Monday update: New Albany guard Romeo Langford trimmed his list to seven schools: Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, North Carolina, UCLA and Vanderbilt. Purdue had offered but for several months there didn't seem to be much traction between it and one of the top guard prospects in the 2018 class.
No Langford
- Thread starter boilercss
- Start date
Considering that UK and UNC and Slick Rick are involved, I am not surprised that we were trimmed and expected it. Those three I mentioned I would assume are the favorites and doesn't seem to make sense to keep putting time in to something you know isn't going to happen.
Hard to expect Hunter and Langford to come to Purdue......
Langford knew Hunter is our all in option......smart kid to cut us from the list.
IMO he lands at U of L.
Let's hope Hunter is our next SG to sign.....great fit for Purdue.
Boiler Up!
Langford knew Hunter is our all in option......smart kid to cut us from the list.
IMO he lands at U of L.
Let's hope Hunter is our next SG to sign.....great fit for Purdue.
Boiler Up!
Surely you're not suggesting that Langford is intimidated by Hunter and eliminated Purdue because of the pursuit of Hunter? Langford is a top 5 player in the nation. I'm not sure Hunter is 5th best in the state. And that's not a knock on Hunter, I think he'll be a really good college player... rather that's just how good Romeo is.
Gee, that is a surprise.
I know that you have to be being sarcastic to suggest that Langford cut Purdue because of their interest in Hunter, right?
Purdue/Painter NEVER had a chance at Langford...he was kind and has received some seemingly very good guidance in his recruitment which is why he had not officially eliminated Purdue from his purported interest list before now, but there was zero chance of him ending up at Purdue or playing for Painter.
As for Hunter...like with so many other talented players from the state of Indiana, I will share in the hope that you have...but, with consideration for so many previous misses on elite in-state targets, I am not going to hold my breath by any means.
Yes, no surprise apparently that Purdue is not a consideration yet Vanderbilt is...makes total sense and nothing at all surprising about that given the tremendous historical success that they have had nationally and storied history of the program and its pipeline to Indiana for nationally elite players.
Begs the question which would you rather have Hunter for 4 or Langford for 1?
Might get neither, but worth the discussion.
Might get neither, but worth the discussion.
My prediction: Archie leads up until the point where half of Romeos family ends up on the UL payroll, and he signs with slick Rick.
I wish MDC was still around to balance out your hybridized rendition of Eeyore & Howard Beale. Miss that man
Of course not and go try that antagonistic shit with someone else......
You always try to pick fights with people on here and put words in there mouth....
Move along skippy......
Miss him tremendously as well...I wish MDC was still around to balance out your hybridized rendition of Eeyore & Howard Beale. Miss that man
Picking fights? This is a place for discussion. I thought that is what we were doing... discussing. Perhaps you can clarify your original words and their meaning then (because from DG's response, it's clear I'm not the only one who misinterpreted).
PUChevy: Langford knew Hunter is our all in option......smart kid to cut us from the list.
Btw, the characterization I made was partially TIC, and it was unfair for me to bring up MDC in response. Thematic to the thread, I've found it beneficial to my health as a fan to pay less attention to recruiting, and simply appreciate the team we have. Not arguing that recruiting isn't essential to the health of any program, but our current model is Wisconsin as opposed to Kentucky.
I want the solid 4 yr. guys .
Seriously? You always take a 1 n done if you can get him. You're crazy not to. And don't bring up all this crap about 'culture' and 'fit' and 'team player'. If a kid is good enough to play in the NBA after a year or two, you take that kid without question.
I meant to make the Purdue staff and everyone know his intentions he didn't add us to the current list to let all parties know...Purdue, Hunter, etc (everyone involved in Langfords recruitment.)
IMO best for everyone to know who they are up against so a better decision could be made. Langford not listing us helped Purdue and Hunter get closer to a decision and that is all that matters to me.
So twist those words however you need to to make yourself feel better or important somehow.
typically
although I would probably still prefer 4 years of a hummel, moore, Johnson vs diamond stone (#6 rivals, one and done) as a big ten cherry picked example
Swanigan in a heartbeat even if for only one year over any of our current 4 year. Starters!
