2022 Recruiting

[yatta]

uggggg. The dreaded “basketball IQ”....it doesn’t exist. It’s a term used to describe guys who are decent players but athletically challenged.

I was going to originally use the word heady....

As far as hoops IQ, sure it does. Maybe it manifests itself in anticipation, perception, knack for making a play or the right pass.

Kawhi Leonard Has a high hoops IQ
Lebron has a high hoops IQ
Greene, asshat he may be, has a high hoops IQ.

At the college level Aaron Craft had a high IQ and I would not call him athletically challenged.

 

[GregJM24]

No.

I think Michael Jordan put it very well when commenting about Charles Barkley. In essence, MJ was critical of Barkley's teams and his individual performance because, while Barkley was incredibly talented, he didn't know how to make his teams better.

That was MJ's trademark. He had a high basketball IQ, and he used it to make his teams better, not just through his talent.

I don't believe any self-respecting sports fan would call MJ a "decent (player) but athletically challenged".

Anyone who believes basketball IQ doesn’t matter never played basketball (and I have to question if they watch must basketball).
Playing with guys with high IQs is a whole different world than playing with guys with low IQs.

 

[TX4GB]

A great start to the class with an outside shooter! 3 more to go. Who’s up next?

 

[boilernuke]

CMP has stated that he changed the type of players he recruited after those down years. And our program turned around overnight the moment that Vince, Haas, PJ, Mathias, Octeus, and Jacquil walked in the door.

One can argue Rapheal Davis was the original catalyst of instilling the right culture at Purdue, emerging out of the "down years".

 

[bonefish1]

The fact that Ronnie shot as much as he did indicates to me that he didn’t have a high basketball IQ.

Those were some lean days in Purdue hoops. Someone had to try and generate some offense.

Would you said that Carsen Edwards had a high or low basketball IQ? I would argue that someone like PJ had a low basketball IQ (if I believed in such a thing).

 

[bonefish1]

No.

I think Michael Jordan put it very well when commenting about Charles Barkley. In essence, MJ was critical of Barkley's teams and his individual performance because, while Barkley was incredibly talented, he didn't know how to make his teams better.

That was MJ's trademark. He had a high basketball IQ, and he used it to make his teams better, not just through his talent.

I don't believe any self-respecting sports fan would call MJ a "decent (player) but athletically challenged".

Let's be clear....you're talking about the GOAT in the NBA in Jordan. Whatever his IQ was doesn't matter. He was just better than everyone else.
All players at that level make good plays and bad plays, smart plays and dumb plays.
People might say C Edwards didn't have a good basketball IQ because he launched 30 foot jumpers with a 6'8 guy guarding him. The only thing that determined whether that was a high or low IQ play was whether the ball went in the bucket.

 

[bonefish1]

Anyone who believes basketball IQ doesn’t matter never played basketball (and I have to question if they watch must basketball).
Playing with guys with high IQs is a whole different world than playing with guys with low IQs.

On the court, talent is going to be basketball IQ most of the time.
You hear the team, "don't think, just play". That's what players like Edwards, GRob, etc do when it's time to take over a game, mostly on talent alone.

 

[Purdue85]

Let's be clear....you're talking about the GOAT in the NBA in Jordan. Whatever his IQ was doesn't matter. He was just better than everyone else.
All players at that level make good plays and bad plays, smart plays and dumb plays.
People might say C Edwards didn't have a good basketball IQ because he launched 30 foot jumpers with a 6'8 guy guarding him. The only thing that determined whether that was a high or low IQ play was whether the ball went in the bucket.

Sure. We can be clear.

My point was, is, and will remain, that the use of the term "basketball IQ" isn't reserved as you tried to argue.

It's not about making smart plays or dumb plays. It's a broader term, and most people generally understand the meaning.

 

[C'ville Boiler]

Let's be clear....you're talking about the GOAT in the NBA in Jordan. Whatever his IQ was doesn't matter. He was just better than everyone else.
All players at that level make good plays and bad plays, smart plays and dumb plays.
People might say C Edwards didn't have a good basketball IQ because he launched 30 foot jumpers with a 6'8 guy guarding him. The only thing that determined whether that was a high or low IQ play was whether the ball went in the bucket.

The thing with Edwards was he proved quite often that he could hit those where as Ronnie couldn’t. Also Edwards played quite a bit harder than Johnson. Just on offensive end alone he worked really hard to within the offense to get open. Dakich and other commentators talked about it

 

[bonefish1]

Sure. We can be clear.

My point was, is, and will remain, that the use of the term "basketball IQ" isn't reserved as you tried to argue.

