Wheeler

[TC4THREE]

Prior to 2016-17......in March/April of 2016 no one predicted any big time major minutes for Carsen Edwards. A lot of people hoped for it, but no one really predicted what a force he would be, and knew he would be one of the best frosh in the B1G. I look for the same thing here, if a guy proves himself in the pre-season worthy of floor time, he will get it.....but he will have to earn it like Carsen did.

But YES, as a general principle, when it comes to B1G season, Painter will count on his senior leaders.....Edwards, DM & PJT....even Haas. They win games. I just hope we get more consistency from the seniors......next year.

That's not how I remember it. Many people here predicted Carsen would have a role. Let's not make it out to be that he averaged 30 minutes per game though. 23 mpg. Less than PJ and Dakota and only slightly more than Cline. Except for those that overestimated the amount of time Spike was going to give us, I don't remember anyone thinking he would be less than 15-20 minutes a game.

Even with so many guards returning, Eastern has a path to playing time. First, I think the team will see a shift with more minutes being allocated to guards and wings than this year assuming Swanigan does leave. Also, his combination of size and athleticism is something we don't really have at the guard spot. If he concentrates mostly on being a great defensive player then he could earn many minutes in that capacity as a freshman. I don't think he's going to be more efficient offensively than PJ and Dakota. I don't think he's going to be the scorer that Carsen can be or a better shooter than Cline. But if he can come in and help lock down good wings then he can do something that nobody else but Dakota can really do and with his size and athleticism he could even be better at it than Dakota is. That's a big IF though. He has to be willing to put the time and effort into that side of the ball and few players, especially freshmen, want to focus on defense.

 

[BoilerAndy]

Well venture over to Twitter and search for Mitch Arbor. He makes a very compelling case to revoke Sasha's scholarship so we can officially offer McCoy and not worry what Biggie does.

The simple, compelling case against taking Arbor's advice: Painter won't -- and shouldn't -- go back on a commitment he made to Sasha and his parents. No self-respecting coach who cares about ethics should do that. If you want to start turning parents and high school coaches in Indiana against you, play the roster tricks that Crean used.

 

[ChoiceBeef]

The simple, compelling case against taking Arbor's advice: Painter won't -- and shouldn't -- go back on a commitment he made to Sasha and his parents. No self-respecting coach who cares about ethics should do that. If you want to start turning parents and high school coaches in Indiana against you, play the roster tricks that Crean used.

Glad I'm not the only one who sees the nonsense that guys spews.

I'm sure he thinks Painter sees all of his tweets and will suddenly change his mind.

 

[Boiler Buck]

That's not how I remember it. Many people here predicted Carsen would have a role. Let's not make it out to be that he averaged 30 minutes per game though. 23 mpg. Less than PJ and Dakota and only slightly more than Cline. Except for those that overestimated the amount of time Spike was going to give us, I don't remember anyone thinking he would be less than 15-20 minutes a game.

Even with so many guards returning, Eastern has a path to playing time. First, I think the team will see a shift with more minutes being allocated to guards and wings than this year assuming Swanigan does leave. Also, his combination of size and athleticism is something we don't really have at the guard spot. If he concentrates mostly on being a great defensive player then he could earn many minutes in that capacity as a freshman. I don't think he's going to be more efficient offensively than PJ and Dakota. I don't think he's going to be the scorer that Carsen can be or a better shooter than Cline. But if he can come in and help lock down good wings then he can do something that nobody else but Dakota can really do and with his size and athleticism he could even be better at it than Dakota is. That's a big IF though. He has to be willing to put the time and effort into that side of the ball and few players, especially freshmen, want to focus on defense.

Perhaps after the summer tour some predicted it....but in March/April 2016?

I do not think anyone knew how good Carsen was that early....other than fun wild speculation....like we have here with Eastern and Wheeler. No one really knows.

But you could be right. I've slept since then.

 

[Dryfly88]

Zone,
Everything you say is true up until 4th grade travel ball. Then it falls apart like wet Kleenex. Zone is easy to beat if the zone lacks athletic players. There is a reason it is used by so few and when it is implemented it is for short periods in an attempt to confuse.

1. The bolded part is simply not true. If you watched any of the tournament you know it was used by many teams including all of the Elite 8 teams. I don't mean any disrespect to you or others, but I have to question how much basketball some on here watch besides PU? There was one poster on here (he posts a lot) who said he didn't know anything about Kansas before we played them. They are on ESPN virtually every Monday night and often on the weekends. I think many on here watch only PU (B1G). It clouds judgement because they don't see many other teams. I'm not getting into this mess again. But it is a fact that many teams use zone, period.

2. The underlined part can be true and is in fact what I, and many others have suggested for PU.

DG: I know you and others get frustrated when the Zone word is even brought up. I'm just trying to stay factual with the conversation. CMP chooses not to use zone. I have come to terms with that (after much frustration on my part). But to say it is used by so few is simply false. I wish we could have a rational conversation about the use of multiple defenses during a game, but it has become a toxic topic on here and quickly goes down hill. I don't have any desire to go down that road anymore so I usually just stay out of those threads. When I saw your comment about few teams using it I just wanted to set the record straight about that part.

PU doesn't use it, but that doesn't mean that many other teams don't.

 

[*4purdue*]

Could anyone see him starting? OR getting 20+ minutes next year?

I have only seen the one game, but me like the length and athletic ability. If he is willing to play D, and can do that well(key) because of his length and athletic ability -- I could see it.

More likely to red shirt than start. I don't see him getting any more minutes next year than Basil was getting this year.

