ADVERTISEMENT

Another Guard…

bonefish1 said:
SS has been known to disappear in big games. We can't afford to have him missing several wide open 3's like he did against WI because those are killer misses when points are at a premium.
Not sure if Painter would do it, but maybe Newman needs more PT until SS gets his shot back. You get better D and rebounding with Newman and he can get hot from 3 as well.
Click to expand...
Agree wholeheartedly...SS is critical to Purdue's ultimate and overall success...or, at least someone is (be it him or Newman), but, I would suggest it is Sasha in that he is the guy that has proven more consistent and is getting (and is likely to get) the minutes. That said, Newman is capable. I already said it...it was just ridiculous that Newman and Furst got 6 minutes the other night...or any night...those guys simply need to play more than that...those guys minutes went to Morton and Hunter instead and there just is no justification for it, more so in hindsight.

I don't know that it is a case of him disappearing as much as a case of a concerted and concentrated/committed effort to remove him...that is exactly what Wisconsin did (and, other teams have...and will try to). Purdue needs to run stuff that addresses that though...the backup center for Wisconsin had absolutely no chance of stopping Williams in the post 1-on-1 on Monday...absolutely no chance...yet, Purdue took advantage of it about twice. They literally could, and should, have isolated him on the block with Sasha on the wing or in the opposite corner, and, played through Williams EVERY possession until Wisconsin elected to do something different, but, they did it like I said, once...maybe twice.

At the same time, if/when Sasha gets the open shots, he does indeed need to deliver with more consistency, particularly at home where he has had so much success.

Gary was really, really good at the time that he left...Shrewsberry was a virtual wizard...I am waiting to see something from Johnson, as, he had no answer at all the other night...particularly in the first half, and, it was very noticeable.
 
bonefish1 said:
Do you think Eastern was a bad fit for Purdue?
Click to expand...
Ultimately, he was...yes...but, from a player/prospect standpoint...he definitely was not.

His being a bad fit had everything to do with him (actually, more to do with those around him). Not sure how Painter/Purdue could have better identified that on the front end...in hindsight, I am sure that they wished that they would have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boiler8285
DAG10 said:
There is no question at all that guys like Carsen and Ivey are allowed freedoms that others have not and are, but, that is not a bad thing...Caleb had freedoms as well in that regard.

I will say that there are more problems a lot of times than not with some of the upper echelon guys...but, it is not the case by any means with all of them. The problem is finding guys that want to play at a place like Purdue and for a coach like Painter...they exist, but, not as many of them as he (and we all) would like.

It is not as if Painter ignores those guys either, and, he has landed some...and will try to land others.

There is nothing wrong either with finding guys that fit your system and complement the guys that he is going to play with...Cline was not an ultra-talented guy but sure was good on some teams that he played on...in large part because of who he played with. There are not a lot of teams that are going to load up on 4/5-star guys and have the expected success, unless they are special guys in the sense that they want to win more than they want to shine.
Click to expand...
Totally agree that you're unlikely to have a roster of all 4/5 stars. You need some role and complementary players, like a Cline or SS. Problem is, when that alpha scorer isn't in, we don't have a secondary guy who can pick up the slack.
i don't remember, but when CE would come out of the game, did we see the scoring lapses like we're seeing when Ivey comes out?
I'm beginning to think the answer might be for Ivy to have to play 40 minutes, avg 25 pts a game and just play enough D to not get in foul trouble so he can stay on the floor.
 
DAG10 said:
Ultimately, he was...yes...but, from a player/prospect standpoint...he definitely was not.

His being a bad fit had everything to do with him (actually, more to do with those around him). Not sure how Painter/Purdue could have better identified that on the front end...in hindsight, I am sure that they wished that they would have.
Click to expand...
I don't think NE was a bad fit but totally agree he was probably getting some bad advice and that messed up his head. The guy played his ass off and gave everything he had when on the floor. Hell, he was almost the starting PG on a FF team.
But to your point, unless there's really obvious signs of a kid being a headcase, I don't think you know whether someone is a good fit or not until they're in the program and playing.
It could be argued Hunter is a bad fit because he's being asked to play out of position at PG when really he should be an off guard shooting 3 pointers.
 
bonefish1 said:
It could be argued Hunter is a bad fit because he's being asked to play out of position at PG when really he should be an off guard shooting 3 pointers.
Click to expand...
Being a bad fit isn't about struggling on the court...

It's about how you buy into the team and don't go pouting when you aren't playing or stop giving effort when things aren't going your way.