It's not about making smart plays or dumb plays. It's a broader term, and most people generally understand the meaning.

I prefer to stick with "That was a stupid play" to determine whether someone should have done something or not.

A well drawn up play that's well executed is going to look like a high IQ play every time it works and the players executing it will look good.
However, if you have a guy who launches a 3 when you're down by 2 with 10 seconds left and have a size advantage inside, might be considered a "low IQ" play (unless it goes in).

 

[bonefish1]

The thing with Edwards was he proved quite often that he could hit those where as Ronnie couldn’t. Also Edwards played quite a bit harder than Johnson. Just on offensive end alone he worked really hard to within the offense to get open. Dakich and other commentators talked about it

So, is Edwards launching 30 footers a high iq or low iq play? Or does it only depend on whether it goes in?
It's still the Jimmy's and the Joes, not the X's and the O's

 

[Purdue85]

I prefer to stick with "That was a stupid play" to determine whether someone should have done something or not.

A well drawn up play that's well executed is going to look like a high IQ play every time it works and the players executing it will look good.
However, if you have a guy who launches a 3 when you're down by 2 with 10 seconds left and have a size advantage inside, might be considered a "low IQ" play (unless it goes in).

you're making this too hard.

Basketball IQ has absolutely zero to do with smart of dumb plays.

There are unbelievable athletes who, no matter how much time and training, would never be considered elite basketball players. The reason for that is simple: they don't have the instincts for the game. They just don't have it.

To say, "“basketball IQ”.... is a term used to describe guys who are decent players but athletically challenged" demonstrates a lack of understanding (or, acknowledgement) as to what makes one player better than another.

 

[C'ville Boiler]

So, is Edwards launching 30 footers a high iq or low iq play? Or does it only depend on whether it goes in?
It's still the Jimmy's and the Joes, not the X's and the O's

Probably conventional wisdom would say it’s not but it also depends on who the player is, if it’s a strength of his and it depends on time and situation it happens. Apparently Painter was alright with it so I would say it’s good. Besides, Edwards was a threat from everywhere. Above the rim, transition, mid range, pull up, 3s, 40 footers. Plus he had unbelievable confidence to go with it and the work ethic and hustle to get open. So I’d say unless the time and situation was wrong, then his shots from anywhere wouldn’t be low IQ

 

[mathboy]

Let's be clear....you're talking about the GOAT in the NBA in Jordan. Whatever his IQ was doesn't matter. He was just better than everyone else.
All players at that level make good plays and bad plays, smart plays and dumb plays.
People might say C Edwards didn't have a good basketball IQ because he launched 30 foot jumpers with a 6'8 guy guarding him. The only thing that determined whether that was a high or low IQ play was whether the ball went in the bucket.

The thing about Carsten was that he understood where to go and what to do in the offense. When he made his cuts, he knew where the brief opening was going to be. If he found that closed, he knew where to pass the ball and who was probably open. Not only did he score in bunches, but he also facilitated the offense.

Contrast that with Ronnie (the sauce) Johnson who played the game like it was a one-on-one contest. He never had a clue where the opponents were or where his teammates were. Even at the end of his college career, he was still playing that 1on1 game. He had what I would call poor basketball IQ. Whereas Carson had very high BBIQ.

it’s kind of like how some folks on here offer good analysis, understanding the complexity and nuances of the game, and display a relatively high IQ. Others just grasp at the obvious and proclaim it simple. It does not reflect general intelligence. However, It does show who puts in the effort to understand the game.

 

[bonefish1]

you're making this too hard.

Basketball IQ has absolutely zero to do with smart of dumb plays.

There are unbelievable athletes who, no matter how much time and training, would never be considered elite basketball players. The reason for that is simple: they don't have the instincts for the game. They just don't have it.

To say, "“basketball IQ”.... is a term used to describe guys who are decent players but athletically challenged" demonstrates a lack of understanding (or, acknowledgement) as to what makes one player better than another.

Can you name some great players who had "low basketball IQ"?
I think it boils down to, some guys are just better than others. Maybe they just run faster, jump higher, shoot better, have better anticipation, see the court better, etc.
Would you describe Wheeler as a high or low basketball IQ? What about Haarms?

 

[bonefish1]

Probably conventional wisdom would say it’s not but it also depends on who the player is, if it’s a strength of his and it depends on time and situation it happens. Apparently Painter was alright with it so I would say it’s good. Besides, Edwards was a threat from everywhere. Above the rim, transition, mid range, pull up, 3s, 40 footers. Plus he had unbelievable confidence to go with it and the work ethic and hustle to get open. So I’d say unless the time and situation was wrong, then his shots from anywhere wouldn’t be low IQ

So, it's not really the play itself, it just whether the play was successful or not?

