Wow, what a poor loss

[Dryfly88]

In this thread you have been talking about why we didn't zone in the Minny game. That's why I got the idea you were suggesting using it without practicing it. We haven't used it this year, Painter is not a zone guy so I'm fairly certain we have not practiced it all season. I don't know any other way to take that. You thought we should have zoned but we haven't practiced it.

This statement "The fallacy is somehow thinking that guys can't be taught or able to play a zone but they can play MTM." is not what I said. Of course they can be taught to play a zone, all of them probably played zone in H.S. (which is wrong imo). My point has consistently been the physical makeup of our players and our team is not conducive to playing an effective zone against a quicker, more athletic team.

For many years Painter had our perimeter defenders pressure the ball. We used to get beat by dribble penetration all the time, much more than we do now. He has changed that. I'm not sure what a sagging MTM is but what we play is a help oriented MTM. The farther away from the ball your man is, the farther away from him you are. As the ball gets closer, you get closer to your man.. The idea is that when dribble penetration happens, you are in position to rotate and help. Someone rotates to take your man and the rest of the team does the same. Coaches have their own ideas about the rotation principles but if the players understand them and practice them it can be a very effective defense.
Zone is very different. When penetration occurs, you are at a certain spot on the floor. If you leave too early to help, your area is wide open for a jumpshot, probably a three. If you're too late, the driver is already past you. Now we're asking one of our bigs to defend the man with the ball at the rim.....which can lead to fouls on the payers we can least afford to lose. Simply put, our MTM is much better suited to help with dribble penetration than a zone....with our players.

It's funny to me how sometimes events in a game we lost can take on a life of there own when repeated enough. I actually went to the ESPN play by play of the Minny game. It's not a perfect tool I grant you. But according to it, Mason had three layups in regulation. He had another in OT when Minny was pulling away. 3. One might think after reading all these posts about the game that he had 10. I don't recall all this talk about stopping dribble penetration when we played Villanova, although Hart got a few, probably be player of the year. Auburn was quicker. Louisville was quicker. But when we have a game like this people want to pull out games from the past and act like it's a trend. Hell I saw someone mention VCU the other day......Painter was 50 lbs lighter then.

Point is just because the defense didn't play well the other night doesn't mean we have to change what we do. Most of the time it's about execution, they did what they wanted to do better than we did. Not blaming the players, Painter made plenty of mistakes.

You want to know why we weren't prepared with multiple defenses? We are a MTM team, just like the vast majority of college teams. When we execute it well we usually win, when we don't and a player has a career night, we will probably lose.

Obviously we aren't going to agree on this so I'll just make a couple points from your post and then I'll drop it.

1. The number of layups that you give up doesn't reflect all of the damage that dribble penetration causes. I know that is the only measure that the play by play is going to give so I'm not knocking you about that, just pointing out that the measure doesn't tell the whole story.

2. The fact that we weren't prepared for anything other than our standard MTM is really the heart of the argument. I have said several times that I know we aren't going to see a zone of any kind this season. My point of the whole discussion has been to point out it would be good if we were prepared for that.

3. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that we don't still pressure the ball? PJ was right up on the ball handler 23 feet from the basket. Time after time he was beat off the dribble. That is where we were earlier discussing "sagging" off some and not be so close to the ball handler. That was where the sagging MTM reference came from.

I support the team and CMP with my attendance at Mackey and JPC. I'm not one to go negative very often. This has been an issue with me for many years and I finally weighed in on it here. This wasn't/isn't just a MN game thing for me. I'm not a big Jay Bilas fan, but he does say one thing often that I like "Reasonable minds can disagree". I think that applies here. I hope we bounce back and take care of business tomorrow.

 

[BuilderBob6]

bob, I appreciate you providing the precise numbers of things I stated and to continue to attempt to explain some of the whys. I hope you are more effective than I have been.

I thought yours was pretty good. I learned a few things from it.
I'm not trying to belittle anybody, don't mean it that way. But when people that really don't understand the game try to give easy answers to problems it gets frustrating.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Obviously we aren't going to agree on this so I'll just make a couple points from your post and then I'll drop it.

1. The number of layups that you give up doesn't reflect all of the damage that dribble penetration causes. I know that is the only measure that the play by play is going to give so I'm not knocking you about that, just pointing out that the measure doesn't tell the whole story.

2. The fact that we weren't prepared for anything other than our standard MTM is really the heart of the argument. I have said several times that I know we aren't going to see a zone of any kind this season. My point of the whole discussion has been to point out it would be good if we were prepared for that.

3. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that we don't still pressure the ball? PJ was right up on the ball handler 23 feet from the basket. Time after time he was beat off the dribble. That is where we were earlier discussing "sagging" off some and not be so close to the ball handler. That was where the sagging MTM reference came from.

I support the team and CMP with my attendance at Mackey and JPC. I'm not one to go negative very often. This has been an issue with me for many years and I finally weighed in on it here. This wasn't/isn't just a MN game thing for me. I'm not a big Jay Bilas fan, but he does say one thing often that I like "Reasonable minds can disagree". I think that applies here. I hope we bounce back and take care of business tomorrow.

It's all good. Sounds to me like you're a great supporter of Purdue sports and we need more like you.

 

[Dryfly88]

I thought yours was pretty good. I learned a few things from it.
I'm not trying to belittle anybody, don't mean it that way. But when people that really don't understand the game try to give easy answers to problems it gets frustrating.