 

[z_one]

1. The bolded part is simply not true. If you watched any of the tournament you know it was used by many teams including all of the Elite 8 teams. I don't mean any disrespect to you or others, but I have to question how much basketball some on here watch besides PU? There was one poster on here (he posts a lot) who said he didn't know anything about Kansas before we played them. They are on ESPN virtually every Monday night and often on the weekends. I think many on here watch only PU (B1G). It clouds judgement because they don't see many other teams. I'm not getting into this mess again. But it is a fact that many teams use zone, period.

2. The underlined part can be true and is in fact what I, and many others have suggested for PU.

DG: I know you and others get frustrated when the Zone word is even brought up. I'm just trying to stay factual with the conversation. CMP chooses not to use zone. I have come to terms with that (after much frustration on my part). But to say it is used by so few is simply false. I wish we could have a rational conversation about the use of multiple defenses during a game, but it has become a toxic topic on here and quickly goes down hill. I don't have any desire to go down that road anymore so I usually just stay out of those threads. When I saw your comment about few teams using it I just wanted to set the record straight about that part.

PU doesn't use it, but that doesn't mean that many other teams don't.

Your analysis is right on. I saw it through out the tournament. I have decided that it won't matter to even discuss it with some on here because they are Painter apologists. He could start Carsen at center and put Haas at the point and they would explain it away. Fine, Painter won't change, I have come to accept it but don't like it. I think it puts a ceiling in place that we can't break through unless or until we find "lightening in a bottle". Maybe Painter will find it. I hope he does. No one wants to win it all more than me. I just think he makes it harder on himself and his team because he has himself "locked in". Otherwise, it is a waste to discuss it on here, because so many want to say silly things like "hasn't been used since 4th grade", when I saw it in use numerous times during the tournament by teams that advanced farther than us.

 

[nagemj02]

1. The bolded part is simply not true. If you watched any of the tournament you know it was used by many teams including all of the Elite 8 teams. I don't mean any disrespect to you or others, but I have to question how much basketball some on here watch besides PU? There was one poster on here (he posts a lot) who said he didn't know anything about Kansas before we played them. They are on ESPN virtually every Monday night and often on the weekends. I think many on here watch only PU (B1G). It clouds judgement because they don't see many other teams. I'm not getting into this mess again. But it is a fact that many teams use zone, period.

2. The underlined part can be true and is in fact what I, and many others have suggested for PU.

DG: I know you and others get frustrated when the Zone word is even brought up. I'm just trying to stay factual with the conversation. CMP chooses not to use zone. I have come to terms with that (after much frustration on my part). But to say it is used by so few is simply false. I wish we could have a rational conversation about the use of multiple defenses during a game, but it has become a toxic topic on here and quickly goes down hill. I don't have any desire to go down that road anymore so I usually just stay out of those threads. When I saw your comment about few teams using it I just wanted to set the record straight about that part.

PU doesn't use it, but that doesn't mean that many other teams don't.

+1

TRUTH

I saw these things as well. Maybe tjreese, Dakota Girl, BuilderBob6, and some of the others looked away and covered their eyes when an Oregon or a Michigan or a Kansas or a North Carolina or a Gonzaga would play. Maybe they only watched the Purdue games and tried to forget about when Kansas used it. There's one word to describe this group: denial. They might be right that Painter will never implement any zones regularly because of stubbornness and for fear of change and failure (even though it's not any more of a failure than when a man-to-man defense is getting torched). However, to believe that mixing in zone variations cannot help Purdue when it CLEARLY helps many other teams at times is to be in denial of the reality of it.

BTW, dryfly88, did you end up recording results for the teams in the NCAA Tournament that mixed defenses (or offensive approaches) vs. those who stayed with the same defensive/offensive approach in an entire game?

 

[Dryfly88]

+1

TRUTH

I saw these things as well. Maybe tjreese, Dakota Girl, BuilderBob6, and some of the others looked away and covered their eyes when an Oregon or a Michigan or a Kansas or a North Carolina or a Gonzaga would play. Maybe they only watched the Purdue games and tried to forget about when Kansas used it. There's one word to describe this group: denial. They might be right that Painter will never implement any zones regularly because of stubbornness and for fear of change and failure (even though it's not any more of a failure than when a man-to-man defense is getting torched). However, to believe that mixing in zone variations cannot help Purdue when it CLEARLY helps many other teams at times is to be in denial of the reality of it.

BTW, dryfly88, did you end up recording results for the teams in the NCAA Tournament that mixed defenses (or offensive approaches) vs. those who stayed with the same defensive/offensive approach in an entire game?

I really don't want to get into the whole zone arguments again. I've had enough of it. I just want/wanted to make it clear that it isn't something that very few teams do and to mix up defenses is very common.

I was going to start a thread on it after the tournament and honestly just lost interest in arguing about it. Since you asked, I will say that of the games I watched (obviously not all of the them, even I have other things to do) I saw 23 teams play multiple defenses within a game. Including as I stated above, every one of the Elite 8 teams. I really can't believe anyone that watches much college basketball would even argue that it doesn't happen a lot.

I'm done arguing the merits of it as it pertains to our team. CMP doesn't believe it is something to have available and I have come to accept that is just the way it is. Maybe he'll change his mind down the road, we'll see. But the argument that few teams use it is simply false.

 

[nagemj02]

I really don't want to get into the whole zone arguments again. I've had enough of it. I just want/wanted to make it clear that it isn't something that very few teams do and to mix up defenses is very common.

I was going to start a thread on it after the tournament and honestly just lost interest in arguing about it. Since you asked, I will say that of the games I watched (obviously not all of the them, even I have other things to do) I saw 23 teams play multiple defenses within a game. Including as I stated above, every one of the Elite 8 teams. I really can't believe anyone that watches much college basketball would even argue that it doesn't happen a lot.

