True or False

[woggy718]

A point guard is only as good as the team he's surrounded by

Thinking about the upcoming season and all the point guard talk, it got me thinking. Hill's historical numbers aren't eye popping by any means, but I doubt he's been surround by the level of talent that he will be here at Purdue in the coming season.

I have heard the PG be compared to the QB on a football team. I think about Etling and wonder what he could have been here if he had an offensive line And some wide receivers his freshman season.

So my question to the group is, do you think Hill will be better than his statistics have indicated? And if he is as good as JO, will be as good as many of us think we'll be.

 

[since1980]

Statistically speaking you might be able to say that. A players numbers can definitely be affected by who he plays with and what he needs to do for the team.

But talent and ability is a different thing.

Hill won't become a better shooter, passer, ball handler or court aware PG just because he is surrounded by better talent. His assist numbers could increase with better shooters around him and his turnover numbers will go down because he won't play if they don't...but his ability is his ability.

I'm of the belief that Cline will end up taking away a lot of his PT come BIG 10 and Ray/Mathias will end up bringing the ball up more....

But hopefully Hill does prove me wrong and brings more athleticism and stability to our PG position like Octeus did. Won't surprise me though if Cline's shooting ability makes it difficult to keep him off the court for a player who isn't known for shooting considering the Dynamic of our front court and mismatches we can create which could leave shooters open.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

Statistically speaking you might be able to say that. A players numbers can definitely be affected by who he plays with and what he needs to do for the team.

But talent and ability is a different thing.

Hill won't become a better shooter, passer, ball handler or court aware PG just because he is surrounded by better talent. His assist numbers could increase with better shooters around him and his turnover numbers will go down because he won't play if they don't...but his ability is his ability.

I'm of the belief that Cline will end up taking away a lot of his PT come BIG 10 and Ray/Mathias will end up bringing the ball up more....

But hopefully Hill does prove me wrong and brings more athleticism and stability to our PG position like Octeus did. Won't surprise me though if Cline's shooting ability makes it difficult to keep him off the court for a player who isn't known for shooting considering the Dynamic of our front court and mismatches we can create which could leave shooters open.

My bet is that at Purdue he'll be encouraged to make the simple, low risk pass and let the offense work, which will keep his turnovers down. He will probably be the fifth option on offense, which will allow him to take high percentage shots. He might end up being a far more efficient player than he was in the unstructured, high tempo offense at UTA.

 

[bocaboiler]

I would say false and provide one data point, Duke last season. Tyus Jones was surrounded by immense talent, but in my mind put the team on his back throughout the NCAA to the championship. He made a great team greater?

 

[PU52Chevy]

Hill and PJ and Weatherford will do fine....you have experience...outside shooting and in your face defense with those three...so Painter can play matchups or play with no fear and be deep (15 fouls if needed).

Hill will stuff the stats with his experience, length, rebounding, passing and scoring ability if needed.

PJ lacks quickness on defense but if you leave him open he will hit the outside shot and he can run the offense if he finishes his passes and looks the pass in......

GW will get his assists but as a freshman he will need to learn the offense but his Big Ten already body, Painter will stick him in to hound dog and play defense ala Kramer and leave it on the floor. Play defense, rebound and run the offense......all effort guy like Basil Smotherman and J. Taylor...Painter will tell those three when you get in the game go all out and leave it on the floor....those 3 are game changers with their effort.

I like our situation and if X. Simpson chooses us for next year after Hill leaves, even better...then we will have quickness, scoring and defense, and may lose a little ground in the rebounding aspect but we gain quickness.

All in all I think we are fine and have depth and if we break down we have 2 and 3 spot players who can move over in certain situations to fill in and not miss a beat.

Boiler Up! I am freakin excited to kick some ass.....

 

[thenagemj02]

I would say false and provide one data point, Duke last season. Tyus Jones was surrounded by immense talent, but in my mind put the team on his back throughout the NCAA to the championship. He made a great team greater?

agreed

I would say false as well. For another example, Octeus took last season's team to a higher level than they would have gotten without him. They might not have reached the NCAA Tournament with Thompson and Scott as the primary ball-handlers (and likely with Davis, Mathias, and Edwards having to take on more responsibility as secondary ball-handlers).

 

[boiler62]

Statistically speaking you might be able to say that. A players numbers can definitely be affected by who he plays with and what he needs to do for the team.

But talent and ability is a different thing.

Hill won't become a better shooter, passer, ball handler or court aware PG just because he is surrounded by better talent. His assist numbers could increase with better shooters around him and his turnover numbers will go down because he won't play if they don't...but his ability is his ability.

I'm of the belief that Cline will end up taking away a lot of his PT come BIG 10 and Ray/Mathias will end up bringing the ball up more....