I agree. I feel the same way about Romeo for 1 year as opposed to Hunter for 4.
Why?
What logical sense does it make? It doesn't. You ALWAYS take the top talent if you can get it. Guys like a Biggie, or GRob or similar make everyone around them better and by default, make the team better, even if they're only there for a year or two.
Ben Simmons for one year? Look how well that turned out for LSU...you guys can't see the forest through the trees. 1 yr of Romeo for four yrs of haas?! I don't see that making us a final four team. I will take 4 yrs of etwaun, Hummel, haas, vince Edwards, kaminsky, green, valentine etc...
We aren't getting too 10 recruits every cycle or every other. Going to have to do it the hard way, painter talks about mental toughness all the time. Some of us could use a bit of that medicine as well.
We aren't getting too 10 recruits every cycle or every other. Going to have to do it the hard way, painter talks about mental toughness all the time. Some of us could use a bit of that medicine as well.
I feel the same, in part at least...although, admittedly, that also is in part directly to the fact that there has not been consistent genuine high level recruiting success...far easier to pay more attention to it when you add guys on a regular basis that are nationally elite caliber players, and far easier not to when you do not.
Purdue has had several opportunities seemingly to parlay some national success and relevancy (both as a program or with respect to certain individuals), and, has failed to do so unfortunately.
I totally agree about the current model statement...although I don't know that I feel that the program of reference is Wisconsin necessarily...that said, it no doubt is not Kentucky.
I too have got to a point where simply appreciating the situation that is...is precisely that...the situation that is...I am just not accepting of the fact that it is not able to be more, and, admittedly disappointed at times that it is not or has not become so.
I do miss MDC though...whether we agreed or not on things, I always respected him and his position/thoughts, and, more than anything...always appreciated his passion for Purdue.
Purdue has not been to a Final Four since 1980...and barely sniffed it in the 37 years that have followed...so whatever formula has been followed has absolutely not worked.
Every other original conference member other than NW and Iowa (who was also there in 1980) has appeared in at least one Final Four since...that is more than just bad luck or coincidence, or, where the school is physically located.
I wish Mike could have seen last year and this years teamI wish MDC was still around to balance out your hybridized rendition of Eeyore & Howard Beale. Miss that man
And had Hummel stayed healthy it may be a different story. We have had chances, put yourself in the right place and we have a fighting chance. Suggesting oh just go get two top 10 recruits a year is silly
You might want to check your LSU basketball history......
They didn't even make the tournament with Simmons.
Yea but they were so close to being a top 68 team and all it took was one top 5 recruit!! Smh
Don't count out UK. The bidding war might just be heating up. My guess either Kansas or U of L.
I can't believe your post. because that is exactly what Painter has tried to do the last ten years - to go out and get two top ten recruits each and every year. he tried to get Swanigan knowing he'd probably be a one and done player. he tried everything he could to get JJJ. he went after Langford.
Painter is doing everything in his power to go after those one and dones. he's just not as successful as other coaches, and he doesn't cheat like a couple do.
Painter is not going to give up pursuing the one and dones because that's some silly idea or because people believe we're a lot better going after the 4 year type of player and red shirt them and develop them so they are great as seniors. that's not how college basketball works. you go after talent. and you play that talent. and if you have both Langford and PJ on your team, you start Langford. and if we had JJJ, one of our seniors would be sitting.
it would be very interesting if we had signed JJJ, as I believe V Edwards would have shifted to play SF, Haas would still start and either PJ or Mathias would have become a 6th man. and there would have been a lot of happy posters and a lot of unhappy posters on this board.
Do you believe it's just a "couple" who cheat? There are many more that "use the system" than don't. It's how you say it.
Hearing that Duke (now eliminated) and Kentucky stopped recruiting him, but whatever. Both are Nike schools too.
Hard to believe that IU is out of it, being the home state school and Romeo going to be at Hoosier Hysteria with Garland in October. Do agree that UL and Kansas are in there, and both are Adidas schools.