I'm done arguing the merits of it as it pertains to our team. CMP doesn't believe it is something to have available and I have come to accept that is just the way it is. Maybe he'll change his mind down the road, we'll see. But the argument that few teams use it is simply false.

That's solid data. Thanks for sharing. You missed some games but still saw AT LEAST 23 out of 68 teams use multiple defensive schemes. If you throw in what you might have missed, I would guess there were a few more teams that also mixed defenses. So, that's close to half of the 2017 NCAA Tournament field!

 

[Dryfly88]

That's solid data. Thanks for sharing. You missed some games but still saw AT LEAST 23 out of 68 teams use multiple defensive schemes. If you throw in what you might have missed, I would guess there were a few more teams that also mixed defenses. So, that's close to half of the 2017 NCAA Tournament field!

I just kept my bracket handy and when I saw it happen I put a mark beside the team. I do a lot of channel flipping when PU isn't playing so I could have easily missed many other teams doing it.

Just one quick example: UNC used a 2/3 zone for 2 possessions in a row against KY. Calipari called a timeout after 2 quick 3's were taken. When they came back from the timeout UNC was back in MTM and I'm not sure they ever played zone again the rest of the game.

Again, I'm not arguing for PU to play zone anymore. I just wanted to do a very unscientific study as I was watching the tournament. It was a quick way to see many good teams in a very short time frame.

 

[Dakota Girl]

1. The bolded part is simply not true. If you watched any of the tournament you know it was used by many teams including all of the Elite 8 teams. I don't mean any disrespect to you or others, but I have to question how much basketball some on here watch besides PU? There was one poster on here (he posts a lot) who said he didn't know anything about Kansas before we played them. They are on ESPN virtually every Monday night and often on the weekends. I think many on here watch only PU (B1G). It clouds judgement because they don't see many other teams. I'm not getting into this mess again. But it is a fact that many teams use zone, period.

2. The underlined part can be true and is in fact what I, and many others have suggested for PU.

DG: I know you and others get frustrated when the Zone word is even brought up. I'm just trying to stay factual with the conversation. CMP chooses not to use zone. I have come to terms with that (after much frustration on my part). But to say it is used by so few is simply false. I wish we could have a rational conversation about the use of multiple defenses during a game, but it has become a toxic topic on here and quickly goes down hill. I don't have any desire to go down that road anymore so I usually just stay out of those threads. When I saw your comment about few teams using it I just wanted to set the record straight about that part.

PU doesn't use it, but that doesn't mean that many other teams don't.

I won't dispute that the majority of the games I watch involve Purdue. I also will not argue that many teams in the NCAA tournament, especially those in the great 8 did in fact use some zone defense. Some used it quite a bit. But the context of my post was very clear and you have chosen to exclude it from your analysis of my statement.
The context was that zones are not successful when teams of inferior athleticism relative to the team they are competing against use them. Most teams in the tournament remaining after the first round are more athletic than Purdue. I am not inclined to research all 3 hundred'ish teams in the NCAA to determine the ratio so I'll just concede the point.
I take no disrespect from your reply but I do think you missed the point of what I was saying. It may be my writing skills at fault.
You feel that I am against zone and I understand how you would think that based on my discussions/arguments/battles with Nags. But if you really read what I am saying in discussions about Purdue using zones you will understand that I do not dislike zones. I dislike the thought of this Purdue team using it as I don't believe they have the athleticism when playing in the NCAA tournament to win with it.
I really don't care if they use it to defeat low end power 5 teams or lesser competition as that won't help them come tournament time. I have even stated in many posts that I think Purdue will be able to execute a zone defense at a high level in the near future (2018) because I think the level of athleticism is rising.
Again, no disrespect taken, and absolutely none intended.

 

[Dryfly88]

I won't dispute that the majority of the games I watch involve Purdue. I also will not argue that many teams in the NCAA tournament, especially those in the great 8 did in fact use some zone defense. Some used it quite a bit. But the context of my post was very clear and you have chosen to exclude it from your analysis of my statement.
The context was that zones are not successful when teams of inferior athleticism relative to the team they are competing against use them. Most teams in the tournament remaining after the first round are more athletic than Purdue. I am not inclined to research all 3 hundred'ish teams in the NCAA to determine the ratio so I'll just concede the point.
I take no disrespect from your reply but I do think you missed the point of what I was saying. It may be my writing skills at fault.
You feel that I am against zone and I understand how you would think that based on my discussions/arguments/battles with Nags. But if you really read what I am saying in discussions about Purdue using zones you will understand that I do not dislike zones. I dislike the thought of this Purdue team using it as I don't believe they have the athleticism when playing in the NCAA tournament to win with it.
I really don't care if they use it to defeat low end power 5 teams or lesser competition as that won't help them come tournament time. I have even stated in many posts that I think Purdue will be able to execute a zone defense at a high level in the near future (2018) because I think the level of athleticism is rising.
Again, no disrespect taken, and absolutely none intended.

No worries DG, we're good. We both want the same thing. As many PU W's as possible!!

I will say though, that if it's true that at the round of 32 level most teams are more athletic than PU then we really need to be talking more about recruiting!!

