The Ewing Theory and Auburn BBall

Or solid recruiting by Pearl..

Do we see that same selfless play with Purifoy out there?

quote:

---

Do we see that same selfless play with Purifoy out there?

---

People who trash Purifoy for effort and selfish play don't know shite about Auburn basketball


This team is better because for the first time in Bruces tenure the minutes continuity is in top 100. The team is showing they know the offensive sets and adjustment to more physical CBB


Also, Bruce adding the 1-1-3 matchup zone has been a huge fricking deal for our defense. We've been ultra successful in stretches we play it

Finally, we are shooting significantly better from the FT line. That alone has won us games in the final minutes that we had lost last year

quote:

---

Gene if we had both Purifoy and Willey tomorrow how do you think we finish the year?

---

Hard to say. There are a lot of weird unknowns to account for in the answer

Wiley ** Disclaimer: I think Wiley is good not great

- Team Chemistry: We only have 40m to give at C and Spencer/McElmore both have elevated their game/deserve minutes. We also have a great rotation at 4/PF so can't just move them

Wiley also ate up a lot of touches last year w a KenPom 25% possession%. That is a huge jump from 15% that Anfernee/Horace use which means less shots for everyone else

- Offense: Wiley would be a conundrum as his strengths/game doesn't fit nicely into Bruces modified flex. I think we'd improve but I don't think it will be crazy as the rest of the O would take a step back

- Defense: Wiley would in general be a downgrade on defense. He isn't the rebounder that either McElmore/Spencer is, his shot blocking was good but still not their level + Wiley doesn't cover spacing or run the floor as well. But Wiley would be huge against elite heavy big men + would protect us when in foul trouble having 3 C

Purifoy

Team Chemistry: I believe Purifoy would be more or less seamless inclusion. Harper/Brown already play too much out of necessity, while Heron prefers playing the 2. Purifoy would get minutes at the margins of a few guys + be a utility 4 when Okeke/Murray get in trouble


As for possession usage, Purifoy both pre/post injury hovered around 18%possession% which is below avg (1/5=20%). Purifoys minutes also would be from high volume players so this would suggest more touches for those on the floor

Offense

Purifoy is a natural fit skill wise for the offense. He'd provide the SF/wing 3FG threat we are missing, pre injury he was a capable driver w higher ceiling and his athleticism would be a hard matchup.

BBall IQ wise, there are concerns. Purifoy run sets well last year + didn't show scorers instincts. Without game experience this year, hard to tell if he has developed in that regard

Defense

Purifoy should be a positive defensive addition. His length/athleticism give him the tools to be a good defender

Pre injury, Purifoy was a shite defender because his lack of basketball awareness not "effort" He simply would be caught out of position because he didn't know better

Assuming Purifoy becomes just an avg awareness player, he should be a neutral defensive effect. Heron isn't great at the 3 either

Rebounding wise, Purifoy was one of the better guys pre injury. Averaged about 7 a game. Purifoy would be a slight step back vs Heron, but Heron would be a huge upgrade over Brown/Mitchell at the 2

Overall Effect

I'd say we probably win maybe 1 at most 2 more games at most if we add Purifoy/Wiley right now mid season. I'd think that we'd be a better more dangerous team though

24-8 12-6 SEC

quote:

---

What about if neither play again?

---

I'd think now we go 22-9 or 23-8 so 10-11W in conference

I'd say the difference is if Heron stops playing like shite. We are struggling to consistently make good looks for 40m. If we don't get someone to be a kickout wing 3FG threat other than inconsistent Brown or great drive & finish around the rim we will struggle

quote:

---

Spencer has really developed.

---

He is giving us great minutes, always hustling and at time being an offensive weapon. It's been huge. McElmore and Spencer are a huge part of why we are top 10 in 2FG%


Bruce (likely Harris Adler too) deserves a ton of credit as well. Our implementation of the 1-1-3 matchup zone has been a huge success thus far. Especially being short staffed

quote:

---

Our implementation of the 1-1-3 matchup zone has been a huge success thus far.