Would you clarify exactly who you are talking about with this statement? I'm willing to let this thread die and agree to disagree but not until I'm clear who you are talking about.

 

[PUBV]

I thought yours was pretty good. I learned a few things from it.
I'm not trying to belittle anybody, don't mean it that way. But when people that really don't understand the game try to give easy answers to problems it gets frustrating.

I don't think anyone thinks there's an easy answer to the problem. I think what dryfly & I are trying to suggest is why not have another weapon in your arsenal? I've been a Purdue fan since before I arrived on campus with Gene. I've always supported him, coach Painter, and the team. But facts are facts. Since 1980, we've won out regular season games at a .650 clip, but are 27-27 in the NCAA tourney peaking with 2 elite 8 appearances, the last being 16 yrs ago. And what has become almost a badge of honor to some, is our exclusive use of an aggressive MTM D. When we get to the tourney, we face more quick & athletic teams and they know what single D we will throw at them for the entire game. Is this the only reason we lose, of course not. But if your not willing to adapt, I fear you are doomed to repeat past failures. I hope we have a long tourney run in us. My fear is we will all be shaking our heads after a 1st or 2nd round exit lamenting how can you believe how such & such just went off on us or they just shot lights out on us.

 

[BuilderBob6]

Would you clarify exactly who you are talking about with this statement? I'm willing to let this thread die and agree to disagree but not until I'm clear who you are talking about.

I don't want to do this. You're feeling disrespected and I don't want to do that anymore, not why I come to this board. You're a passionate Purdue fan and that's a good thing. Boiler up.

 

[tjreese]

I don't think anyone thinks there's an easy answer to the problem. I think what dryfly & I are trying to suggest is why not have another weapon in your arsenal? I've been a Purdue fan since before I arrived on campus with Gene. I've always supported him, coach Painter, and the team. But facts are facts. Since 1980, we've won out regular season games at a .650 clip, but are 27-27 in the NCAA tourney peaking with 2 elite 8 appearances, the last being 16 yrs ago. And what has become almost a badge of honor to some, is our exclusive use of an aggressive MTM D. When we get to the tourney, we face more quick & athletic teams and they know what single D we will throw at them for the entire game. Is this the only reason we lose, of course not. But if your not willing to adapt, I fear you are doomed to repeat past failures. I hope we have a long tourney run in us. My fear is we will all be shaking our heads after a 1st or 2nd round exit lamenting how can you believe how such & such just went off on us or they just shot lights out on us.

Fully understand your concern. I do think that coaching, like teaching, is more of an art than a science. Obviously, there are basic understandings available to all and yet we all know some coaches are more successful than others. I think there is a “feel” for the game…momentum shifts…slowly chipping away at a team, a feel for chemistry a lot of things that are not necessarily defined by data. I think it is possible that a zone for reasons not able to be explained may work at times…like timely time outs that did nothing other than provide a temporary stop for a team to regain consciousness. You also know that the history of some of Gene’s teams that were good that ended up playing on other team’s floor and such. I’m sure you are also aware that the teams that beat Gene’s teams typically played man, except the one year Chaney at Temple beat Purdue and in that game was it due to Purdue’s offense against Temple’s zone or the Twin Towers of Temple bullying around the Purdue team. What would be an interesting stat is the number of teams that played zone more than a couple of possessions that made up percent of the games and how that number did in comparison to the same data with a man defense. If 80% of the teams played man, then 20% of the teams that won ended up winning 50% of the potential games by beating so many man teams then we would have sometime. However, when most teams play man…man will be the defense of the losing team…as well as the winning team.

Do we really think that teams that continue to play man do not adapt? Do we think that a ball screen is something new and adapted leaving behind all those teams that never knew it existed? Same with off ball screens. Teams are adapting all the time to rule changes and talent levels. There is nothing new under the sun. Years ago cross court passes were a no-no. Today with better athletes it is common to shift over a zone and screen “in” that zone player and make a skip pass to a wide open player. Coaches share things all the time. Teams that do well in the tourney outside of timing and match ups either have superior talent or excellent execution. Although I do not think the zone is as flexible to “adapting” to opposing players as man, I have no doubt in my mind that a team could play zone 100% and throw in some traps out of the zone and win big. Basketball is a game of execution and if a team executes better in a zone, press, trap, man and so forth that team will win. I’m guessing you remember Matt saying to hell with it, Purdue is going to incorporate a zone defense a couple of years ago. It was only when he switched to man that Purdue started playing better and finished strong. Part was due to playing man, part due to Matt’s better understanding of man and some still maybe due to personnel. The point is Matt tried it and so he is trying to adapt if it makes Purdue better. So the issue is not Matt needing to try to adapt…the issue appears to be that Matt is not trying to adapt the way some forum members think he should adapt. Now in fairness, I think Purdue’s 2-3 was pretty poor for a zone and the Purdue team could have played a zone better, but that is my opinion. Lastly, if a team has a player that goes lights out (UALR) on the perimeter…do we think a zone would do a better job of covering the perimeter…ignoring any potential weaknesses inherent in the zone. I’m a little older that you and fully understand your frustration. Personally, I think Purdue needs better athletic talent knocking on the door every year to bust through every so often more than a change of strategy or application of a different offense and defense…but that is just me and I know others have different opinions.