 

[z_one]

I won't dispute that the majority of the games I watch involve Purdue. I also will not argue that many teams in the NCAA tournament, especially those in the great 8 did in fact use some zone defense. Some used it quite a bit. But the context of my post was very clear and you have chosen to exclude it from your analysis of my statement.
The context was that zones are not successful when teams of inferior athleticism relative to the team they are competing against use them. Most teams in the tournament remaining after the first round are more athletic than Purdue. I am not inclined to research all 3 hundred'ish teams in the NCAA to determine the ratio so I'll just concede the point.
I take no disrespect from your reply but I do think you missed the point of what I was saying. It may be my writing skills at fault.
You feel that I am against zone and I understand how you would think that based on my discussions/arguments/battles with Nags. But if you really read what I am saying in discussions about Purdue using zones you will understand that I do not dislike zones. I dislike the thought of this Purdue team using it as I don't believe they have the athleticism when playing in the NCAA tournament to win with it.
I really don't care if they use it to defeat low end power 5 teams or lesser competition as that won't help them come tournament time. I have even stated in many posts that I think Purdue will be able to execute a zone defense at a high level in the near future (2018) because I think the level of athleticism is rising.
Again, no disrespect taken, and absolutely none intended.

I'm not wanting to get in an argument either DG, but to insist that a team has to be more athletic to use the zone is just not true. Also to claim that all these other teams are more athletic than Purdue is ludicrous. Watching many other tournament teams using zone negates most of the "no zone" arguments. It's a valuable tactic that Painter doesn't use. Doesn't mean he's a bad coach. Just predictable.

 

[Dakota Girl]

Your analysis is right on. I saw it through out the tournament. I have decided that it won't matter to even discuss it with some on here because they are Painter apologists. He could start Carsen at center and put Haas at the point and they would explain it away. Fine, Painter won't change, I have come to accept it but don't like it. I think it puts a ceiling in place that we can't break through unless or until we find "lightening in a bottle". Maybe Painter will find it. I hope he does. No one wants to win it all more than me. I just think he makes it harder on himself and his team because he has himself "locked in". Otherwise, it is a waste to discuss it on here, because so many want to say silly things like "hasn't been used since 4th grade", when I saw it in use numerous times during the tournament by teams that advanced farther than us.

Z_one,
You state above "Otherwise, it is a waste to discuss it on here, because so many want to say silly things like "hasn't been used since 4th grade", when I saw it in use numerous times during the tournament by teams that advanced farther than us."

Here is what I said to you verbatim:
"Zone,
Everything you say is true up until 4th grade travel ball. Then it falls apart like wet Kleenex. Zone is easy to beat if the zone lacks athletic players. There is a reason it is used by so few and when it is implemented it is for short periods in an attempt to confuse."
I did not say that zone isn't used in college ball. I am saying that Purdue is not the only team who uses all man to man and certainly no the only one using primarily man to man. Did most of the teams in the great 8 use some or even all in some cases, zone? Yes. Is that most teams in the NCAA? If you are compelled to prove that most teams in the NCAA play primarily zone, and can do so, I'll concede the point.
What I said, and my point, is that a zone is easy to beat if the zone lacks athletic players. How does Purdue compare athletically to most teams in the tournament and all teams in the Great 8?
When Purdue fields a team with length that can physically move like the top 8 teams can, I will happily support mixing in zone defenses.
As far as being a Painter apologist goes, you are making unfounded assumptions. Bobinski can fire Painter tomorrow for all I care. There will be another coach in his place to carry on Purdue basketball and I'll support him as well.
Try to use my actual words when attributing a statement to me instead of altering my words to say want you want them to say.

 

[Boilerkid18]

I'm not wanting to get in an argument either DG, but to insist that a team has to be more athletic to use the zone is just not true. Also to claim that all these other teams are more athletic than Purdue is ludicrous. Watching many other tournament teams using zone negates most of the "no zone" arguments. It's a valuable tactic that Painter doesn't use. Doesn't mean he's a bad coach. Just predictable.

An athletic team that can also pass would DESTROY a zone implemented with Purdue's current players.

 

[Dakota Girl]

No worries DG, we're good. We both want the same thing. As many PU W's as possible!!

I will say though, that if it's true that at the round of 32 level most teams are more athletic than PU then we really need to be talking more about recruiting!!

Exactly! I believe that recruiting is by far the biggest part of the battle. I won't be one to go after a sitting coaches head, Painter or others, unless they do things to embarrass the University or their teams just consistently stink on ice. But I do believe that our recruiting has to be a bit better than it has been the last 5 years if we are to have a chance at a final four.

 

[tjreese]

1. The bolded part is simply not true. If you watched any of the tournament you know it was used by many teams including all of the Elite 8 teams. I don't mean any disrespect to you or others, but I have to question how much basketball some on here watch besides PU? There was one poster on here (he posts a lot) who said he didn't know anything about Kansas before we played them. They are on ESPN virtually every Monday night and often on the weekends. I think many on here watch only PU (B1G). It clouds judgement because they don't see many other teams. I'm not getting into this mess again. But it is a fact that many teams use zone, period.

2. The underlined part can be true and is in fact what I, and many others have suggested for PU.

DG: I know you and others get frustrated when the Zone word is even brought up. I'm just trying to stay factual with the conversation. CMP chooses not to use zone. I have come to terms with that (after much frustration on my part). But to say it is used by so few is simply false. I wish we could have a rational conversation about the use of multiple defenses during a game, but it has become a toxic topic on here and quickly goes down hill. I don't have any desire to go down that road anymore so I usually just stay out of those threads. When I saw your comment about few teams using it I just wanted to set the record straight about that part.

PU doesn't use it, but that doesn't mean that many other teams don't.

not getting into this...no reason only to say a zone is a zone, a matchup is a matchup,a man is a man D..No matter who is playing them the inherent weaknesses and strengths do NOT change..only the effectiveness may change with personnel. A person doe NOT have to see teams play to know what they do if they know the base D...the approaches to attacking each are esentially the same for the D in question..only the precision of a bigger weakness in one area than another.

