where is it saying that he’s a transfer that’s a must for teams that have final four aspirations ?
is that in the 3rd paragraph ? NBA potential (he may be) doesn’t automatic translate to great fit collegiate level or am I missing something ?
Another Guard…
- Thread starter BoilerDeac
- Start date
where is it saying that he’s a transfer that’s a must for teams that have final four aspirations ?
is that in the 3rd paragraph ? NBA potential (he may be) doesn’t automatic translate to great fit collegiate level or am I missing something ?
Lol disregard I’m late to the party. Thought the article was just posted, obviously wasn’t
carry on without me good people
carry on without me good people
Just wait until next year once Ivey is gone and his replacement is smith and loyer…. Yikes. If painter could recruit guards as good as he does bigs we’d have at least one FF by now.
Been that way since the Keady days. For whatever reason, Keady never put much emphasis on recruiting guards who could create, score, penetrate, etc. He had one here or there, but he had very, very few highly talented guards who ended up in the NBA.
Feel like Painter was on a similar path but he's been able to land CE, Ivey and now Gibbs, so maybe he's changed his philosophy.
Not sure why people find this so hard to understand. Painter takes what he can get. Every program ... EVERY program wants those attributes in guards. Not all of them want to play within a system, and VERY few want it to be about the team.
Good for Painter. He's not going to sell his soul and bring in MORE recruits who are about them, not the team. Been there, done that, got the L's to show it.
In other words, not every player works out for the program, and not every player who WILL work out for the program says, "yes".
That's what's comical about some of these forum exchanges... some people think every player will just work out. Posters here have no skin in the game, so it's all about the "talent" ... the "elite athleticism" ... the recruiting stars ... the other schools recruiting them.
"You mean it didn't work out, signing that stud player? DAMMIT, PAINTER!"
what's also comical is someone on here assuming they know what top players want.
Every coach, EVERY coach, wants players who are going to put the team, winning and the system first.
How do you know very few want to be about the team? Do you assume every player who commits is all about the team? What about a player like Ivey who's only going to be here 2 years. What about a guy who's a one n done? Are they about the team?
The bottom line, for 95% of players, you don't know how they're going to fit until they're in the program.
You have no idea how a player would or wouldn't fit at Purdue.
"... what top players want."
?
"How do you know very few want to be about the team?"
That's why we let the coaches coach, and let the coaches recruit, and recognize the internet forum experts as what they are... internet forum experts.
Bonefish takes the extreme position. But consider Pat Chambers recruited/developed the following guards at Penn State of all places in a span of just a few years:
-Myreon Jones
-Izaiah Brockington
-Jamari Wheeler
-Tony Carr
The first three are currently lead guard for 3 separate P5 teams - OSU, Florida, and ISU. Carr was a 2nd round pick. There is some truth to the point that guard recruiting and development has lingered below the curve for some time.
Painter, arguably, has no comparable stretch of players at the guard position in any 4 year span.
I'm not interested in comparing Painter to anyone or anything, or defending him. He's responsible for his own results.
If I'm following correctly, you listed 4 guards recruited to Penn State who are now elsewhere. Not sure how that helps Penn State.
It was simply a comparison was to an average coach (Chambers) at difficult recruiting destination (Penn State) to illustrate a point. The fact that they transferred (because their coach was let go for saying a naughty word) has nothing to do with anything.. Other than the fact that they are starters and one was drafted speaks to the caliber of player.
Conclusion: You don't have to be a blue blood, cheat, or chase blue chippers to string together quality guards. You do have to have an eye for talent.
Understood, and my response wasn't meant to be confrontational. Just, that we can find outliers everywhere.
Again, it's not just an eye for talent. It's how that talent will fit within your program. As I asked, how are those players helping Penn State? They're not, which leads to the conclusion that they weren't a fit for Penn State.
Said a different way, too many arguments here revolve solely around "talent". "Elite athleticism". If they don't fit, why recruit them? Why do that to your program... your other players...
EDIT: I'd be curious to know the exact explanation: "If they're such stars, such elite talent, why did they end up at Penn State?"
