the exception. During the Knight years there was mutual respect between the players and coaches and I want to believe that has continued. Both sides understand what the other side did in the months before the game…sacrifices most in the public would not endure.

I’m a dinosaur and admit to a bias or old view of how the game should be played. I believe the NCAA rules committee have pushed the greatest game (college football would be a legitimate debate) towards the NBA game and have lost more purity of the game. In a game that stressed teamwork that was aligned towards getting a better (and usually that meant closer) shot and the many events to create that condition we are witnessing a move towards the individual player and more guard or guard skilled players being rewarded. None of this is an accident. It is the result of the NCAA trying to bring out the entertainment to the less sophisticated viewer and to spread the wealth among more teams which also will make the games more entertaining for those that like the excitement rather than the strategy or fundamentals of the “team” game. Last week, almost half (10/25) of the top ranked teams loss in at least one game. The normal curve of the population has many more 6’ players than 7’ players. If you want more parity, lean the game to the 6’ players rather than the 7’ players since only a few teams could hoard the 7’ players but many teams can get good 6’ players. This can be accomplished by giving more points on the perimeter than inside. Reward the perimeter player 3 points for a basket and only 2 when closer to the basket. Now the ball handling perimeter player has an advantage that never used to be in the game. Next, make more possessions to maximize the potential for the 3 point basket through the shot clock…and then reduce the shot clock for the entertainment value while enhancing the value of the little guy. The perimeter player already has the ball as the clock continues to tick making the game more one dimensional and his game is enhanced. The bigs, the guys that depend on receiving a pass depend on getting the ball inside now has a clock working against them. Years ago you could wait until the other team’s lack of mental discipline broke down allowing an entry pass. Today, the shot clock works against that team play.

This Purdue team I think would have been great a few years ago, much, much better than today before the rule changes and emphasis on protecting the guards on offense and yet allowing those same offensive guards to flail about with their arms to strike away at the defensive player trying to guard them. You will see Yogi continually push off today, but the reality is many other players do it too, since it rarely gets called. Valentine is just as bad as Yogi in committing an offensive foul that is ignored. It is part of the emphasis of the game to protect the little guys (remember the parity desired) especially when dribbling towards the basket and for many refs to allow the bigs to wrestle inside as though a schizophrenic is in that zebra suit. That is where the game is today, different than a few years ago in major rules and emphasis of those rules. Purdue is a team of contrarian nature and IU is perhaps the style of the future that is if you can use the world style in that context? I’m old enough I won’t have to endure the newer game long, the one dimensional players and the decrease of coaching. Knight, Keady and many others that made this rivalry what is it has some turning in their graves and others just throwing up. Did I say I hate the way the game is today?

This game is a huge contrast in styles. Last year I was shocked that Crean always tried to match up with a futile matchup of Purdue by allowing someone on IU to play that could not shoot a jump shot allowing Matt to use AJ or Haas on the player that was not a threat on the perimeter. Although IU had enough players to place five threats behind the arc, he never, and in the game at Purdue, IU was so far behind that experiment was possible. As everyone knows it will be IU’s quickness against Purdue’s size both with strengths and both with weaknesses. How each team maximizes its strengths and minimizes its weaknesses will go a long way towards the outcome of the game as well as any potential extreme vision of the game by the zebras.

I do not think IU can beat Purdue without hitting enough 3 pt shots or getting enough 2 pt baskets on conversion (Swanigan) and transition due to turnovers and long rebounds. Now if the perimeter players for IU are allowed to drive and get some calls, it will open up the perimeter for IU and that would be the only way IU could go against a set D and score the 3 ball with enough frequency. IU makes the runs when the play is a helter skelter fashion as the D is scrambling to find players. In a rivalry game, I would think that kind of protection would not be allowed. Therefore, I think Purdue’s best defense of IU starts and ends on the offensive end of Purdue. Purdue must take care of the ball, have patience and dictate tempo. Can IU use their energy in guarding someone for a duration (mentally and physically) and if so, will that show up in leg fatigue over the course of the game…even with all the TV timeouts on the 3 ball? Next Purdue must exploit the size advantage and find a way to get the ball in the paint AND score, not come up empty in what hopefully is just a wrestling match inside. “IF” Purdue is enough threat on the perimeter I can see Johnny Hill taking it to the rim and placing the guards of IU in a more foul prone position or having Johnny Hill score inside. If IU plays more zone, PJ could be more valuable. Does IU dictate the D dependent on which PG is playing? Not going into the stats that anyone can read and the obvious stats needed, but some things I’m concerned with that may lead to some of the stats.