Right now if someone told me the next team Purdue would play ...a pure zone...1-3-1, 1-2-2 or a 2-3 I know what I want to do and ONLY my initial alignments change...I still hold some basic rules for all pure zone...as I would for match-up and man. Basketball is basketball and the weaknesses and strengths of each is inherent in the base D with the effectiveness being altered by personnel.

If a team zone presses, a coach knows the based of what he wants to do...how to beat it...but it may require personnel that a team may not have as effective as needed. Real simple...if you cannot go over the top on a zone press because you are too small, you better be quick enough to beat it...becasue if you are too slow and small...you may have problems.

I was going to post a question in a new thread, but not sure how to present it. All teams want the best athlete that is the most skillful they can get, but most teams do NOT get that...they settle for something less. Not getting the best of both worlds and realizing that the player on the floor has to play offense AND defense unlike football...does that or could that affect what you can do? When Purdue looks at offense in motion can a player less athletic and more skilled be more successful than a player less skilled and more athletic when you don't get the best of both worlds? If faced with a lean I think offensively Purdue needs skill more than athleticism...IF it can't get both. If what you have recruited is more skillfull than athletic..does THAT affect the D you play?

Again Purdue wants the best of both worlds, but the reality is I think Purdue gets the best it can at the time knowing that player has to play both ways. Sooooo, is the thought that Purdue with Matt will always lean to motion offense where the team offense is always stressed more than the individual play that some teams allow much more? It is also safe to say that half court D will always take priority over full court D? Is the recruit that Purdue gets with a lean to skill over athleticism ever going to play the D some want?

This next class is more athletic, but there are all kinds of teams with many more athletes than Purdue will put out on the floor next year.

 

[nagemj02]

Next season Purdue will add Eastern, Wheeler, and Ewing, plus Jacquil Taylor will be back. If Painter would learn from one of the coaches mentioned above and practice at least one of those defenses with his '17-'18 roster, you'll have some explaining to do, boilerkid18.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

not getting into this...no reason only to say a zone is a zone, a matchup is a matchup,a man is a man D..No matter who is playing them the inherent weaknesses and strengths do NOT change..only the effectiveness may change with personnel. A person doe NOT have to see teams play to know what they do if they know the base D...the approaches to attacking each are esentially the same for the D in question..only the precision of a bigger weakness in one area than another.

Right now if someone told me the next team Purdue would play ...a pure zone...1-3-1, 1-2-2 or a 2-3 I know what I want to do and ONLY my initial alignments change...I still hold some basic rules for all pure zone...as I would for match-up and man. Basketball is basketball and the weaknesses and strengths of each is inherent in the base D with the effectiveness being altered by personnel.

If a team zone presses, a coach knows the based of what he wants to do...how to beat it...but it may require personnel that a team may not have as effective as needed. Real simple...if you cannot go over the top on a zone press because you are too small, you better be quick enough to beat it...becasue if you are too slow and small...you may have problems.

I was going to post a question in a new thread, but not sure how to present it. All teams want the best athlete that is the most skillful they can get, but most teams do NOT get that...they settle for something less. Not getting the best of both worlds and realizing that the player on the floor has to play offense AND defense unlike football...does that or could that affect what you can do? When Purdue looks at offense in motion can a player less athletic and more skilled be more successful than a player less skilled and more athletic when you don't get the best of both worlds? If faced with a lean I think offensively Purdue needs skill more than athleticism...IF it can't get both. If what you have recruited is more skillfull than athletic..does THAT affect the D you play?

Again Purdue wants the best of both worlds, but the reality is I think Purdue gets the best it can at the time knowing that player has to play both ways. Sooooo, is the thought that Purdue with Matt will always lean to motion offense where the team offense is always stressed more than the individual play that some teams allow much more? It is also safe to say that half court D will always take priority over full court D? Is the recruit that Purdue gets with a lean to skill over athleticism ever going to play the D some want?

This next class is more athletic, but there are all kinds of teams with many more athletes than Purdue will put out on the floor next year.

Thought you weren't getting into this TJ...

 

[Dakota Girl]

I'm not wanting to get in an argument either DG, but to insist that a team has to be more athletic to use the zone is just not true. Also to claim that all these other teams are more athletic than Purdue is ludicrous. Watching many other tournament teams using zone negates most of the "no zone" arguments. It's a valuable tactic that Painter doesn't use. Doesn't mean he's a bad coach. Just predictable.

You have hit exactly the crux of where we disagree..."to insist that a team has to be more athletic to use the zone is just not true. Also to claim that all these other teams are more athletic than Purdue is ludicrous."
Those just happen to be points I believe to critical in explaining why we don't use zone. We don't have to agree.
PS: One of my all time favorite defensive teams was the Runnin Rebels under Tarkanian. That Ameoba zone was awesome and I have used it with teams I have coached to great success. I also mixed it with man to man as well. So you see I am not blindly opposed to other defenses. I just don't think it fits Purdue's current roster. Have a good evening.

 

[tjreese]

That's solid data. Thanks for sharing. You missed some games but still saw AT LEAST 23 out of 68 teams use multiple defensive schemes. If you throw in what you might have missed, I would guess there were a few more teams that also mixed defenses. So, that's close to half of the 2017 NCAA Tournament field!

Nag, Dryfly has stated (well I might add) his thoughts...but nobody is going to prove anything with the numbers as there are too many areas where data is confounded. Now something easier and relative to the above. If I grab 68 people from the USA in a manner that truly mirrors the larger population for IQ data, I would have more than 23...34 that would fall below average in IQ...almost 50% more than 23 with lower than average IQ.