Well, if we can't scrutinize, second guess, bloviate, give opinion, etc....what fun is the discussion? Otherwise, it's one big stroke fest.
Last edited:
This would be a great opportunity for Painter to go into the portal and try to come out with 2 studs for next year. The opportunity to start from day 1 will be there, a fairly solid supporting front court, etc.
No doubt.
It's a pointless exercise (which, happens too much) if we ignore the obvious, solely for the purpose of "scrutiniz(ing), second guess(ing), bloviat(ing)" ... etc.
Not much intellectual honesty in that. That's why some of these threads become really idiotic. In other words, it's not a "stroke fest", it's nothing more than one person stroking ...
Some likely has to do with Chambers being fired.
Or, Chambers is a helluva recruiter and those guys just decided they didn't like PSU.
How do you know a player doesn't fit until they're actually in the program?
Carsen Edwards is a perfect example: he was an elite talent, he had the green light to do essentially whatever he wanted. Did he 'fit'? Of course he did....because he was really, really good.
When the team or a player is playing well, then we congratulate them and talk about how great things are.
But when a player isn't, then we can scrutinize them.
But....I've always been of the opinion that it's the coaches fault for recruiting and playing a player who simply isn't capable physically or talentwise to consistently succeed at this level.
Chambers was fired, so the players had to sign with Penn State out of HS? (If they're such stars, such elite talent, why did they end up at Penn State?")
Carsen? Are you really following the point of the conversation?
Re a player fitting... ask Painter. He's on record... repeatedly... talking about getting the right "fit". I think he's smarter than both of us, but, hey, maybe you can help him out.
No, we can "scrutinize" a player whenever. You've demonstrated that.
We don't have a player not "succeeding" at this level. You don't like a couple, for sure. You've sh*t all over them, no doubt. Painter loves them.
Again: Painter... internet forum expert. Painter.... internet forum expert. (I know where I'm putting my money.)
Loyer and Smith may both be better as PGs than either of the two guys playing it right now...so, while maybe not breakdown guys, both have offensive games that stand to help Purdue...and, TKR is very good and will make a difference/have an impact as well.
Ivey will be missed and is next to impossible to replace...but, Purdue will still have talent, and, it has guys coming in next year that will help to keep them good/make them better.
There is a spot for a 1 year transfer next year if CMP finds the right fit.
Agree, but, it is a big ask...not impossible, but, close to it.
In our best years under Painter we had three dudes who could all dominate on any given night, a good supporting cast, and the kicker that they played great TEAM ball. I’m not sure we have the third part right now. We certainly have a great tandem at center that can dominate, Ivey, and maybe Sasha’s shooting. We just aren’t playing the sort of team ball to be in that elite caliber. To my eyes, our passing and (help) defense has been terrible. Lotta season left to figure that out - and I think we might have the pieces, I’ll remain optimistic but we have lots of work to do.
if a coach is such a great coach, shouldn’t they be able to mold a player to fit the system?
Or, are you insinuating a coach would take a less talented “system” player over a more talented (likely more wins) who needs some coaching to fit the system?
And I’ll ask again…Were CE and Ivey “system” players or were they just so talented that you work the system around them?
Last edited:
your opinion doesn’t mean a player is successful.
Give some data. Specifically, give data on IT and Hunter.
The opportunity is definitely there for the right portal player.
I think it’s a huge ask for Loyer and Smith to come in as freshmen.
It is a huge ask...but, both are capable of playing and contributing. Both guys are as good as Isaiah or Hunter were coming in, and, both of those guys played from the outset. Neither is likely going to come in and be a true impact player or difference maker, but, both are capable of playing and being solid in a role. That said, so was TKR and he is redshirting...so were Gillis and Newman, and, they redshirted.
I have no idea what will happen...I definitely agree that there is a place for the right portal player, but, that is just such a tough find...besides the fact that it needs to be someone really talented, it is hard to find someone that fits in and gets team chemistry and culture, much less does not disrupt it.
You are looking for a guy that can play in the NBA, but, whose focus is not that...whose focus is on filling a role and winning...not many guys out there that fit that, and, if they do, not many that are looking to leave and play somewhere else for a year.
