- Joined
- May 27, 2015
- Messages
- 14,159
- Reaction Score
- 95,339
Matt Painter wasn't the coach who made that comment, it was Brad Underwood when we were playing Illinois.Did any other team have a guy who could play Edey 1 on 1? The notion that Painter shouldn't have anticipated that his guys wouldn't be left open beyond the arc as usual is ridiculous.
But OK, let's say it was the right move for Painter to go into the game with the same strategy. It clearly wasn't working. I laughed when Painter said to the sideline reporter he was going to keep doing what he was doing. If you need to make adjustment, then you make adjustments.
@auror That's really good individual defense on that play. I'm not going to rewatch the game to see how many times they ran a play like that but pointing to one example doesn't really prove anything. We all watched the game. They kept dumping it inside to Edey and having him shoot all game long even when it became clear they couldn't trade 2s for 2s.
I think people are misunderstanding me to be suggesting that UConn's defense wasn't great. It obviously was. But Purdue could have gotten more than 7 shots off had they committed to doing it. Do you think if they played 5 more times, Purdue would shoot that few 3s again?
They knew or should have known we would not be doubling Edey and they just didn't adjust for that. Ever.
It's also completely out of touch to just say he should have schemed up a way to shoot more 3's. UConn's entire defense was based off of running guys off the 3 point line and into the paint. If it was as simple as just shooting more 3's then every coach would have done that.
And it's not even a guarantee it would have worked anyway for Purdue. Most of their team are not good shooters unless left wide open on a double team, so scheming up more contested 3's is a bad strategy