Great insight and coach on the floor at the point.
Not sure if Gibson reads the forum/comments to his article, but I believe Michigan should have “iced” or “weaked” the ball screen in the second clip of the second defensive video (the play right after halftime). Maybe that isn’t part of Michigan’s regular scheme, but Zavier had plenty of time in that play to force Edwards to the sideline, shrinking the floor and allowing Teske to sag back a bit and provide more help on the rolling Haarms. Since X allowed Edwards to go middle, Teske hard-hedged, which is in line with Michigan’s scheme this season. Charles was a beat late because he is guarding sharpshooter Cline in the corner (definitely designed that way by Painter) and ends up fouling Haarms.
@umhoops Let me know if this is off limits for posting, but I thought this breakdown of the X’s and O’s battle between Michigan and Purdue was fantastic:
Definitely cool to post Jordan’s stuff, he does good work. Funny to see the different lingo, I’ve referred to what he calls a boomerang pass as a hit back when writing about switches last year.
Do you have any thoughts on my post above re: X “icing” the side ball screen from Gibson’s clip? Do you think that was an issue on Zavier’s part or more of an intentional schematic thing that Michigan sticks to for all ball screens, regardless of location?
I don’t see Michigan ice many screens-- they definitely seem to favor the hedge/recover or straight switches on the ball. Think it was an intentional choice. I like icing high ball screens by the sideline for the reasons you suggest though. But, dribble pull up 3’s come into play and maybe we wanted to make Edwards a driver, not a shooter.
Michigan almost always hedges ball screens. I think it is an ATO (after half in this case) adjustment that Painter knew would be there if they draw the tag man, knowing that Michigan probably isn’t going to ice the screen.