They didn't leave because they were a bad fit. In fact the guys I listed would be a good fit almost anywhere (who doesn't want an athletic guard with ball skills who can shoot and play D?) They left because their coach got canned and the program was in turmoil. If Chambers was able to recruit any decent bigs to go with those guards they would have been a force. So, that would be the knock on him. Maybe Painter and Chambers should join forces. Lol
Edit: Keep in mind, I'm not the guy in this thread demanding blue chips. I'm saying with a better eye for talent, you might recruit a similarly rated version of IT but with more length and lateral quickness, a version of Eastern who might be less athletic but can toss the ball in the ocean, or a version of Hunter who can handle the ball and shoot off the dribble. We are constantly playing teams, even lowly Nichols, who have such guards.
Last edited:
Next year, what you're looking for in the portal, is "the man". (Yes, they're hard to find and every other coach is looking for that guy as well)
Ivey is the man, CE was the man. Grob was the man. (Davis for Wisky). You need someone who's going to put the team on their back and get you the tough bucket when needed. That guy might be your highest volume shooter (someone has to be...). They're going to have to be a little selfish because you hope they're more talented than the other offensive options.
I think this whole 'fitting the system' thing is overblown. You might have guys who fit the system perfectly, but if they're not that talented, what are you really getting? And so far, Painter's 'system' hasn't proven to be effective come tournament time.
I don't disagree with anything...
That said, I don't for the life of me see Painter looking for such a guy...totally out of character for him to do that, never mind, as I already said, THAT guy is going to be next to impossible to find, and even if there were such a guy, hard to imagine Purdue being his choice versus other suitors that there inevitably would be...way more so with NIL in play now.
Painter definitely wants talent and talented guys, but, fit is far more important to him...and that is not going to change...especially given what happened when he did try to let talent trump fit...maybe even with what is happening at the moment.
To that point, Purdue is not going to win big absent a guy (or guys) that are REALLY talented...and, even then, it is tough...maybe in part to your point because it has "fit" guys as well. That said, Purdue should have been in a FF with Grady Eifert as its starting 4.
Purdue can find "fit" guys that are talented...it has proven that time and time again...the problem is finding enough of such guys to have them on the roster at the same time...the closest it came was probably the team that lost to Kansas...the subsequent team that was a Haas injury away from a great chance to appear in a FF...Robbie/E'Twaun/JJ (and Martin), but, Martin bailed and they were just never able to add the additional pieces to complement those guys (although they were sure in a spot to again reach a FF had Rob not got injured).
How do you mold their mind? Their attitude?
I'm insinuating nothing. Define "less talented". Compared to what? Compared to whom? Painter is on-record talking about recruiting/signing players who aren't (top-50? don't recall his "cutoff"). I would defer you to his comments and expertise.
No doubt, CE and Ivey are playing within the system. Both will have stayed within said system for the duration of their collegiate careers, so that part should be abundantly obvious to just about anyone (well, most people who are paying attention).
This team has that...it has at least 3 guys that can all dominate...it has a good supporting cast...it has more quality depth than literally any prior Purdue team...and, they have played TEAM ball at times.
You are right that they are scuffling right now...and, it is imperative that they figure out why...lots of potential reasons and lots of things indeed contributing to the struggles at the moment...but, this team does have what it needs to be great.
You are right as well that passing is lousy on the whole...defense at all (not just help defense) is incredibly subpar by Purdue standards...and, while not playing selfish necessarily, it is not sharing the ball as it had...or, not getting guys open to the point that they can. I don't think this is an actual issue from a standpoint of not sharing or not playing team ball...it had 16 assists on 17 buckets in the first half against Nichols just a week ago...but, it has struggled in B1G play in that regard, in large part just because other teams scout and know Purdue so well, and, frankly, they have all made a point to virtually eliminate Stefanovic, which, ultimately kills Purdue...they know that though, and, thus the decision(s)...it is up to Painter/Purdue to figure out how to counter or prevent it.
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.)
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
Similar threads