Since it has been a little slow, I almost posted an explanation of interactions with main effects and what cannot necessarily be projected outside the data and how this aligns with many tnoughts on basketball within a given year and even in a future year...just so we all apply a structured understanding...and then I thought...not sure I want to take this on just yet. Anyway, any and all conclusions you may draw may not meet the tests I would need...we obviously have different thoughts on different things..and that is okay...

 

[tjreese]

Exactly! I believe that recruiting is by far the biggest part of the battle. I won't be one to go after a sitting coaches head, Painter or others, unless they do things to embarrass the University or their teams just consistently stink on ice. But I do believe that our recruiting has to be a bit better than it has been the last 5 years if we are to have a chance at a final four.

There is NO question ...better recruits are needed...or a little luck for a couple of games...

 

[Dakota Girl]

I will attempt to bail out of this thread now, as I have stirred up lots of, well, fun, but I think we have reached the point of diminishing returns...about 2 years ago.
If I reply again, please chastise me for my weakness.

 

[tjreese]

Thought you weren't getting into this TJ...

I'm really not...I just wanted to clear up that I don't have to see any team to know how to attack a D if I know what they play..that is all. Dryfly has stated his position and accepts that he may not see that with Matt...THAT is fine with me. It is others that somehow try to relegate Matt to being stubborn rather than not believing in a zone to date that are not very wise comments. Dryfly disagrees with Matt...and that is very reasonable..no problem in seeing things different, but to think that someone that works his a$$ off is too stubborn without merit to try to get better...that is just plain dumb.

 

[BuilderBob6]

. Maybe tjreese, Dakota Girl, BuilderBob6, and some of the others looked away and covered their eyes when an Oregon or a Michigan or a Kansas or a North Carolina or a Gonzaga would play.
They might be right that Painter will never implement any zones regularly because of stubbornness and for fear of change and failure (even though it's not any more of a failure than when a man-to-man defense is getting torched).

This is a lie. Total bullshit. Neither I nor the others you mentioned have ever said this. Never, ever , nunca. Those are reasons YOU have given. It makes me physically ill to have your words attributed to me.
Like Dakota, I have simply said, repeatedly, that we should not play zone with the personnel we currently have. I have no problem mixing in some zone when we have the right players to run it effectively. I admit to being old school and preferring man to man but have no problem with zone as long as it's not the primary defense.
It's amazing to me that you talk about zone all the time, you claim to have watched teams run it this year in the dance..........but you really don't understand what it takes to play it well. It's not just about the zone configuration. You don't understand why quickness, length, and athleticism are needed in a zone. And no, at the risk of be skewered, it's not a matter of opinion.
There are posters on this board who have coached/played and been around the game for a long time........they say the same thing. You either don't listen, can't comprehend, or just think you know more than they do.
If you watched the EE, how many of those teams that played zone are built like we are, have the kind of athletes we have?
I have sworn off engaging you in any kind of zone discussion but when you call me out and misquote what I said I have to reply. I won't say what else is really on my mind as I don't want to get banned.

 

[tjreese]

This is a lie. Total bullshit. Neither I nor the others you mentioned have ever said this. Never, ever , nunca. Those are reasons YOU have given. It makes me physically ill to have your words attributed to me.
Like Dakota, I have simply said, repeatedly, that we should not play zone with the personnel we currently have. I have no problem mixing in some zone when we have the right players to run it effectively. I admit to being old school and preferring man to man but have no problem with zone as long as it's not the primary defense.
It's amazing to me that you talk about zone all the time, you claim to have watched teams run it this year in the dance..........but you really don't understand what it takes to play it well. It's not just about the zone configuration. You don't understand why quickness, length, and athleticism are needed in a zone. And no, at the risk of be skewered, it's not a matter of opinion.
There are posters on this board who have coached/played and been around the game for a long time........they say the same thing. You either don't listen, can't comprehend, or just think you know more than they do.
If you watched the EE, how many of those teams that played zone are built like we are, have the kind of athletes we have?
I have sworn off engaging you in any kind of zone discussion but when you call me out and misquote what I said I have to reply. I won't say what else is really on my mind as I don't want to get banned.

So I think it is safe to say that you consider Nag more stubborn than Nag considers Matt! Besides your name was not the first to come to his mind!

 

[tjreese]

I will attempt to bail out of this thread now, as I have stirred up lots of, well, fun, but I think we have reached the point of diminishing returns...about 2 years ago.
If I reply again, please chastise me for my weakness.

but...but ...but who ever heard of adjustments?
https://purdue.forums.rivals.com/threads/pete-nance-intro.121293/

 

[BuilderBob6]

So I think it is safe to say that you consider Nag more stubborn than Nag considers Matt! Besides your name was not the first to come to his mind!

You would be correct!
You do bring up a good point. Since your name was mentioned first, you are required to speak for the rest of us and reply to all of his posts.
So you got that goin' for you.......which is nice.

 

[z_one]

Nag, Dryfly has stated (well I might add) his thoughts...but nobody is going to prove anything with the numbers as there are too many areas where data is confounded. Now something easier and relative to the above. If I grab 68 people from the USA in a manner that truly mirrors the larger population for IQ data, I would have more than 23...34 that would fall below average in IQ...almost 50% more than 23 with lower than average IQ.

Since it has been a little slow, I almost posted an explanation of interactions with main effects and what cannot necessarily be projected outside the data and how this aligns with many tnoughts on basketball within a given year and even in a future year...just so we all apply a structured understanding...and then I thought...not sure I want to take this on just yet. Anyway, any and all conclusions you may draw may not meet the tests I would need...we obviously have different thoughts on different things..and that is okay...

