I don't know. Matt stated all year as the poor shooting went on that he had faith and to keep taking good shots, and so I'm not convinced that Matt was the problem with the team missing open 3s. Even the players said he encouraged them to shoot and so it seems to me that Matt wasn't the issue.
Actually I can't recall the three ball beating Purdue lately and so many of those teams did it inside the arc
I think one thing that isn’t being considered is how teams late on the season would hold Zach’s arms, keeping him from getting the rebound on missed threes. Early in the season, a missed three would usually end up being a made two as we rebounded the ball really well.
Did not have the NIL money that other schools have that took 1 for sure point guard last year! Painter can’t solve that and neither can the football coach. To get 4-5 star recruits or portal transfers it is ALL about NIL money now. The most unequal platform that the NCAA has ever endorsed because the laws made them!
Well a team is goning to focus and get on the boards since Purdue did that well early. Many little adjustments take place as the season goes on, but the point still remains...why do "inferior" teams have or had success against Purdue in the tourney and not during the season and it starts many times with dribble containment as most of the damage was done inside the arc against Purdue
I was referring to Purdue’s offense to take fewer threes and driving the ball more to take the shorter higher % shots.
I would disagree. Purdue gave out as much or even more money than most teams did. And it wasn’t the NIL that caused Purdue to lose in the tourney. It was missed shots and turnovers!
I think that Painter wants to use available NIL money to reward his current players more than to recruit over them. Purdue hasn’t brought many transfers in, but hasn’t lost many either. I’ll take it.
My point was in regard to Painter trusting his shooters. He trusted them because early we grabbed a lot of the missed shots and put them in the hoop. Those shots were basically passes.
It seems to me that while Purdue was struggling later in the season that Matt still trusted and encouraged them to take open shots and so I don't think Matt's trust disappeared. Now, holding Zach can eliminate a few boards as you said, but I was thinking that the offensive rebounding might have decreased with others as well...hinting that on the whole there was more than Zach getting held on boards as the on ly reason offensive boards might have went down
Bingo. I think it was Hummel who said "The coach's job is to get players open shots. It's the players job to knock them down." And our players got a lot of open shots.
The other big problem was that Smith got worn down as the season went on. He was the lone ball handler and teams dogged him throughout the game. He made a lot more turnovers as the season went on. Another ball handler and the past season would have turned out a whole lot better.
So, maybe we just don't have good shooters? Because if it's not mental, then it's got to be physical. I don't believe in the "team is in a collective funk" excuse. I think it's still more of a function of Purdue being scouted and teams taking away what Painter wanted to do, forcing players to make outside shots (which was the right defense to play statistically) and either living or dying with that strategy.
Well, the 3 and 4 positions were basically giving us very little late. That does need to be remedied. Having Morton come off the bench would be one improvement in my opinion. Having Furst and TKR play more together like they did early on would solve another.
Matt will do as Matt has always done....play his best five for the situation. As for Zach, Painter isn't in the business to cater to anyone.
Okay cool, so make the shots and we are the best team ever. Miss them and then we have you whine all off season. Insightful!
I understand your point but Purdue didn't really shoot a lot of threes last year. 21.2 attempts per game which was 8th in the B1G. Its not that we are shooting too many threes, its that we are not making a high enough percentage of the ones we are taking. Painter's system creates wide open threes. Painter just needs to find guys that can hit them, either on the roster or in the portal. It may be too late for the latter.
First of all just because you have a lot of guys doesn't mean your deep. Second of all Purdue isn't exceptionably athletic.
Excellent point. It's unfortunate that reffing is sometimes wildly different from game to game. I've never been a ref before (at any level for any sport) but surely there must be some art to garnering consistency, right?
Painter did part of his job. His offense got players a lot of wide open threes to take. However those players with wide open shots couldn’t make them and kept taking them. Perhaps Painter the coach needed to adjust and change his offense and have his players take easier shots. Or adjust his roster and play people who can actually make wide open threes. Maybe he should tell certain players not to take a three. And watching a few games late in the season it appears a couple of players were afraid to take those threes out of a fear they would miss.
Agree on coaching staff needing to find a way to improve player prep. Some of that may just be a maturity thing and hopefully the experiences of last year help with that.
Mostly agree. I think that Painter does think that he has a bunch of good three point shooters on his roster. Agree that the theory of 'just keep taking them and good shooters will make them' doesn't always work out and in the highest stakes environment of the NCAAT he has to be able to make an adjustment to get easier shots when threes, even wide open ones, aren't falling.
It was said that the tournament used a different ball than teams used during the regular season and many teams were not used to the difference and that caused a lot of issues with teams that were perimeter shooting teams as the ball would just not go in the net.
i would rate virginia's loss the worst loss in ncaa history as they were beaten badly not by just 5.
There were a lot of teams, players, and coaches who complained about that ball and how it affected their shooting. Are you going to also call them liars?
Yes, it’s an excuse. If the balls are the same weight, size, and inflated the same then losing becomes an excuse. Maybe the rims were smaller.
Can change offense and defense when we play quicker/smaller teams if not hitting 3s. Celtics did the same thing in game 7 against Miami. Relied too much on the 3 and lost to a less talented team. Pick and roll on offense and play a zone to keep them from driving. Zach/Furst would do a much better job of rim protection in a zone. Matt's a great coach but is too stubborn to utilize a zone. Without that, we need superior athletes when playing the quick small teams.
It’s definitely not easy to keep you from whining, at least you admit that.
I think there were some physical issues for some and mental for others...and of course scouting gets better as the season goes on. It seemed that Matt at least publicly didn't put any pressure on the players, and if there was pressure, some of the poorer shooters still let it fly. I would like to see Purdue get more versatile scoring out of the 3 and 4 spots...some mid-range game for versatility...and that means finishing...
I don't have an answer on why Purdue missed wide open 3s other than maybe some players shooting them shouldn't. You ever play against someone that you dog on the court, run him around to get the ball and the players gets that split second without thinking and nails it and then later maybe gets a better look with more token D and the player misses it?
A lot of that is true IMO, but Zach is going to get a LOT of minutes and Trey or Caleb will see minutes along with him...how much depends somewhat on those two AND Mason. Still, I have always liked two big 4s playing instead of a 4 and 5, but the 4s (both Trey and Caleb) need something other than shooting a 3 or at the rim with jump hooks, drop steps, up and unders. I hope Trey drops some weight and can drive the ball a bit. For the quality of 4s Purdue recruited...they need more versatility and if they provide it that will elevate Purde a LOT in my opinion
They aren’t though. The rule is that the ball has to bounce 49-54 inches range when dropped from 6 feet, must be 29.5-30 inch circumference, and 20-22 oZ in weight. The cover has to be a pebbled leather or composite and must have 8 panels. Soooo you might not like it, but there is room for variety that might throw someone off if they aren’t used to it. It’s also a common issue in the soccer World Cup, they make a new ball for each tournament and have a wider range of acceptable designs. Almost every World Cup in recent memory has started with a tons of complaints from players about the new ball.Yes, it’s an excuse. If the balls are the same weight, size, and inflated the same then losing becomes an excuse. Maybe the rims were smaller.
I suspect that if you asked players on several teams if they had a ball preference they would say yes. How much that plays into missing shots, I have no idea...but it is a factor I'm sure. Now I doubt Zach was effected much with the possible exception shooting FTs.
The tourney ball had zero impact on Purdue players inability to hit wide open 3s
What a ridiculous statement. I would tend to agree that the ball was not the cause of that horrible shooting performance but you have zero data to support your claim and the hyperbole of claiming zero impact is absurd. More poorly done trolling.