 

[tjreese]

I do want to do this. You're feeling disrespected and I don't want to do that anymore, not why I come to this board. You're a passionate Purdue fan and that's a good thing. Boiler up.

same with me...I have no desire to cause any problems. Sometimes it is hard to express yourself with the limited time to post and not be disrespectful.

 

[Kesselschmiede]

same with me...I have no desire to cause any problems. Sometimes it is hard to express yourself with the limited time to post and not be disrespectful.

I tried for the longest time on here to do just that. But the vocal minority make it nearly impossible so I gave up.

 

[PUBV]

Fully understand your concern. I do think that coaching, like teaching, is more of an art than a science. Obviously, there are basic understandings available to all and yet we all know some coaches are more successful than others. I think there is a “feel” for the game…momentum shifts…slowly chipping away at a team, a feel for chemistry a lot of things that are not necessarily defined by data. I think it is possible that a zone for reasons not able to be explained may work at times…like timely time outs that did nothing other than provide a temporary stop for a team to regain consciousness. You also know that the history of some of Gene’s teams that were good that ended up playing on other team’s floor and such. I’m sure you are also aware that the teams that beat Gene’s teams typically played man, except the one year Chaney at Temple beat Purdue and in that game was it due to Purdue’s offense against Temple’s zone or the Twin Towers of Temple bullying around the Purdue team. What would be an interesting stat is the number of teams that played zone more than a couple of possessions that made up percent of the games and how that number did in comparison to the same data with a man defense. If 80% of the teams played man, then 20% of the teams that won ended up winning 50% of the potential games by beating so many man teams then we would have sometime. However, when most teams play man…man will be the defense of the losing team…as well as the winning team.

Do we really think that teams that continue to play man do not adapt? Do we think that a ball screen is something new and adapted leaving behind all those teams that never knew it existed? Same with off ball screens. Teams are adapting all the time to rule changes and talent levels. There is nothing new under the sun. Years ago cross court passes were a no-no. Today with better athletes it is common to shift over a zone and screen “in” that zone player and make a skip pass to a wide open player. Coaches share things all the time. Teams that do well in the tourney outside of timing and match ups either have superior talent or excellent execution. Although I do not think the zone is as flexible to “adapting” to opposing players as man, I have no doubt in my mind that a team could play zone 100% and throw in some traps out of the zone and win big. Basketball is a game of execution and if a team executes better in a zone, press, trap, man and so forth that team will win. I’m guessing you remember Matt saying to hell with it, Purdue is going to incorporate a zone defense a couple of years ago. It was only when he switched to man that Purdue started playing better and finished strong. Part was due to playing man, part due to Matt’s better understanding of man and some still maybe due to personnel. The point is Matt tried it and so he is trying to adapt if it makes Purdue better. So the issue is not Matt needing to try to adapt…the issue appears to be that Matt is not trying to adapt the way some forum members think he should adapt. Now in fairness, I think Purdue’s 2-3 was pretty poor for a zone and the Purdue team could have played a zone better, but that is my opinion. Lastly, if a team has a player that goes lights out (UALR) on the perimeter…do we think a zone would do a better job of covering the perimeter…ignoring any potential weaknesses inherent in the zone. I’m a little older that you and fully understand your frustration. Personally, I think Purdue needs better athletic talent knocking on the door every year to bust through every so often more than a change of strategy or application of a different offense and defense…but that is just me and I know others have different opinions.

I appreciate your reply just disagree with some things. I think your statistical analysis is just stating the obvious. But the fact that we never and haven't for the past 30 years employed the myriad of different defenses out there does show a resistance to adapting. I also never subscribed to the many tourney loss excuses during Gene's time, especially after we pissed down our leg in Indy against a team we thrashed during the regular season because a player went off against us. Of course I would like to outrecruit everybody, but that is what it is. I guess agree to disagree, just think having more than 1 bullet in the pistol would make us more dangerous

 

[Dryfly88]

same with me...I have no desire to cause any problems. Sometimes it is hard to express yourself with the limited time to post and not be disrespectful.

It's not hard at all. We choose if we are going to be disrespectful or not. You can easily have a discussion on here or even a disagreement and not be disrespectful.

We all know the trolls that come on here with their new account and a handful of posts. I'm not talking about those people, they are clearly looking for trouble and deserve whatever crap they get back. But among the people that post here regularly there is no reason for the condescending/disrespectful attitude. You and I can disagree all day about a topic but it doesn't mean that one of us "doesn't know anything about the game", or "need to educate themselves about the game" or the old stand by "that's why you're on here instead of coaching". That's just being lazy and instead of arguing the merits of your point taking a cheap shot.

I like to have discussions and even arguments on here but at the end of the day I realize I could be wrong on any topic including the one in this thread. The difference is I don't think it's necessary to question their knowledge of the game simply because we disagree about one facet of it.

I'd bet that if you, BB6 and I sat together at Mackey we'd have a blast talking hoops and find we have a lot more we agree on than disagree.

 

[nagemj02]

In some ways, I think that the Gene Keady era was the beginning of something that has an effect on the program and on its long-time fans to this day. He believed that his teams could win it all by only playing certain ways and neglecting or naysaying the other strategic possibilities. An effect of that is that many long-time Purdue fans have that same attitude regarding the program's style of play under him and Painter.