---

Can you please go into further depth on this? Is this something you think we should have done let season and how does it make us more successful?

Free throws. This team makes them in clutch time and that is a happy improvement .

The biggest area having Wiley and Purifoy would help this team is in matchups with bigger teams. Last night have a glimpse at how we can get in trouble defending against good offensive post players.

However, as good as I think Wiley is, Bruce would have to be really smart in how he incorporated him. He could make us much better in our half court sets offensively, but could really clog up a lot of the other stuff we do that has worked well so far.

Also, we have the ability to switch almost every screen if we want to right now (except for with Harper). We lose that with Wiley on the court.

I think Wiley might hurt us offense. Shooting 3s and getting to the rim is what the math says to do. There is a reason that the post game is going away in the NBA. Wiley would clog the lane and hurt our spacing. (Edit: obviously the NBA is not perfectly analogous to the college game, and Wiley would still be a nice piece offensively that could really take advantage of some matchups and dominate lesser post defenders similar to the Alabama game @ home last year. Just think overall he might hurt our efficiency if he takes away to many minutes from the current front court)

Defensively, Wiley would be a good addition, especially against teams that aren't as great from the perimeter.

Purifoy would be a nice offensive addition, spacing the floor for the guards to drive. Defensively he needed to figure things out, who knows where he is now on that front.

Obviously having both these guys back would be a big positive because they are both good players, and would make our depth obscene

quote:

---

Can you please go into further depth on this?

---

First, the 1-1-3 matchup I think fits naturally into what we do and isn't a replacement for our base man to man defense. I think we have a lot of success deploying both looks throughout a game, that confuses opponents and challenges offenses' recognition

I can try, probably best for you to ask questions but I can give some basics. I'm no expert so if anyone wants to correct me, go ahead

The 1-1-3 matchup we play looks to me like the old Lute Olsen defenses at Arizona in the 90s/early 00s, not the heavy trapping 1-1-3 "Amoeba" that Tark ran at UNLV. I'm not an expert on the differences though, so I could be wrong and wouldn't give a great explanation on them

1-1-3 Basic Philosophy:

- Crowds the paint and gives a lot of help inside drives
- Ability to quick doubling of any post entrance passes from the 5 and wings (3/4)
- Don't need to chase cutters into the lane by passing off responsibility
- Forces ball to one side of the court

So effectively you are in a zone defense unless you are the on ball defender. To give you an idea how to recognize it

The two 1s roles swap/rotate throughout the possession but basically

First 1/upguard (starts to defend at around half court)- Apply early, heavy ball pressure to force ball handler to pick side of the court

Second 1/backguard (Starts around the FT line)- Deny entrance into the key on high post passes or drives. Draw

The back 3 line does a lot but easy/lazy explanation is that they look somewhat similar to a hyper aggressive 2-3 backline in form.


1-1-3 Pros

-Uses on ball man concepts, so most skills/techniques translate from our base man defense
-Easily formed after full court press compared to man (find your place not your man)
-Can easily switch from man to matchup zone, causing recognition /strategy confusion for offense
-Should help with foul trouble I'd think
-Rim protector isn't pulled away from the basket by a stretch big

1-1-3 Cons
- Requires a full team effort + communication to call out cutters, passes and responsibility changes
- Team needs to be aggressive rebounders (hard to rebound out of zone)
- Can be picked apart by good passing teams, weak spots in the corner/baseline + wings
- Requires full hustle, all the time unless you want a lot of open 3s

quote:

---

Is this something you think we should have done let season

---

I mean, probably a good argument for that but I wouldn't judge Bruce over it. Bruce's background is as a man to man coach, it's a big deal when man coaches start implementing zone ( CBS wrote an entire article about Duke using zone instead of man)

Auburn last year struggled with basic man concepts so hard to imagine adding a new D that Bruce isn't familiar with would have been a game changer anyways.

Lute Olsen though talks in an old video about how he started as a man coach, didn't want to put in the zone originally but came to embrace the matchup zone. I imagine that the 1-1-3 isn't going away at Auburn unless opponents consistently beat it