But hopefully Hill does prove me wrong and brings more athleticism and stability to our PG position like Octeus did. Won't surprise me though if Cline's shooting ability makes it difficult to keep him off the court for a player who isn't known for shooting considering the Dynamic of our front court and mismatches we can create which could leave shooters open.

I have to agree on Ryan Cline, IMHO he will be in the rotation! He is a very good shooter from deep(45%), good FT shooter(78%), can play the point and is just a very good offensive play. I have seen him play 3 times and would compare him to McTosh from NW.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

I would say false and provide one data point, Duke last season. Tyus Jones was surrounded by immense talent, but in my mind put the team on his back throughout the NCAA to the championship. He made a great team greater?

It might be false as an absolute statement, but the situation that a point guard is in matters a lot. Using Hill as an example, his efficiency went down quite a bit at UT Arlington relative to his first stop at Illinois St., but a closer look at the data shows that a very low percentage of his baskets at UTA were assisted. He was having to create his own shot all the time.

In contrast, a much higher percentage of Jon Octeus's baskets last season were assisted. I really think that Hill will benefit from operating within an offense where his teammates are getting him the ball in good scoring position and where he doesn't have to force a lot of shots.

 

[BoilerFan#35]

False. MSU made the FF without a great PG.

 

[toddbrewster]

My favorite PG to watch was John Stockton. He was the best at setting the tempo of the game and getting the ball to the right play at the right time where the player wanted the ball. When they backed off, he hit the 3 and when the play clock was running down he hit the 2. He was a great FT shooter and 3 pt shooter and what most did not realize he was also a good FG shooter. His FG% would have been even higher if he did not play hurt or if he released after every opponents shot to get more layups. He was not a top 20 player, but I could argue he would have been the best PG on an all time team and move Oscar to SG. I also realize most people would pick Magic, because he was more colorful.

Hill needs to bring the ball up at a frantic pace and then set up and occasionally drive. We need him to rival Davis as our best 1 on 1 defender and we need him to be like JO in getting the long rebounds. I like him and I think he will do very well.

 

[woggy718]

I have to agree on Ryan Cline, IMHO he will be in the rotation! He is a very good shooter from deep(45%), good FT shooter(78%), can play the point and is just a very good offensive play. I have seen him play 3 times and would compare him to McTosh from NW.

I got a chance to talk with a kid that was on the Carmel team and had to guard him in practice. He said without a doubt that Cline was a dead eye shooter. The kid I talked to stood a meager 5'10" and said the Cline would simply rise up over him and drill it. He said however that it wasn't overwhelmingly difficult to stay in front of him and wonders how well Cline will do at the college level when the guys guarding him are more his size. Those comments kind of worry me about Cline playing the pg position

 

[toddbrewster]

[QUOTE="woggy718,. The kid I talked to stood a meager 5'10" and said the Cline would simply rise up over him and drill it.

Back in the day, Rick Mount would have a defender hold a broom in practice and Rick would practice shooting over that.

 

[kevindub]

Statistically speaking you might be able to say that. A players numbers can definitely be affected by who he plays with and what he needs to do for the team.

But talent and ability is a different thing.

Hill won't become a better shooter, passer, ball handler or court aware PG just because he is surrounded by better talent. His assist numbers could increase with better shooters around him and his turnover numbers will go down because he won't play if they don't...but his ability is his ability.

I'm of the belief that Cline will end up taking away a lot of his PT come BIG 10 and Ray/Mathias will end up bringing the ball up more....

But hopefully Hill does prove me wrong and brings more athleticism and stability to our PG position like Octeus did. Won't surprise me though if Cline's shooting ability makes it difficult to keep him off the court for a player who isn't known for shooting considering the Dynamic of our front court and mismatches we can create which could leave shooters open.

I somewhat disagree with his ability being better with better talent around him. His ability to make plays for team mates should be better with talented players who know how to space, rebound, move and have a better BB IQ. He may have always had the ability to make plays but no one to play with. I understand where you are coming from, but I believe a player that is surrounded by better players will be a better player. Talent is something else.

 

[Heller]

My favorite PG to watch was John Stockton. He was the best at setting the tempo of the game and getting the ball to the right play at the right time where the player wanted the ball. When they backed off, he hit the 3 and when the play clock was running down he hit the 2. He was a great FT shooter and 3 pt shooter and what most did not realize he was also a good FG shooter. His FG% would have been even higher if he did not play hurt or if he released after every opponents shot to get more layups. He was not a top 20 player, but I could argue he would have been the best PG on an all time team and move Oscar to SG. I also realize most people would pick Magic, because he was more colorful.

Hill needs to bring the ball up at a frantic pace and then set up and occasionally drive. We need him to rival Davis as our best 1 on 1 defender and we need him to be like JO in getting the long rebounds. I like him and I think he will do very well.