Painter's talked on podcasts before about wanting guys that do it the "right way." I trust his evaluation of fit more than anyone else. He's definitely made mistakes, but he's learning and people are taking notice and that will lead to those game changers at the guard/wing position looking at Purdue as a potential destination.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Purdue85
bonefish1 said:
I don't think NE was a bad fit but totally agree he was probably getting some bad advice and that messed up his head. The guy played his ass off and gave everything he had when on the floor. Hell, he was almost the starting PG on a FF team.
But to your point, unless there's really obvious signs of a kid being a headcase, I don't think you know whether someone is a good fit or not until they're in the program and playing.
It could be argued Hunter is a bad fit because he's being asked to play out of position at PG when really he should be an off guard shooting 3 pointers.
Click to expand...
Eastern was given every opportunity (and then some) to succeed...and lead...he genuinely ran away from the leadership opportunities, and, he just let outside voices influence him too much which prevented him from succeeding ultimately (at last to the extent that he could have).

I do think he was a potential ideal fit in ways, and, had he developed and continued to buy in, that may have happened.

He did give tremendous effort, and, early in his career, he got the most out of what he had...he just got lost along the way because of the outside voices around him.

I don't think there was any indication of him really being a headcase or what not...maybe some signs that in hindsight might have suggested being a little leery, but, he was certainly a guy that seemed to be a good fit for Purdue, and, again...I don't think Purdue failed him...he failed himself (and, Purdue).

Agree on Hunter also...I don't see him as a bad fit...I just think it is apparent now that he is not a PG...although he was successful at it in the past. He is completely lost right now though...not a PG...not a SG either though...I just hope he can somehow get things worked out where he can just contribute and help Purdue...even if only as a guy that can defend, as, regardless of what role he has at the other end, that was something that he once was good at, and, should still be good at.
 
bonefish1 said:
Totally agree that you're unlikely to have a roster of all 4/5 stars. You need some role and complementary players, like a Cline or SS. Problem is, when that alpha scorer isn't in, we don't have a secondary guy who can pick up the slack.
i don't remember, but when CE would come out of the game, did we see the scoring lapses like we're seeing when Ivey comes out?
I'm beginning to think the answer might be for Ivy to have to play 40 minutes, avg 25 pts a game and just play enough D to not get in foul trouble so he can stay on the floor.
Click to expand...
If you do go back and look, that team with CE had some major issues offensively at times, even when he was on the floor in that there were games where he was the primary culprit even.

That team was not by any means the most talented team in the world, but, it played well collectively and then had guys in Cline and Edwards that could/did stand out.

We are on the same page more than we are not on the matter, and, Purdue is missing someone that can create offense per se...Ivey is clearly that guy, but, he needs to be under control and looking to involve others...he has done it a couple of times and Purdue was crazy good offensively as a result...but, when he gets in isolation mode and is on some sort of crusade to showcase himself (as was the case the other night where he just caved and let the game become a case of him trying to outdo Davis), he hurts Purdue more than he helps.

It is obvious that Purdue is going to play through its bigs...and, that their bigs are a legitimate strength...but, it gets easy buckets off of cuts or open shots when teams double the post...but, with Morton/Isaiah/Hunter (and more so if Ivey is not in with them) on the floor...those guys are basically just floating around the 3-point line, and, outside of Isaiah, are not real threats there either...so teams sag or just outright ignore them almost, and, each of them not being able to penetrate at all completely takes away the high pick-and-roll (that is available with Ivey, and, maybe Newman).

I think Purdue does have enough scorers per se...but, they need to do a way better job of getting them in positions to score, and, the best opportunities are going to come with Ivey on the floor, especially if/when he is trying to create AND distribute.

I really do think Painter was off in playing Hunter and Morton as much as he did, especially at the expense of Furst and Newman (or even Gillis in the second half). Again, opponents should not be dictating who is on the floor for Purdue...Purdue should be dictating that, and, in the Rutgers game and Wisconsin game, the opposing coach got what he wanted ultimately by Purdue not playing guys that it should have been (and, not gaining anything really from the guys that it was playing).

To your final point...Purdue is better far more often than not when Ivey is on the floor, at least offensively...the issue is that he can be and has been SUCH a liability at the other end at times. I guess there may be some merit though in the idea that his benefit at one end outweighs the detriment at the other.
 
bonefish1 said:
How do you KNOW a player is a bad fit before they get here?
Granted, there are cases like a few players from the Chicago Public League back in the day who had their handlers and entourage, but I think those are rare cases now. And yeh, there's probably a couple of talented kids who are head cases. Those also exist.
But of the Top 50 high school players now, how many of them do you think are 'bad fits' for Purdue?
And why do you say that about them specifically? Do you know them individually? Have you met them? Talked to their coach?