Lee Rose inherited Fred Schaus' players but he still guided his two Purdue teams to an NIT Finals Runner-Up and NCAA Final Four appearance in two seasons. Purdue lost JBC, Hallman, and Steven Walker off of that Final Four team but still returned Brian Walker, Keith Edmonson, Drake Morris, Mike "Scooby" Scearce, Kevin Stallings, and added a McDonald's AA in Russell Cross, plus Ricky Hall and Greg Eifert in '80-'81. If Rose had stayed, I believe that both the '80-'81 and '81-'82 teams would have made the NCAA Tournament instead of the NIT Semi-Finals and NIT Finals Runner-Up finishes they had under Keady. Keady was a motivator and a fighter but an inferior tactician compared to the coaching greats and maybe even to a Lee Rose. We see a lot of the inferior (or lack of) tactics with Painter's handling of his teams as well.

 

[tjreese]

I appreciate your reply just disagree with some things. I think your statistical analysis is just stating the obvious. But the fact that we never and haven't for the past 30 years employed the myriad of different defenses out there does show a resistance to adapting. I also never subscribed to the many tourney loss excuses during Gene's time, especially after we pissed down our leg in Indy against a team we thrashed during the regular season because a player went off against us. Of course I would like to outrecruit everybody, but that is what it is. I guess agree to disagree, just think having more than 1 bullet in the pistol would make us more dangerous

Now, I'm sure that if you had your choice to drive your car on tires filled with air rather than using a solid tire...you would. You would continue to drive that car on tires filled with air even though the tire could go flat and a solid tire wouldn't. Some might say if you would try the solid tire you would get used to the rougher ride and wouldn't need to worry about a flat. However, you never went to the solid tire...NOT because you wouldn't adapt, but because you thought it was inferior and no reason to do what you consider inferior. That is the same case with Matt and man defense. It is not that he will not adapt. It is not that he will not try new things. It is that he considers it inferior. THAT is the point I have tried to make, but because people think differently about the zone than others, they don't see Matt as being in error in their minds due to judgement, but being stubborn and not adapting and I don't think that makes much sense. It makes much more sense to say Matt believes primarily (he did try zone for a while) that man defense is the better defense and that you and some others think he is wrong rather than saying he is stubborn or not willing to adapt. He just thinks it is an inferior defense and it is as simple as that.

You did raise an interest in what team you were referencing. Texas had three players that I think were drafted, but we never played them in the season. Wisconsin, I thought had beat Purdue twice before or at least once before in the season. Kansas State and I can't remember where they beat us played a match-up zone against Purdue in the Mackey where Keady just ran Flex against it (beat them about 24 or so) and switched to man later in the year when they beat Purdue with Mitch Richmond banking a basket at the top of the key. What game did I miss? BTW, I have seen about 2 or 3 teams run the flex cut this year in the Big...not the offense, but the cut. This offense has not been that popular for two decades.

Playing man defense offers many more bullets than a zone in your gun example. What you really want is a different gun rather than more bullets it seems to me.

 

[tjreese]

It's not hard at all. We choose if we are going to be disrespectful or not. You can easily have a discussion on here or even a disagreement and not be disrespectful.

We all know the trolls that come on here with their new account and a handful of posts. I'm not talking about those people, they are clearly looking for trouble and deserve whatever crap they get back. But among the people that post here regularly there is no reason for the condescending/disrespectful attitude. You and I can disagree all day about a topic but it doesn't mean that one of us "doesn't know anything about the game", or "need to educate themselves about the game" or the old stand by "that's why you're on here instead of coaching". That's just being lazy and instead of arguing the merits of your point taking a cheap shot.

I like to have discussions and even arguments on here but at the end of the day I realize I could be wrong on any topic including the one in this thread. The difference is I don't think it's necessary to question their knowledge of the game simply because we disagree about one facet of it.

I'd bet that if you, BB6 and I sat together at Mackey we'd have a blast talking hoops and find we have a lot more we agree on than disagree.

I have no doubt that I could sit with a lot of posters and discuss basketball in person adn have a blast. The Internet makes it more difficult to place things in context sometimes. FWIW, just to give an indication I'm not disgusted with zones per se...teh following are ones I have taught..or at least tried concerning presses and traps 1-2-1-1 full, 1-2-1-1 3/4, 1-2-1-1 half, 1-2-2 3/4, 1-2-2 half, 2-2-1 3/4, 1-3-1 half and toyed with a 1-1-3. Pure zones were 1-3-1, 1-2-2 adn 2-3...and Man. I believe in zone presses over man presses since I think they are superior unless it is all about depth of your team and fatigue of the other team and then man presses find a place. I personally believe in mixing defenses up through high school and not so much in college. So, I am not anti zone...I just think man offers soooooo much more flexibility and is adaptable to all situations. I have stated things concerning zones and nobody has debated them. Instead most people wanting to see a zone just want to see it and cannot support it other than to say we need to do it some... just to provide variety. THAT doesn't make them wrong if they cannot support it...I know that. It does not let you know however where the disconnect with you and they lie. FWIW, when that ball goes up ...the game many times takes on a life of its own. Don't worry Dryfly...I would love to meet you and any poster on this or the other forums I'm on. I've been through too much to have a disagreement on a zone place a wedge between me and another person...