Loved John Stockton but overall I'd take both Magic and Pistol Pete over John. But honestly there are so many great ones. One who has never gotten the credit he deserves is the late Dennis Johnson. Toughest I ever saw at both ends of the floor.

 

[Tucsonboiler2]

I disagree about pj's quickness. I would love for a shooter as good as Kline could play point, but can he guard the 1?

 

[Tucsonboiler2]

Sorry,if instead of for

 

[since1980]

I somewhat disagree with his ability being better with better talent around him. His ability to make plays for team mates should be better with talented players who know how to space, rebound, move and have a better BB IQ. He may have always had the ability to make plays but no one to play with. I understand where you are coming from, but I believe a player that is surrounded by better players will be a better player. Talent is something else.

I understand what you are saying...but that's why i said with better players his stats would be different based on what the team needed him to do. But talent (ability) is talent. Robbie Hummel was going to be a good college player regardless of which players he was surrounded by. He didn't need to score as much with E-twaun, but needed to score more without him. A guy like Nic Moore who played with a different crop of talent at his 2 colleges (illinois State and SMU) is good regardless of the players around him. Hill could be teamed up with Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson and Shaq and they would dominate as a team. But that doesn't mean Hill would turn into the 2nd coming of Isaiah Thomas ability wise. He can only do so much with his skill level and athleticism. His assist numbers might spike, but that doesn't mean his talent level is any higher.

Willie Deane played with some crappy players and we all knew he was still a good player. He might have been given more credit from the national media had he played with better players and the team did better, but he was going to be a stud regardless of who he played with.

Speaking of Willie, we really need a guard like him on this team (alpha dog)...dude who isn't afraid to take a big shot and can get in the lane and make things happen for himself or others. A go-to guard at the end of games who teams have to worry about making a play. That's the only thing this team is missing (unless Ray decides to be that guy this year). Even though Travis Trice for MSU wasn't an NBA skill level type guard, he still had the balls and enough ability to be the alpha dog and make plays when it mattered for his team last year and carry them in the tournament. Hopefully Hill is that guy.

I don't think Cline would play PG this year...Ray or Mathias could share that load...but I think he could still take a lot of minutes from PJ or Hill just by sitting in the corner and being a floor spacer and 3 point specialist. Open things up for the other 4 guys...especially when you have Cline, Stephens and Mathias on the court with Hammons and Biggie.

 

[woggy718]

Speaking of Willie, we really need a guard like him on this team (alpha dog)...dude who isn't afraid to take a big shot and can get in the lane and make things happen for himself or others. A go-to guard at the end of games who teams have to worry about making a play. That's the only thing this team is missing (unless Ray decides to be that guy this year). Even though Travis Trice for MSU wasn't an NBA skill level type guard, he still had the balls and enough ability to be the alpha dog and make plays when it mattered for his team last year and carry them in the tournament. Hopefully Hill is that guy.

I disagree 110%!

We had two guys who weren't afraid to take a shot and they happened to be brothers. They were the worst thing to happen to Purdue basketball in the last decade. A motion offense doesn't work when you have a guy always seeking "to get his" every night. 4 guys running a motion offense and one shoot first point guard who isn't afraid to shoot is a disaster. You have to have 5 unselfish guys who CAN score but don't have to score. That's what made the baby boilers so good is that they were ridiculously unselfish. You put a shoot first point guard in the mix and its 2012-2014 all over again. That was unwatchable basketball and I don't ever want to go back there.

 

[kevindub]

I disagree 110%!

We had two guys who weren't afraid to take a shot and they happened to be brothers. They were the worst thing to happen to Purdue basketball in the last decade. A motion offense doesn't work when you have a guy always seeking "to get his" every night. 4 guys running a motion offense and one shoot first point guard who isn't afraid to shoot is a disaster. You have to have 5 unselfish guys who CAN score but don't have to score. That's what made the baby boilers so good is that they were ridiculously unselfish. You put a shoot first point guard in the mix and its 2012-2014 all over again. That was unwatchable basketball and I don't ever want to go back there.

AKA RJ

 

[lbodel]

A point guard is only as good as the team he's surrounded by

Thinking about the upcoming season and all the point guard talk, it got me thinking. Hill's historical numbers aren't eye popping by any means, but I doubt he's been surround by the level of talent that he will be here at Purdue in the coming season.

I have heard the PG be compared to the QB on a football team. I think about Etling and wonder what he could have been here if he had an offensive line And some wide receivers his freshman season.

So my question to the group is, do you think Hill will be better than his statistics have indicated? And if he is as good as JO, will be as good as many of us think we'll be.

Just as the role/importance of a QB depends on the team, same can be said for the PG position.