That would be interesting and make for a good discussion, hoping others keep their need to call people out under control. Fortunately, I have not been involved in the "zone" discussions on here before. But I have read them and mostly they are bullshit waiting for a place to land. Many on here claim to have played or coached basketball, from what I have read to this point, I would guess that only a handful have done either. As to Matt, I think he is a very good coach as I have stated before. I think he doesn't play zone because he doesn't believe in it. Pure and simple, he's a Knight disciple. Hard to install something you don't believe in and I don't think at this point, he ever will. As a result, it seems to be fruitless to even discuss it. BTW, with those bothered by my moniker, it has more to do with my real name than it does the defense.

 

[tjreese]

You would be correct!
You do bring up a good point. Since your name was mentioned first, you are required to speak for the rest of us and reply to all of his posts.
So you got that goin' for you.......which is nice.

Whoa...I just tried to ease your pain not become the sacrificial lamb!

 

[tjreese]

That would be interesting and make for a good discussion, hoping others keep their need to call people out under control. Fortunately, I have not been involved in the "zone" discussions on here before. But I have read them and mostly they are bullshit waiting for a place to land. Many on here claim to have played or coached basketball, from what I have read to this point, I would guess that only a handful have done either. As to Matt, I think he is a very good coach as I have stated before. I think he doesn't play zone because he doesn't believe in it. Pure and simple, he's a Knight disciple. Hard to install something you don't believe in and I don't think at this point, he ever will. As a result, it seems to be fruitless to even discuss it. BTW, with those bothered by my moniker, it has more to do with my real name than it does the defense.

Ya know, if Matt down the road plays some zone or match-up..I have no issues at all. He is much better equiped to know what he has than we,but you're right.. he is a Keady/Knight lean in approach. I don't think he leans Keady or Knight...because of Keady or Knight, but that he holds the same understandings as they due to weaknesses.

I'm a little older and remember when zones were THE defense in high school and many teams in college playing zone as well. When the basket was two points no matter how close you shot...why not really pack it in? Anyway, agreeing to disagree with Matt is at least a mature stance, but saying the guy is too stubborn ...just for the sake of being stubborn is not very bright. That said, Matt tried zone a few years ago and we all know that once we cross a milestone...it is always easier to cross the next time...and so who knows with the rule changes and such teh potential recruit down the road at what Purdue does...but they are the "contrarian" in today's dribble drive offense...

Ya know..one base rule years ago was when defending a screen away from the ball was to slide underneath...and rarely ever needed to go over the top...before the three ball...

 

[StickPurdue]

I don't necessarily regret mentioned zone early in the thread, but I was hesitant. I knew it was a possibility it would get hi-jacked into a zone thread. The thread kind of derailed. It was supposed to be about Wheeler and his athleticism and the excitement of bringing in more elite athletes and trying to turn them into elite basketball players. If wheeler can add 15-20 pounds before the season, he has a shot at some decent minutes. Decent shooter for his size and he is a shot blocker. His length and athleticism allows him to guard multiple positions. Which is perfect when you have to switch. Cline was awful when he had to switch and seemed lost at times. I would be very shocked if his minutes don't drop off. Three athletes are coming in. If they can figure out the defense and fit in on offense, Painter will definitely make room. Everybody just kind of figured it will be Eastern taking huge minutes, but you can't teach length and athleticism and Wheeler has loads of both. I am very glad Painter swooped in and picked him up late. I think by the end of the year, you would be hard pressed to name 70 freshman better than him (let's hope anyway).

 

[Boilerkid18]

Next season Purdue will add Eastern, Wheeler, and Ewing, plus Jacquil Taylor will be back. If Painter would learn from one of the coaches mentioned above and practice at least one of those defenses with his '17-'18 roster, you'll have some explaining to do, boilerkid18.

As I stated above, I said "current roster". 2017-2018 could offer a better roster athletically to have better D personnel for a zone.
BUT you have:

Aaron Wheeler:who has great leap and athletic ability, but lacks college-level strength to play night in and night out in a physical Big Ten. Wheeler was never known for his outstanding defensive ability. Freshman usually struggle on D their first year.

Nojel Eastern: our highest rated incoming recruit and a do-it-all point guard who can potentially play positions 1-3 (6'7 height in shoes). Has a big ten ready body but may lose a couple mins of playing time due to free throw shooting. (Still shoots multiple shooting motions at the free throw line right?)

Eden Ewing from a Juco who has shown his physicality at a lower level of competition, but has not played against players of his 'caliber' or proven he will even get solid minutes on next years team assuming J. Taylor is healthy.
(If he's not we could potentially see Vince Edwards lead the team in minutes and switch between the 3 & 4 for about 34 mins a game.)

Matt Haarms: a (partial) redshirt freshman who has good athleticism for his size (7'2 & apparently up to 230 in weight) and good quickness but is lanky and has not proven himself against high end competition in high school, or played against quicker athletic players of college in the paint and on the perimeter. Will he be able to play with the big boys? or is he still a work in progress to grow into a future impact player that lives up to the potential we all see In him?

Sasha Stefanovic: Indiana All-Star most seem to compare to Dakota Mathias with maybe a bit more athleticism. Basically a lock for a redshirt unless he turns into A junior year Dakota Mathias over the summer.

This 2017 class presents positive potential for a zone...

IN THE FUTURE.