 

[New Pal Boiler]

I have no doubt that I could sit with a lot of posters and discuss basketball in person adn have a blast. The Internet makes it more difficult to place things in context sometimes. FWIW, just to give an indication I'm not disgusted with zones per se...teh following are ones I have taught..or at least tried concerning presses and traps 1-2-1-1 full, 1-2-1-1 3/4, 1-2-1-1 half, 1-2-2 3/4, 1-2-2 half, 2-2-1 3/4, 1-3-1 half and toyed with a 1-1-3. Pure zones were 1-3-1, 1-2-2 adn 2-3...and Man. I believe in zone presses over man presses since I think they are superior unless it is all about depth of your team and fatigue of the other team and then man presses find a place. I personally believe in mixing defenses up through high school and not so much in college. So, I am not anti zone...I just think man offers soooooo much more flexibility and is adaptable to all situations. I have stated things concerning zones and nobody has debated them. Instead most people wanting to see a zone just want to see it and cannot support it other than to say we need to do it some... just to provide variety. THAT doesn't make them wrong if they cannot support it...I know that. It does not let you know however where the disconnect with you and they lie. FWIW, when that ball goes up ...the game many times takes on a life of its own. Don't worry Dryfly...I would love to meet you and any poster on this or the other forums I'm on. I've been through too much to have a disagreement on a zone place a wedge between me and another person...

Seems to me the great defensive coaches, like a Belichick, come up with a unique game plan for each opponent to take away, or at least contain, your best weapon. I guess I would just like to see some more creativity from a program that prides itself on great defense.

 

[tjreese]

Seems to me the great defensive coaches, like a Belichick, come up with a unique game plan for each opponent to take away, or at least contain, your best weapon. I guess I would just like to see some more creativity from a program that prides itself on great defense.

I think zone people get creative in shifting the zone and modifying it to the particular players on a particular team, but stay within their zone. Man people do the same thing by modifying the rules for different players, but stay within the man D. People that can't make up their mind whether to make the court a priority or the player a priority just split the difference and play both man and zone by using a junk defense such as box and 1, diamond and 1, triangle and two...or sometimes just a floater inside or one man zone. I've often thought about some unique crazy defense, but my mind would wander. Somewhere I think there is a zone D to be developed based upon time to cover distance over the entire court with the short clock that may have a different alignment, but pressures enough to use clock as a key element. Obviously similar sized players would be best for that D and would need to be athletes. However, I'm not too sure that some hybrid couldn't be created that wouldn't work before, but might with the short clock. Were you aware that Bill Green developed his match-up zone by watching a rover in the Purdue defensive backfield back in the 60s. Perhaps we will see something more creative down the road?

 

[PUBV]

Now, I'm sure that if you had your choice to drive your car on tires filled with air rather than using a solid tire...you would. You would continue to drive that car on tires filled with air even though the tire could go flat and a solid tire wouldn't. Some might say if you would try the solid tire you would get used to the rougher ride and wouldn't need to worry about a flat. However, you never went to the solid tire...NOT because you wouldn't adapt, but because you thought it was inferior and no reason to do what you consider inferior. That is the same case with Matt and man defense. It is not that he will not adapt. It is not that he will not try new things. It is that he considers it inferior. THAT is the point I have tried to make, but because people think differently about the zone than others, they don't see Matt as being in error in their minds due to judgement, but being stubborn and not adapting and I don't think that makes much sense. It makes much more sense to say Matt believes primarily (he did try zone for a while) that man defense is the better defense and that you and some others think he is wrong rather than saying he is stubborn or not willing to adapt. He just thinks it is an inferior defense and it is as simple as that.

You did raise an interest in what team you were referencing. Texas had three players that I think were drafted, but we never played them in the season. Wisconsin, I thought had beat Purdue twice before or at least once before in the season. Kansas State and I can't remember where they beat us played a match-up zone against Purdue in the Mackey where Keady just ran Flex against it (beat them about 24 or so) and switched to man later in the year when they beat Purdue with Mitch Richmond banking a basket at the top of the key. What game did I miss? BTW, I have seen about 2 or 3 teams run the flex cut this year in the Big...not the offense, but the cut. This offense has not been that popular for two decades.

Playing man defense offers many more bullets than a zone in your gun example. What you really want is a different gun rather than more bullets it seems to me.

Now, I'm sure that if you had your choice to drive your car on tires filled with air rather than using a solid tire...you would. You would continue to drive that car on tires filled with air even though the tire could go flat and a solid tire wouldn't. Some might say if you would try the solid tire you would get used to the rougher ride and wouldn't need to worry about a flat. However, you never went to the solid tire...NOT because you wouldn't adapt, but because you thought it was inferior and no reason to do what you consider inferior. That is the same case with Matt and man defense. It is not that he will not adapt. It is not that he will not try new things. It is that he considers it inferior. THAT is the point I have tried to make, but because people think differently about the zone than others, they don't see Matt as being in error in their minds due to judgement, but being stubborn and not adapting and I don't think that makes much sense. It makes much more sense to say Matt believes primarily (he did try zone for a while) that man defense is the better defense and that you and some others think he is wrong rather than saying he is stubborn or not willing to adapt. He just thinks it is an inferior defense and it is as simple as that.