My definition of 'less talented' would be pretty objective: What do other coaches think about that players chances at the next level, ie; who else is recruiting him? Is it 100%? No, but it's a pretty good indicator of the collective opinion.

As for CE and Ivey, what indicates to you that they play within the 'system'? Since when is pulling up for a 27 footer on a 3 on 1 break a 'system' player? I'd say a guy doing that is just really, really talented, regardless of whether it's Duke's 'system' or Kentucky's or Purdue's.
Click to expand...
How do you KNOW they're not?

That's why we leave it to the coaches, and not internet jockeys who think they're the experts at building a *TEAM*.

Again, Painter has addressed that multiple times. Don't believe him? That's on you. It's really as simple as that. You can continue to throw a fit about this, but there's nothing more to it.
 
bonefish1 said:
Do you think Eastern was a bad fit for Purdue?
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter what I think about Nojel.

Look, you can continue to make this about me all you like, but it's not. It's about the coaches making their decision, while recognizing they are 100% correct: there are some guys who will thrive in their SYSTEM(!!), and guys who have tremendous talent, but will not be a fit and will make the team worse. We've experienced both. Again, listen to Painter. If you refuse to believe him, nobody can help you "get it" (certainly, not me).
 
Purdue85 said:
How do you KNOW they're not?

That's why we leave it to the coaches, and not internet jockeys who think they're the experts at building a *TEAM*.

Again, Painter has addressed that multiple times. Don't believe him? That's on you. It's really as simple as that. You can continue to throw a fit about this, but there's nothing more to it.
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is that every player Painter has recruited and signed was a fit? Does that mean every player he didn't sign wasn't a fit? We know that's not true because he's missed out on plenty of recruits that he went after hard for a long time.
 
bonefish1 said:
So, what you're saying is that every player Painter has recruited and signed was a fit? Does that mean every player he didn't sign wasn't a fit? We know that's not true because he's missed out on plenty of recruits that he went after hard for a long time.
Click to expand...

You're going to have to link to me saying that.

Otherwise, we'll just recognize it for what it is... yet another attempt to move the goalposts.

You're still trying to make this about me. (Hint: it's not.)
 
Purdue85 said:
You're going to have to link to me saying that.

Otherwise, we'll just recognize it for what it is... yet another attempt to move the goalposts.

You're still trying to make this about me. (Hint: it's not.)
Click to expand...
Painter/Purdue is going to recruit "fit" guys...ideally, really talented fit guys, as that is what they are no doubt hoping for and targeting, but, he is on record (and it makes sense) that he is going to take a guy that is what he feels a fit for him/them over a guy that is more talented but is not.

Painter/Purdue offered Timme I believe before anyone else...maybe the same with Holmgren...certainly the same in other cases...it is not a case of saying that he does not want or won't go after ultra-talented or highly ranked guys.

Ivey was not even an elite guy at the time that Purdue got him...not elite from the standpoint of being a NBA lottery pick at least, so, there is that aspect as well. Few if any knew what he had in Carsen Edwards. And that does not account for getting guys like E'Twaun/Robbie/Swanigan (and, now, Furst, TKR, guys coming in next year and after).

I would contend that Painter is as good as anyone at identifying talent, often way before others...and, in some cases (cough...MSU...cough), almost for others. He has been in on a lot of guys way before anyone else. The issue always is if/when others get involved.

By now, with the success that he has had and is having, I don't question much that he does in the way of recruiting...especially the more recent and future classes, as, those guys are even better than past classes and guys...but, he saw something in Williams that others did not (and was proven right)...he saw something in Cline (and was proven right)...he saw something in Mathias (and was proven right)...JJ...it goes on and on...I mean, they won the B1G and almost went to the FF with Grady Eifert as their starting 4...he found Haarms when recruiting someone else (I believe Epperson). That does not mean that he does not miss (Wheeler arguably...Wetherford was one that I never understood...some other guys going back more so than in recent years), or, that he won't...but that is the same literally everywhere in the country.

What I know is this...he has recruited and coached a couple of the best all-time players in Purdue history, and, he has assembled the deepest and most collectively talented roster that Purdue has ever had...hard to complain too much about either of those things, more so in that recruiting has actually been improving.

