INDIANAPOLIS – At one point, Purdue basketball coach Matt Painter could only cover his eyes.
That point came in the second half of the No. 11 Boilermakers’ eventual 70-66 loss to Texas A&M in the Indy Classic at Gainbridge Fieldhouse. As Purdue prepared to set its halfcourt offense, guard Fletcher Loyer turned and appeared to more or less toss the ball right to an Aggies defender.
No need to single out Loyer, responsible for merely two of the Boilermakers’ 16 turnovers. Painter’s hands-to-head reaction to the play which occurred right before him, though, epitomized the frustration of how a potentially significant victory slipped away.
Purdue vs. Texas A&M player ratings: Who played well, who didn’t
Doyel: The more aggressive, physically superior team won. For once, that wasn’t Purdue.
Purdue spent all of last season imposing its will on opponents — dictating the terms by which any given night’s game would be played. The current assemblage of Boilermakers continues to seek a consistent answer when an opponent sets the agenda.
Texas A&M played to its identity — crashing the offensive boards, forcing turnovers, scoring with athleticism — and received an unexpected boost from its 3-point shooting. More importantly, the Aggies pushed Purdue out of its identity — taking away possessions, denying Trey Kaufman-Renn inside, forcing contested attempts late in the shot clock. When the Boilermakers also fell a few percentage points shy of their typical 3-point percentage, the math adds up to a four-point loss.
Purdue, obviously, is not the first team to find it easier to impose its will at home than on the road. Championship teams tend to do the latter, though, especially in crucial matchups. It’s a lofty standard, but one the program earned and to which it transparently aspires.
“They dictated way more than we wanted them to,” Painter said. “… Give them credit, but I felt like we beat ourselves.”
Purdue knew it had to limit Texas A&M’s nation-leading offensive rebounding. While the Aggies grabbed 14 boards (two under their season average), they converted them to only a 9-4 advantage on second-chance points. The Boilermakers likely would have taken that going in — especially if told they would capitalize on some of A&M’s transition vulnerabilities for a 17-2 edge in fast-break points.
But it’s difficult for Purdue to win when giving away 22 points off turnovers. In Saturday’s case that only cost them two more than they scored. In tandem, the rebounding and turnovers forced a level of shot-making execution the Boilermakers simply could not reach.
Purdue’s least productive stretches of offense typically are symptomatic of quiet stretches from Kaufman-Renn. That usually manifests itself in one of two ways. Either the ball does not touch his hands — sometimes because of an opponent’s commitment to limiting him, other times because his teammates lose him — or he cannot secure the chances he gets.
Texas A&M coach Buzz Williams came armed with a few analytics to emphasize how important Kaufman-Renn was to his team’s defensive game plan. The center did not make a field goal in Saturday’s first half. He did not make one until 11:34 remained. He scored 11 points on 3-of-9 field goal shooting, turned the ball over five times and fouled out.
Purdue isn’t getting much of anything in the post behind Kaufman-Renn. Caleb Furst and Will Berg combined for no points and one rebound in 18 minutes. Either by their opponents’ hand or as a symptom of its own lapses, the Boilermakers will struggle to overcome such inefficiency from their starter, as well, against the best teams in the country.
“They double from the baseline, and their guards try to front as much as possible, so they just put a big emphasis on not letting me get the ball — just threw a lot of guys at me,” Kaufman-Renn said.
“But, you know, we’ve gotta figure out how to deal with that.”
The first response, typically, would be Braden Smith playing downhill — executing off the pick-and-roll or driving to kick back to other shooters on the perimeter. Smith scored a team-high 15 points Saturday, but all on 3-pointers. He went 0-for-3 from the floor otherwise and negated his six assists with six turnovers.
Smith also led the Boilermakers in rebounds (six), steals (four) and blocks (one) — and still ended up minus-4 in plus-minus. Less than a week after one of his greatest games — 20 points and 11 rebounds in a crucial win over Maryland — the preseason Big Ten Player of the Year too closely resembled the form of some of those early losses. An opponent alternately clamped down on him or sped him up. It resulted in enough poor decisions to contributed to a two-possession loss.
“I’ve got to do a better job and take care of the ball, because that is my job,” Smith said, attributing some of his turnovers to “mental errors.”
“And I think a couple of the other ones. I thought it was the same — just us not being connected and not staying focused on that end. Just was careless with it, and they took advantage of it.”
And yet, while Texas A&M so effectively made life tough for Purdue’s two most important players, other opportunities remained.
Fletcher Loyer scored 12 first-half points without attempting a 3-pointer. Credit the 52.5% 3-point shooter coming in for recognizing other ways to thrive when the perimeter chances didn’t materialize.
However, he went scoreless in the second half and finished 0-for-2 from behind the arc. Normally he could be counted on for a few long rebounds against a team like A&M, which came in shooting 30% from 3. The Aggies shot nearly 41% from 3 instead, and Loyer finished without a rebound.
Myles Colvin effectively made the transition from a freshman playing through his shot to a sophomore contributing to wins without it. He made a big 3 late Saturday after opening the game 0-for-5.
You also feel for Gicarri Harris, down to 16% from the behind the arc after missing his only try. His own playing history and the law of averages suggest he’ll eventually burn someone for leaving him open. It could make all the difference in the next two-possession game.
“Sometimes, our ability to shoot and play-make can save us in a game, and tonight, the shots didn’t go down,” Painter said.
All together, though, beating Purdue has started to seem formulaic. Perhaps that’s not surprising for a somewhat young team forging a new identity after a generational player moved on. Everyone should have expected answers to predictable issues to reveal themselves over the course of a few months — a team finding answers organically against one of the nation’s toughest nonconference schedules.
That may happen yet, and if it does, the upside is obvious. Take away one turnover which led to a basket at the other end. Prevent a single offensive rebound leading to a second-chance basket. The complexion of Saturday’s final minute changes considerably.
What’s the downside of not finding a solution? Ask Jake Diebler. The Ohio State coach has a solid team — veteran guards, some decent shooters and an occasional ability to show up defensively.
Auburn clobbered those Buckeyes 91-53 Saturday on an actual neutral court in Atlanta.
Purdue plays those Tigers — quite possibly the best team in the country — on a neutral court in name only next Saturday. Legacy Arena is a little over a two-hour drive from Auburn’s campus.
The strategy the Boilermakers encounter will look familiar — containing Smith, denying Kaufman-Renn, forcing anyone else to prove they can be the winning solution. All of these matchups unquestionably help Purdue improve. Until the answer to those problems changes, though, the results away from Mackey Arena will not.
This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Purdue basketball still solving identity issues after Texas A&M loss