You did raise an interest in what team you were referencing. Texas had three players that I think were drafted, but we never played them in the season. Wisconsin, I thought had beat Purdue twice before or at least once before in the season. Kansas State and I can't remember where they beat us played a match-up zone against Purdue in the Mackey where Keady just ran Flex against it (beat them about 24 or so) and switched to man later in the year when they beat Purdue with Mitch Richmond banking a basket at the top of the key. What game did I miss? BTW, I have seen about 2 or 3 teams run the flex cut this year in the Big...not the offense, but the cut. This offense has not been that popular for two decades.

Playing man defense offers many more bullets than a zone in your gun example. What you really want is a different gun rather than more bullets it seems to me.

Okay, I'm not sure if you think I want us to play zone all the time, but I don't. Just sprinkle in a little variety once in a while to disrupt another teams rythmn.
Why can't we trot out a little trap against one of the tomato cans we play preconference? Maybe an opposing coach might see this and think wow, maybe I can't beat their D with just a high screen or pick and roll. Play a little zone against Winkwonk State, and give it a SERIOUS chance?
Anywho, here's hoping for a good effort tonight, and a good season. On a side note, if you still are coaching, please don't use that tire analogy on the kids. You'll bore them to goddamn tears!

 

[BoilerBiker]

many here say we need more athleticism, quickness, etc to try zone.

before the season started, I also read about Colorado planning to try zone - as their coach was strictly man to man.
they were losing several big men and planned on playing smaller/quicker/athletic lineups.

isn't that almost the opposite of our big man roster/lineup and reasoning when painter tried to implement that at the beginning of the 14-15 season (with haas and taylor arriving) ?

 

[Kesselschmiede]

many here say we need more athleticism, quickness, etc to try zone.

before the season started, I also read about Colorado planning to try zone - as their coach was strictly man to man.
they were losing several big men and planned on playing smaller/quicker/athletic lineups.

isn't that almost the opposite of our big man roster/lineup and reasoning when painter tried to implement that at the beginning of the 14-15 season (with haas and taylor arriving) ?

Yes. People calling for any zone simply do not know what they are talking about.

 

[tjreese]

Okay, I'm not sure if you think I want us to play zone all the time, but I don't. Just sprinkle in a little variety once in a while to disrupt another teams rythmn.
Why can't we trot out a little trap against one of the tomato cans we play preconference? Maybe an opposing coach might see this and think wow, maybe I can't beat their D with just a high screen or pick and roll. Play a little zone against Winkwonk State, and give it a SERIOUS chance?
Anywho, here's hoping for a good effort tonight, and a good season. On a side note, if you still are coaching, please don't use that tire analogy on the kids. You'll bore them to goddamn tears!

There is NO coach that thinks they can beat Purdue with a high ball screen or pick and roll. They may have that in their offense and think it would be effective, but they will have other offensive concerns and many defensive ones as well. Haven't been involved for a few decades, but enjoy the boredom comment.

 

[tjreese]

Yes. People calling for any zone simply do not know what they are talking about.

*************
What needs to happen is for Haas to start shooting 3s. He has the physical height to get the shot off from out there. Many teams across the country are not only running dribble drive offenses, but more pick and pops and bigs stroking it from the three point line. Haas knocking them down from out there opens it up for more drives, quick posts for others and such. Can you imagine the teams having to prepare not only for Haas down low, but out high as well? Matt has been too stubborn to adapt to the way bigs play today. Haas doesn’t need to do it all game, but a few times a game makes it so teams have to prepare for his three ball and not just know that he is going down low all the time. Course now is not the ideal time as he should have been preparing Haas in preseason for the three ball. When was the last time Purdue ran a 1-4 low offense set? Can you imagine 4 along the baseline and Haas taking his man down low with little help side to worry about? I’ve watched Purdue for a few decades and rarely see a 7 footer stroking it from the perimeter at the same time Purdue has an early exit from the tourney and hasn’t made a final four run in almost 4 decades. Unless this is added to the Purdue arsenal, teams will only have to prepare for Haas down low and the result will probably be an early exit from the tourney…course I’m not 100% in agreement with all this.

 

[Dryfly88]

Yes. People calling for any zone simply do not know what they are talking about.

I guess that would be like saying "People that throw out blanket statements don't know what they are talking about".

 

[BoilerBiker]

Yes. People calling for any zone simply do not know what they are talking about.

Ya that's what I find interesting now.

Must have been many more baffled at painter two years ago - not only for trying zone in the first place, but with a roster makeup and reasoning a bit different than what is being preached currently.

those fans could have been considered 'negatwats' for disagreeing with zone being added/practiced/etc and wanting only m2m when that season started!

 

[PUBV]

I guess that would be like saying "People that throw out blanket statements don't know what they are talking about".

Look for me at the game Sunday, I'll proudly wear my T which reads on the front
BOILER NEGATWAT
I don't know dick about bball

and the back says

Cuz the expert posters on G&B
Told me so

 

[BuilderBob6]

Look, obviously everyone has a right to their opinion, it's a message board. That doesn't mean it's an informed one.
There are posters here who have a lot of experience in and knowledge of the game of basketball. I suppose everyone could put up a resume of their experience, not that they would believed or some wouldn't lie. For me, I can tell those that have a lot of knowledge by what they post. The terms they use, the basketball logic of their posts, the way they frame their arguments. There are some people whose posts I always read because I can tell they have been around the game. They don't make extreme statements, they don't generalize a lot, and they don't overreact. I learn a lot from them.