Look how many average QBs have won a Super Bowl. Look how many average QBs have won a national championship.

Purdue runs a motion offense, which does not heavily rely on a point guard running the show. All the perimeter players are expected to know how to move the ball and look for opportunities. It's not just the PG.

So the PG position does not play as big of a role in Purdue's offense as it does in other offenses. Obviously there are still important things for this position no matter what the role in the offense. Bringing the ball up, managing, keeping turnovers low, etc.

What's most important for Purdue's success is having depth/multiple threats. You look back at the baby boilers - they were successful because they presented 3 VERY different threats. It was tough to guard them because most teams don't have that kind of defensive depth. Purdue then stretched defenses thin, which let guys who weren't overly talented offensively, like a Chris Kramer, to have some big games/impact. Looking at this year's team, Purdue has a variety of players like that team at all different positions. Still not the same set-up and hard to compare, but to give you an idea.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

I disagree 110%!

We had two guys who weren't afraid to take a shot and they happened to be brothers. They were the worst thing to happen to Purdue basketball in the last decade. A motion offense doesn't work when you have a guy always seeking "to get his" every night. 4 guys running a motion offense and one shoot first point guard who isn't afraid to shoot is a disaster. You have to have 5 unselfish guys who CAN score but don't have to score. That's what made the baby boilers so good is that they were ridiculously unselfish. You put a shoot first point guard in the mix and its 2012-2014 all over again. That was unwatchable basketball and I don't ever want to go back there.

Having a great scorer at point guard in the motion offense isn't a bad thing at all, as long as the player doesn't force shots and plays within the structure of the offense. This isn't true just for point guards, but for any player in the offense. They all need to be able to read the D and make the correct play. This is something that E'Twaun Moore had to learn over his time at Purdue where he transformed from a great scorer to a great player and he's been a successful backup point guard in the NBA as a result.

I'd take Willie Deane on this or any Boilermaker team without hesitation.

 

[cgnops]

I disagree 110%!

We had two guys who weren't afraid to take a shot and they happened to be brothers. They were the worst thing to happen to Purdue basketball in the last decade. A motion offense doesn't work when you have a guy always seeking "to get his" every night. 4 guys running a motion offense and one shoot first point guard who isn't afraid to shoot is a disaster. You have to have 5 unselfish guys who CAN score but don't have to score. That's what made the baby boilers so good is that they were ridiculously unselfish. You put a shoot first point guard in the mix and its 2012-2014 all over again. That was unwatchable basketball and I don't ever want to go back there.

TJ was not that kind of player, you must not have watched him play very much. There was a lot of pressure put on his shoulders to perform in the role of an E'Twaun type guard - pretty high standard to live up to. I am proud of TJ for what he gave to us and respect him. He certainly was not the worst thing to happen to Purdue basketball in the last decade. Without question #1 would be Hummel's ACL issues. We busted on plenty of recruits in the past decade. Of course, RJ didn't fit our system and was a general distraction but hindsight is 20/20. Furthermore, I guarantee we wouldn't have recruited RJ if the coaching staff felt that TJ was a selfish, me-first player.

 

[since1980]

I disagree 110%!

We had two guys who weren't afraid to take a shot and they happened to be brothers. They were the worst thing to happen to Purdue basketball in the last decade. A motion offense doesn't work when you have a guy always seeking "to get his" every night. 4 guys running a motion offense and one shoot first point guard who isn't afraid to shoot is a disaster. You have to have 5 unselfish guys who CAN score but don't have to score. That's what made the baby boilers so good is that they were ridiculously unselfish. You put a shoot first point guard in the mix and its 2012-2014 all over again. That was unwatchable basketball and I don't ever want to go back there.

There is a difference between a young RJ on a bad/young team who maybe didn't buy into the team concept vs. a guy like Travis Trice who by his senior year had bought in at MSU and wasn't selfish but also wasn't afraid to make a play when the shot clock was winding down. You can be a team first player but also be an alpha guard who isn't afraid to make a play when the game is on the line.

A lot of teams run a motion offense. But you still need a guard who wants the ball in his hands when the game is on the line or the shot clock is running down. I'm not sure there has ever been a championship team that didn't have an alpha guard/small forward who lead the team when it mattered. Doesn't need to be the PG...but somebody capable of handling the ball/passing well. You just can't have 5 guys who are passive, unselfish guys when the game is on the line. Somebody needs to be the guy that the other guys know wants the ball and will make a play. Purdue didn't have that last year during the BTT and against Cincy when it mattered (except I think Vince and even Dakota showed against Cincy they were willing to take the big shot and become that guy since Ray and Octeus weren't), and it really showed in the tournament.

Kramer was actually very much an alpha guard when the game was on the line. Wasn't the best offensive player but wasn't afraid to make a play when it mattered.