Originally posted by BoilerFamily:
I think some people are making this more complicated than it is. I happened to be listening to the Matt Painter radio show after the home game against Illinois (or, as I like to call it - the Larry Clisby show because sadly, Larry spends more time telling us what HE thinks, rather then moderating the program so that we can hear more from Coach . . . I would love to do an analysis of comparative amounts of air time for those two on the Matt Painter Show . . . I'll take more from Cliz over random fans, but as between Cliz and Coach, I want more from Coach and less from Cliz . . . but I digress). As you may recall, PJ played in that second Illinois game . . . and played well . . . after not playing at all for several games before that game. A caller asked Coach about the decision to play PJ. MP started by explaining that when he reviewed the tape of the earlier Illinois game he saw that PJ did some good things and that, basically, he thought due to the match ups he thought PJ would have some success against Illinois. MP then started talking on a more macro basis on the issue of back up point guard minutes. I am paraphrasing here, but this is what I recall him saying -
First, MP said that his decisions regarding the back up point guard this year were the most difficult personnel decisions he had all year. He then explained that he started the year playing 3 PGs. Late in the non-conference portion of the schedule he came to several conclusions. One, playing 3 PGs (absent foul trouble) was one too many. Two, JO had separated himself and JO needed to play the bulk of the minutes. He said then, and I've seen him quoted elsewhere saying the same thing, that not playing JO the bulk of the PG minutes earlier probably lead to the two bad non-conference losses. Back to Bryson and PJ, Coach then explained that, again, he decided that he could only play one of them as the primary back up to JO and, neither one of them really separated themselves. He said both were good players, both worked hard in practice and, when given the opportunity to play . . . both did some things well . . . but neither one was able to consistently do well over a longer stretch. And, they did not necessarily do the same thing well (i.e. one was a better defender, the other was a better outside shooter, etc.) So, when one started to not do well, or based on particular matchups or needs, he went to the other one . . . who played well for a while, then not so much . . . so he went back to the other one. Repeat. Again.
Others that were listening may have heard him differently. That's what I heard. And from what I observed by watching every minute of every game this year . . . it makes sense to me. I personally don't think it goes any deeper. I will take Coach at his word. He likes both players. Both players are good kids who work hard. Both players need to work hard this off season to get better and more consistent. The fact that one did not play for several games in a row does not mean he was the dog house. He felt he could only play one in those backup PG minutes, neither one separated themselves and their skills were complementary. Period.