By the same token, there are posters that clearly don't know a lot........usually they are the ones that use the same old tired cliches, go on rants, or make dire predictions for the rest of the season. Again, these posters certainly have the right to complain and voice their opinion. But I have no sympathy for them when they are called out and then reply with righteous indignation that someone did so. If you're not an expert don't act like you are. Try to actually understand what the knowledgeable guys are saying instead of arguing your position into the ground...........all the while paying no attention to what they are saying. You're a fan and that's great. You care enough to watch the games and talk about them.....again great. But if you're just looking for an argument and are sure you're right about everything you're gonna get some flak.

There are also many in the middle. They may have played a little ball and watch Purdue games but their knowledge doesn't extend far past an average understanding of basketball, could be above average. They don't know the intricacies of the game like someone who has coached or played at a high level...........their opinions matter too but they are still not as informed as the true basketball posters.

For instance, I rarely post on the football board. I love football and played it in high school, I watch college and pro every weekend.........but I have not coached football or played it at a high level. I could go on the board and complain that Blough throws too many interceptions, we don't throw enough over the middle, or we don't play tight coverage on the wideouts.........and therefore we should do this or that to solve the problems. But I wouldn't know what the hell I was talking about. A football guy would explain why and we could fill up the board arguing back and forth..........but I would be arguing from a position of ignorance or at least lesser knowledge than him. I have no interest in doing that and I really don't understand the kind of person that would.

Not enough people around here want to admit that another poster may be right and that makes me wrong, myself included. I guess it's not easy for most of us........whether it be on this board or in real life. Still it's something we should all strive for........

Alright, I just showed my azz. Let me have it.

 

[tjreese]

Look, obviously everyone has a right to their opinion, it's a message board. That doesn't mean it's an informed one.
There are posters here who have a lot of experience in and knowledge of the game of basketball. I suppose everyone could put up a resume of their experience, not that they would believed or some wouldn't lie. For me, I can tell those that have a lot of knowledge by what they post. The terms they use, the basketball logic of their posts, the way they frame their arguments. There are some people whose posts I always read because I can tell they have been around the game. They don't make extreme statements, they don't generalize a lot, and they don't overreact. I learn a lot from them.

By the same token, there are posters that clearly don't know a lot........usually they are the ones that use the same old tired cliches, go on rants, or make dire predictions for the rest of the season. Again, these posters certainly have the right to complain and voice their opinion. But I have no sympathy for them when they are called out and then reply with righteous indignation that someone did so. If you're not an expert don't act like you are. Try to actually understand what the knowledgeable guys are saying instead of arguing your position into the ground...........all the while paying no attention to what they are saying. You're a fan and that's great. You care enough to watch the games and talk about them.....again great. But if you're just looking for an argument and are sure you're right about everything you're gonna get some flak.

There are also many in the middle. They may have played a little ball and watch Purdue games but their knowledge doesn't extend far past an average understanding of basketball, could be above average. They don't know the intricacies of the game like someone who has coached or played at a high level...........their opinions matter too but they are still not as informed as the true basketball posters.

For instance, I rarely post on the football board. I love football and played it in high school, I watch college and pro every weekend.........but I have not coached football or played it at a high level. I could go on the board and complain that Blough throws too many interceptions, we don't throw enough over the middle, or we don't play tight coverage on the wideouts.........and therefore we should do this or that to solve the problems. But I wouldn't know what the hell I was talking about. A football guy would explain why and we could fill up the board arguing back and forth..........but I would be arguing from a position of ignorance or at least lesser knowledge than him. I have no interest in doing that and I really don't understand the kind of person that would.

Not enough people around here want to admit that another poster may be right and that makes me wrong, myself included. I guess it's not easy for most of us........whether it be on this board or in real life. Still it's something we should all strive for........

Alright, I just showed my azz. Let me have it.

no, you never. I did play football..small school but for an ex college coach that had the state record of 60 straight wins in football when he went back to high school. Started D.E. due to quickness mostly, but I would never tell anyone that I know anything about the game because I haven't studied it. I'm sure there are more people that know basketball on this site than I ever did in football. I just knew nobody was to ever get around my side and I was to take out everything to get the player with the ball and someone as dumb as me could understand that! I think we all can learn from others, and I think you know that as well. It is the rant without the reason that makes it difficult. I'm sure you are like me in that you want this to be a lively forum because sometimes a pair of fresh, clean eyes see something others miss..but it just helps when a "reason" supported is behind the desire rather than just a want. I know exactly what you are saying and there is no intent to disrespect anyone and not directed at anyone... now it is time to mentally prepare for war with OSU

 

[Dryfly88]

Look, obviously everyone has a right to their opinion, it's a message board. That doesn't mean it's an informed one.
There are posters here who have a lot of experience in and knowledge of the game of basketball. I suppose everyone could put up a resume of their experience, not that they would believed or some wouldn't lie. For me, I can tell those that have a lot of knowledge by what they post. The terms they use, the basketball logic of their posts, the way they frame their arguments. There are some people whose posts I always read because I can tell they have been around the game. They don't make extreme statements, they don't generalize a lot, and they don't overreact. I learn a lot from them.