Let alone Painter being able to teach another defense when the team STILL lacks enough athletes for an effective zone. Dakota, PJ, Cline, Vince, and Haas will never be able to execute an effective zone against athletic teams. Cupcake games? Of course. But sweet sixteen against Kansas? Fogetta Bout it. Those 5 will be playing a bulk of the minutes and you need a full starting 5 of athletic players to play a great zone defense. Look at Syracuse. They have a bunch of players between 6'4 and 6'10 with WAY more athletic ability, with a coach who is most known for his zone D and his team ranked 140th in scoring defense this past year.
I personally don't see using a zone as beneficial unless maybe a possession or two every now and then to throw an opponent off. We have seen Painter try this and get dominated in short stretches. I don't see zone as a logical possibility until the 2018-2019 season.
If I am wrong then...

 

[Wolegib]

this is my only comment on the zone , and then I'll run and complain about something else. I believe every basketball team should be able, talented and knowledgeable enough to run a zone and it should be in their play book, and practiced and used when/if warranted.

as this thread is about Wheeler, my hope is he is utilized at SF. and my hope is V Edwards remains at SF and is not shifted back to PF just to give our backcourt players more minutes. But as I look at our team and it's players, I believe a lot will change between now and the opening tip-off.

I don't understand the lack of love for Eastern. if his name was McCoy, or JJJ or Tilmon, most people here would project him as an immediate starter. Your national recruiting experts say he is almost at their same level, and is a lot higher rated than C Edwards was. Admittedly, rankings are not everything, but the guys who make their rakings are not just fans off the street. they usually have seen the player play and know a lot more than the typical poster knows. Eastern may not be a PF, but he does have talent. And I believe Painter will find a way to give him at least 20 minutes a game. and to do so, that time is going to come from somebody not named Taylor or Haas.

I mention this because Eastern could easily be given some playing time at SF in addition to PG and SG. As I look at Eastern, I also look at Painter's 2018 recruiting targets. The most likely ones are guards. With a projected backcourt of Eastern and Edwards in 2018, why would Painter's main recruiting targets be more guards? Unless, Painter sees Eastern as a SF. and that would shift Wheeler to PF in 2018.

it would be a much smaller line-up than we're used to seeing. And in reference to TC for three's post, there were many here besides me predicting that C Edwards would start over PJ next year. if true, PJ's mins will decrease. And Eastern's mins are going to come from somebody.

I believe the end result will be a bigger rotation of players next year as many are interchangeable, and all players not named Haas will end up seeing slightly reduced mins as Painter tries to find minutes for everybody including Eastern and Wheeler.

Maybe with an eye to the future, Wheeler will play a lot of PF instead of SF. I'd personally rather see him play SF. but with an eye to the future, and the talent we currently have, maybe he'll carve out a niche at PF.

 

[BoilerBiker]

Villanova
Butler
Xavier
Gonzaga
Wichita st

if recruiting is near the top of the list in importance, how are these schools getting that much better players (and better/deeper tourney results) than purdue in the last 10-15 years?

and two of them have maintained it under multiple coaches

 

[tjreese]

I don't necessarily regret mentioned zone early in the thread, but I was hesitant. I knew it was a possibility it would get hi-jacked into a zone thread. The thread kind of derailed. It was supposed to be about Wheeler and his athleticism and the excitement of bringing in more elite athletes and trying to turn them into elite basketball players. If wheeler can add 15-20 pounds before the season, he has a shot at some decent minutes. Decent shooter for his size and he is a shot blocker. His length and athleticism allows him to guard multiple positions. Which is perfect when you have to switch. Cline was awful when he had to switch and seemed lost at times. I would be very shocked if his minutes don't drop off. Three athletes are coming in. If they can figure out the defense and fit in on offense, Painter will definitely make room. Everybody just kind of figured it will be Eastern taking huge minutes, but you can't teach length and athleticism and Wheeler has loads of both. I am very glad Painter swooped in and picked him up late. I think by the end of the year, you would be hard pressed to name 70 freshman better than him (let's hope anyway).

I think all indications are that he will be better than 70, but Eastern provides a LOT of things Purdue may not have...Wheeler a thinner, more athletic player than vince that may not pass as well or dribble as well since I never saw those things in a video...

 

[sturgill33]

Could anyone see him starting? OR getting 20+ minutes next year?

I have only seen the one game, but me like the length and athletic ability. If he is willing to play D, and can do that well(key) because of his length and athletic ability -- I could see it.

The more I watch, the more excited I get on Wheeler. We can all agree that the problem of how to split minutes is a great problem to have...more depth. Think he will get plenty of minutes though considering there is no one else on the roster like him, Painter just needs to be patient/open minded because AW playing style isn't something he's use to coaching.

 

[Boiler Buck]

The more I watch, the more excited I get on Wheeler. We can all agree that the problem of how to split minutes is a great problem to have...more depth. Think he will get plenty of minutes though considering there is no one else on the roster like him, Painter just needs to be patient/open minded because AW playing style isn't something he's use to coaching.

Bold -- very important and expected out of a mature coach.....

@ least in preseason, these new guys, who don't RS, all get plenty of PT so they get a feel for playing @ Purdue, and more importantly, that they will feel part of the team, stay happy, and not be wanting to transfer @ the end of 2017-18. Sometimes things don't work out, even bluebloods like Duke & KS have transfers.....but I hope they are minimized as many of these guys seem like futuristic guys who will be a whole lot better as sophomores and beyond, than they might as frosh on the super experienced team next year.

 

[tjreese]

The more I watch, the more excited I get on Wheeler. We can all agree that the problem of how to split minutes is a great problem to have...more depth. Think he will get plenty of minutes though considering there is no one else on the roster like him, Painter just needs to be patient/open minded because AW playing style isn't something he's use to coaching.

What little I've seen his playing style AND shot selection it is much closer than Carsen's and he gave a lot of rope to Carsen...don't think it will be a problem...still a team game and player will need to conform to the team needs more than an individual.