Is Eastern pulling up to take that same 30 footer the same low IQ play or just a dumb/bad play because he was a terrible shooter?
My point is; there are smart plays and dumb plays. Basketball IQ insinuates that some players has some higher level of understanding of the game, which i don't think is the case.

 

[bonefish1]

The thing about Carsten was that he understood where to go and what to do in the offense. When he made his cuts, he knew where the brief opening was going to be. If he found that closed, he knew where to pass the ball and who was probably open. Not only did he score in bunches, but he also facilitated the offense.

Contrast that with Ronnie (the sauce) Johnson who played the game like it was a one-on-one contest. He never had a clue where the opponents were or where his teammates were. Even at the end of his college career, he was still playing that 1on1 game. He had what I would call poor basketball IQ. Whereas Carson had very high BBIQ.

it’s kind of like how some folks on here offer good analysis, understanding the complexity and nuances of the game, and display a relatively high IQ. Others just grasp at the obvious and proclaim it simple. It does not reflect general intelligence. However, It does show who puts in the effort to understand the game.

I think the major difference was that Carsen was an NBA talent and Ronnie wasn't.
People......try to over think this and believe that some players have a higher level of understanding that others don't. The game isn't that complicated. The difference in a player like Carsen and Ronnie is talent, plain and simple. Ronnie wasn't going to be an NBA player no matter how high his BBIQ was because he wasn't talented enough. All the IQ in the world isn't going to make up for an inability to run, jump and shoot.

 

[SIBoiler2]

Basketball IQ is about knowing and understanding the intricacies of the game of basketball and using that understanding to fit into the dynamics of the team you are on. There have been some very athletically talented players in history that did little for their teams because while gifted they didn't have the IQ to benefit their team.

 

[Purdue85]

Can you name some great players who had "low basketball IQ"?
I think it boils down to, some guys are just better than others. Maybe they just run faster, jump higher, shoot better, have better anticipation, see the court better, etc.
Would you describe Wheeler as a high or low basketball IQ? What about Haarms?

There are MANY articles and resources that adequately describe what you're looking for. I'll admit: I don't expect that you're intellectually curious enough to explore them. Otherwise, you wouldn't be driving this so hard.

Yes, some guys are "better" than others. You insist on denying reasonable observations as to the "why". It's not that they run faster, or have better shooting mechanics, or jump higher, or don't make "dumb" plays (hint: they all do), or anything like that. And, it's certainly not because they have less talent (we've already established that), thus, warranting the label. It's because of their understanding of the game, the purpose of the game plan, their instincts, how they see the floor better than others, and (ultimately) how they execute on all that.

You don't believe in it so it doesn't exist. It's everyone else that has it wrong.

 

[Esox54547]

Can you name some great players who had "low basketball IQ"?
I think it boils down to, some guys are just better than others. Maybe they just run faster, jump higher, shoot better, have better anticipation, see the court better, etc.
Would you describe Wheeler as a high or low basketball IQ? What about Haarms?

I can agree that the term is way over used, but that doesn't mean there isn't something to it. I don't know about great players with low basketball IQ, but there can be some very good players that have varying degrees of it.

Let's just take two players we all know and compare. This is just my opinion and how I saw it. I think Trevion has a very high BB IQ and I always thought Matt Haarms had a somewhat lower amount of it. Matt though was more athletic and can move better.

Trevion: Always seems to know what his options are before he receives the pass. When a double team comes, he can immediately find the open man as he already seems to know where they are. For rebounding, he always seems to be in the right place at the right time. It can't be coincidence, he just knows where to go. On defense, he can defend smaller faster players if he somehow got mismatched on them because of his fast hands and anticipation.

Matt: he is at his best on slipping screens as he only has one job to do in that instance. He is often out of position for rebounds. He often goes for blocks he has no chance at getting, leaving his man for a put back rebound. He makes lots of plays though, because he moves much better than most guys his size and he has the size to influence opposing team shots around the rim.

Both players are very good and valuable, but I think Trevion has the higher BB IQ and that allows him to make his teammates better by getting good position for a pass and knowing what to do with it once he has it. Matt can make his teammates better also, by being that last line of defense at the rim, but he does that using his quickness and size as I think his anticipation is lacking.

Anyway, that is how I see BB IQ.