If I do have a knock, it is class balance...that is one thing I would suggest that he struggles with at times, and, as such, it puts a tremendous amount of pressure on some particular classes as a result, but, even there, he has done a really good job in almost every case...it is not easy to put together a truly great 4/5-man class at a place like Purdue in multiple instances, yet, he has done so...I don't like that model personally because it is so critical to hit when doing it, but, he has hit a couple of different times, and, at the moment, he is getting to a point where hopefully that balances out more and it is not something that happens as often.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Aamesker and Purdue85
Purdue85 said:
I don't think we're in disagreement about wanting better players. Heck, I think that's what Painter is constantly pursuing... "better" players.

One of the things people keep sidestepping is the definition of "fit". Talent alone ain't it. Being an "elite player" ain't it. Proving you can dunk ain't it. Painter is on the public record discussing getting players that aren't just "great players", but players that fit his system.

So, again, what does Painter define as a "fit".

Additionally, those players you mentioned, if they were such great players, and would have been such a great "fit", how did they end up at a place like Penn State? (It seems clear, there's more there to the story.)
Click to expand...
I appreciate your questions, but I am going to exit this thread now because things are getting muddled with all the different angles being discussed. I was never part of the 'fit' discussion.

As for how those 3 guys ended up at Penn State, simple. They weren't highly recruited Top 100 guys. But Chambers, like many other coaches, knew what characteristics to look for that would translate to being a quality D1 guard and how to find diamonds in the rough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnboiler123
FirstDownB said:
I appreciate your questions, but I am going to exit this thread now because things are getting muddled with all the different angles being discussed. I was never part of the 'fit' discussion.

As for how those 3 guys ended up at Penn State, simple. They weren't highly recruited Top 100 guys. But Chambers, like many other coaches, knew what characteristics to look for that would translate to being a quality D1 guard and how to find diamonds in the rough.
Click to expand...
sounds like another coach we know...
 
bonefish1 said:
  • XJ would be our second best G next to Ivey. He's 6'3, 200, good ball handler, can create, get to the rim, etc.

  • In three seasons at Pitt, had 1,152 points, 311 rebounds, 415 assists and 124 steals in 84 career games ... started 81 of 84 games
  • Ranks sixth in the Pitt career record books with 4.7 assists per game
  • Became the first Pitt player to surpass 750 career points and 300 career assists as a sophomore
  • Has scored in double figures in 66 of 84 career games ...recorded 15 games with 20 or more points scoring, including two 30-point efforts
  • Posted five double-digit assist games ... has dished out five or more assists in 45 contests
Click to expand...
Interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M51
New Pal Boiler said:
So you admit you got caught in a lie when you said you wanted Carr, but not XJ.
Click to expand...
No, I wanted either one over IT and Hunter. And yes, I wanted XJ over Smith. If Painter is as great as you think he is, he probably could have turned XJ into something.
 
BoilerAndy said:
What? But this week he said he hever wanted XJ. He always wanted Marcus Carr only. Sometimes he moves the goalposts. Other times he simply lies.

And then he deflects when his words are brought back to light.
Click to expand...
And here comes Lil Andy with the “I told you so!”
Classic.
 
BoilerAndy said:
And more deflection when your lies come to light.

Man up. Own it.
Click to expand...
Wait…is it deflection or moving the goal posts? I don’t remember.

But either way, get used to it. I’ll be right more often than wrong,

Will be interesting to see if Smith is the PG leading the team deep into March.
 
bonefish1 said:
Wait…is it deflection or moving the goal posts? I don’t remember.

But either way, get used to it. I’ll be right more often than wrong,

Will be interesting to see if Smith is the PG leading the team deep into March.
Click to expand...
The next time will be the first time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tjreese

inaccurate perception or a plus that appeared to me?

Replies
15
Views
2K
Boilermaker Men's Basketball
tjreese
tjreese
Do Dah Day

Doug Lee's SUCCESS

Replies
2
Views
1K
Boilermaker Men's Basketball
Do Dah Day
Do Dah Day
L

Silver lining

Replies
6
Views
890
Boilermaker Men's Basketball
rgarlitz
R
B

Historically Good Offense

Replies
10
Views
956
Boilermaker Men's Basketball
Dryfly88
D
oldboiler52

CJ Cox is better!

Replies
120
Views
9K
Boilermaker Men's Basketball
Schnelk
Schnelk
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back