By the same token, there are posters that clearly don't know a lot........usually they are the ones that use the same old tired cliches, go on rants, or make dire predictions for the rest of the season. Again, these posters certainly have the right to complain and voice their opinion. But I have no sympathy for them when they are called out and then reply with righteous indignation that someone did so. If you're not an expert don't act like you are. Try to actually understand what the knowledgeable guys are saying instead of arguing your position into the ground...........all the while paying no attention to what they are saying. You're a fan and that's great. You care enough to watch the games and talk about them.....again great. But if you're just looking for an argument and are sure you're right about everything you're gonna get some flak.

There are also many in the middle. They may have played a little ball and watch Purdue games but their knowledge doesn't extend far past an average understanding of basketball, could be above average. They don't know the intricacies of the game like someone who has coached or played at a high level...........their opinions matter too but they are still not as informed as the true basketball posters.

For instance, I rarely post on the football board. I love football and played it in high school, I watch college and pro every weekend.........but I have not coached football or played it at a high level. I could go on the board and complain that Blough throws too many interceptions, we don't throw enough over the middle, or we don't play tight coverage on the wideouts.........and therefore we should do this or that to solve the problems. But I wouldn't know what the hell I was talking about. A football guy would explain why and we could fill up the board arguing back and forth..........but I would be arguing from a position of ignorance or at least lesser knowledge than him. I have no interest in doing that and I really don't understand the kind of person that would.

Not enough people around here want to admit that another poster may be right and that makes me wrong, myself included. I guess it's not easy for most of us........whether it be on this board or in real life. Still it's something we should all strive for........

Alright, I just showed my azz. Let me have it.

I don't think you did.

My only comment on your post is I think you might be surprised by posters resumes (or lack there of). There aren't any D1 coaches on here. Most guys probably played HS ball, maybe coached some AAU or their kids youth teams and a handful might be ex HS coaches. If that qualifies as experienced or knowledgeable so be it. I just don't think you would find that much diversity.

I'm not talking about the people that sign up one day and start posting crap just looking for a reaction. Like all message boards we have trolls. I think what often happens is people get so tired of those posters that whenever someone has a differing point of view they get lumped in with them. There also becomes a "group think" mentality where anything that questions the coach or player automatically gets labeled as uniformed or trolling without analyzing it for content and sincerity.

If everyone would be honest (impossible) it would be interesting to see basketball resumes.

 

[Boiler8285]

*************
What needs to happen is for Haas to start shooting 3s. He has the physical height to get the shot off from out there. Many teams across the country are not only running dribble drive offenses, but more pick and pops and bigs stroking it from the three point line. Haas knocking them down from out there opens it up for more drives, quick posts for others and such. Can you imagine the teams having to prepare not only for Haas down low, but out high as well? Matt has been too stubborn to adapt to the way bigs play today. Haas doesn’t need to do it all game, but a few times a game makes it so teams have to prepare for his three ball and not just know that he is going down low all the time. Course now is not the ideal time as he should have been preparing Haas in preseason for the three ball. When was the last time Purdue ran a 1-4 low offense set? Can you imagine 4 along the baseline and Haas taking his man down low with little help side to worry about? I’ve watched Purdue for a few decades and rarely see a 7 footer stroking it from the perimeter at the same time Purdue has an early exit from the tourney and hasn’t made a final four run in almost 4 decades. Unless this is added to the Purdue arsenal, teams will only have to prepare for Haas down low and the result will probably be an early exit from the tourney…course I’m not 100% in agreement with all this.

Good Lord no! I just wish he would learn to dunk and finish down low. We work our butts off to get him the ball and then he turns it over or misses a soft fade away.

 

[tjreese]

Good Lord no! I just wish he would learn to dunk and finish down low. We work our butts off to get him the ball and then he turns it over or misses a soft fade away.

I really ...really...really thought everyone would know all that was in jest. My guess is you have never read much of anything I type...which is fine. It was however a huge attempt at humor on my part.

 

[nagemj02]

we don't value the ball. that's why we lose. we have some of the most mind boggling turnovers. total slop.

The best players on the team are two big guys, a freshman PG, and a versatile forward. Some of it can be cleaned up (12 turnovers last night was lower than the 14 per game season average) but most of them are not surprising, given the offensive strengths of this team.

 

[Inspector100]

*************
What needs to happen is for Haas to start shooting 3s. He has the physical height to get the shot off from out there. Many teams across the country are not only running dribble drive offenses, but more pick and pops and bigs stroking it from the three point line. Haas knocking them down from out there opens it up for more drives, quick posts for others and such. Can you imagine the teams having to prepare not only for Haas down low, but out high as well? Matt has been too stubborn to adapt to the way bigs play today. Haas doesn’t need to do it all game, but a few times a game makes it so teams have to prepare for his three ball and not just know that he is going down low all the time. Course now is not the ideal time as he should have been preparing Haas in preseason for the three ball. When was the last time Purdue ran a 1-4 low offense set? Can you imagine 4 along the baseline and Haas taking his man down low with little help side to worry about? I’ve watched Purdue for a few decades and rarely see a 7 footer stroking it from the perimeter at the same time Purdue has an early exit from the tourney and hasn’t made a final four run in almost 4 decades. Unless this is added to the Purdue arsenal, teams will only have to prepare for Haas down low and the result will probably be an early exit from the tourney…course I’m not 100% in agreement with all this.

Oh, surely you jest! (sarc)