Purdue has many more ways to beat IU than IU has to beat Purdue. However, IU is more explosive and with basketball being a game of runs, IU wants the helter skelter game and Purdue wants the discipline of a grind. If the perimeter game of either team is off, that substantially will be huge in this game as well as the interpretation of the rules by the particular refs in this game. Purdue will play half court man on D trying to contend the three ball and needing to contain the dribble while needing to own the boards (can’t help so much IU gets weak side board and pass back to man left open by help defenbse) and converting entry passes to baskets and not turnovers. Purdue needs to push the ball, probe and score when it is definite, but have discipline when not. Purdue cannot run with IU and expect to win without discipline being in play. Purdue would like to steal 6-8 points getting the ball up the court if possible. If Purdue runs without discipline, IU will dumb Purdue down and beat them with experience in this type of a game. IU is much more suited with its athletes in playing stupid than Purdue. J

IU wants to run and run some more. IU would love to get AJ and Haas in foul trouble…something not remotely accomplished at any time or place. Since IU is quicker at all positions do we see a press out of IU as a surprise…especially since this game may come down to just a few buckets of a two minute swing in play? IU wants Purdue to beat them from the outside, who doesn’t? I do not think IU will use huge pressure on the perimeter to attempt to force the Purdue bigs to go father out on the court to get the ball and so I’m more inclined to believe that either IU uses a press (which they typically don’t) or a trap (which they typically don’t) of some kind to generate extra possessions that have a high percent of scoring or what I really suspect is doubling of Purdue’s inside players. If IU goes pure zone or even matchup zone against Purdue there exists a greater chance of Purdue boards than man fronting and weak side helping on the backside along with defensive perimeter players digging at the ball. Course mixing all this up requiring Purdue to always adjust to changing D may eat a few seconds of an already diminishing clock now more of the defensive presence than before. If Williams or Bryant finds a stroke, that could be huge for IU as that is a bonus and changes some of what Purdue wants to do. Purdue prefers to contain the dribble (are you listening refs?) and have a safety valve in AJ or Haas rather than the Purdue bigs defending in space. Look for Bryant and Bieldfelt (sp?) for IU to face up...at least I would have them play that way and not post up to attempt for Purdue to defend them in space. Another player variable (I think we will generally see typical games out of the others) is Swanigan. Can his board and inside play be an advantage or will it be his slowness that is a bigger disadvantage? I do NOT think it will be intimidation that will affect him…perhaps too much internal pressure if pressure becomes a visual factor. I worry about Purdue working the ball and scoring and IU running to take it out and pushing the ball to score an easy two due to IU’s speed and Purdue bigs being slower and needing to run the court. Guards make them take an extra second or two to catch the pass out of bounds. IU has no problem going 1 on 5 in the open court and would love for other teams to play this loose.

Well, all this is obsolete once the ball is tossed and the game takes on a life of its own. Look for a tight whistle early just so the refs make sure the pea still works and an attempt to set the tone in what should be a hard fought battle. If IU wins it will be the first time IU has beat Purdue with Crean coach and a Zeller not on the court. I look for a good one. Well, there you have it…what I do not know… J

 

[burncycle911]

Very thoughtful and insightful. However, not sure PU vs IU is smart vs dumb. How clever is it to throw the ball into the post? If anything, IU has to be more creative and improvise more, which takes some awareness and flexibility. I agree on the state of basketball these days. It is so annoying to watch guards on every team palm the ball, push off, initiate contact, switch pivot foot, etc....lazy. I think PU's stark advantage in the paint is going to be darn near impossible for IU to negate or match. If IU is hitting 3s and getting steals, Hoosiers win. If PU gets the looks in the post and plays good D, PU wins. Game of runs. IU needs them, PU doesn't. Should be a great game.

 

[tjreese]

Very thoughtful and insightful. However, not sure PU vs IU is smart vs dumb. How clever is it to throw the ball into the post? If anything, IU has to be more creative and improvise more, which takes some awareness and flexibility. I agree on the state of basketball these days. It is so annoying to watch guards on every team palm the ball, push off, initiate contact, switch pivot foot, etc....lazy. I think PU's stark advantage in the paint is going to be darn near impossible for IU to negate or match. If IU is hitting 3s and getting steals, Hoosiers win. If PU gets the looks in the post and plays good D, PU wins. Game of runs. IU needs them, PU doesn't. Should be a great game.

The context is that IU makes many more unforced bad decisions...shots...turnovers than Purdue. Purdue has teh clock working against them and the clock aids in those bad decisions. Williams or whoever has no difficulty in going one on four at times. IU wants a scrambling game of athleticism rather than a cerebral game generally. It is much mroe common for IU to go up 16 points in a few minutes and then lose that 16 in the same time. The explosive nature of IU's offense is the strength and Achilles of the team...players not as inhibited which results in better shooting and players not as inhibited which results in poorer shots. If one could define a deviation from an average "good" shot, IU's deviation or inherent variation is greater than Purdue's. Purdue is the GRowth and Income stock and IU is the Aggressive stock...