 

[bonefish1]

Basketball IQ is about knowing and understanding the intricacies of the game of basketball and using that understanding to fit into the dynamics of the team you are on. There have been some very athletically talented players in history that did little for their teams because while gifted they didn't have the IQ to benefit their team.

Talk to me about these 'intricacies'.....Be specific. Tell me some intricate aspect of basketball that I don't already know.
I grew up in IN, played hoops my entire life, feel like I know the game pretty well. But whether I'm talking to my grade school YMCA coach or John Wooden, neither of them is going to teach me some unique aspect of bball that I don't already know or considered. The game aint that tough.
Lacrosse, on the other hand, is a sport I didn't grow up playing or watching and one I don't know. One of my daughters plays and I'm still figuring the game out and can learn from people that have played.

I think people here just want to use the phrase "Bassketball IQ" because it makes it sound like a player has some other sense about them. When in reality, it really can be called "making the smart play considering the situation, match up, time, score, etc."

But I'm also waiting to hear some examples of a really good/great player who also has low basketball IQ.

 

[bonefish1]

There are MANY articles and resources that adequately describe what you're looking for. I'll admit: I don't expect that you're intellectually curious enough to explore them. Otherwise, you wouldn't be driving this so hard.

Yes, some guys are "better" than others. You insist on denying reasonable observations as to the "why". It's not that they run faster, or have better shooting mechanics, or jump higher, or don't make "dumb" plays (hint: they all do), or anything like that. And, it's certainly not because they have less talent (we've already established that), thus, warranting the label. It's because of their understanding of the game, the purpose of the game plan, their instincts, how they see the floor better than others, and (ultimately) how they execute on all that.

You don't believe in it so it doesn't exist. It's everyone else that has it wrong.

You're trying to look at this from an intellectual perspective. You're over complicating it. BBall is a simple game. The purpose is to put the ball in the hoop.
If you want to get more intricate: Find the mismatch and exploit it.
There's not that much to "understand".

 

[bonefish1]

I can agree that the term is way over used, but that doesn't mean there isn't something to it. I don't know about great players with low basketball IQ, but there can be some very good players that have varying degrees of it.

Let's just take two players we all know and compare. This is just my opinion and how I saw it. I think Trevion has a very high BB IQ and I always thought Matt Haarms had a somewhat lower amount of it. Matt though was more athletic and can move better.

Trevion: Always seems to know what his options are before he receives the pass. When a double team comes, he can immediately find the open man as he already seems to know where they are. For rebounding, he always seems to be in the right place at the right time. It can't be coincidence, he just knows where to go. On defense, he can defend smaller faster players if he somehow got mismatched on them because of his fast hands and anticipation.

Matt: he is at his best on slipping screens as he only has one job to do in that instance. He is often out of position for rebounds. He often goes for blocks he has no chance at getting, leaving his man for a put back rebound. He makes lots of plays though, because he moves much better than most guys his size and he has the size to influence opposing team shots around the rim.

Both players are very good and valuable, but I think Trevion has the higher BB IQ and that allows him to make his teammates better by getting good position for a pass and knowing what to do with it once he has it. Matt can make his teammates better also, by being that last line of defense at the rim, but he does that using his quickness and size as I think his anticipation is lacking.

Anyway, that is how I see BB IQ.

I would agree with both you assessments of Williams and Haarms.
However, I wouldn't describe it as a difference in BBIQ.
I would say that "Williams is a big man with good feet and good hands. He's also a good passing big man who knows that he's likely to get double teamed in the post and that his good passing skills allow him to find the open man. He generally has pretty good anticipation when it comes to rebounding, knowing who's likely to fire up a shot, what angle it might come off and getting guys on his hip with positioning.

For Haarms, I'd say "He hasn't learned fully how to use his size in the paint on defense, that not every shot needs to be blocked, often times just altering it is enough.
He moves his feet well for a 7 footer and has developed a pretty good understanding of when to slip the high ball screen and dive to the lane.
He doesn't have good rebounding anticipation and doesn't get in good rebounding position early."

Now, to me, a lot of that is just determined as how good you are at basketball. Are things like anticipation an instinct and athleticism (Dennis Rodman) or is it something you learn and develop? Probably both.

Maybe I just don't like the phrase "Basketball IQ"........obviously I don't.

 

[mathboy]

I think the major difference was that Carsen was an NBA talent and Ronnie wasn't.
People......try to over think this and believe that some players have a higher level of understanding that others don't. The game isn't that complicated. The difference in a player like Carsen and Ronnie is talent, plain and simple. Ronnie wasn't going to be an NBA player no matter how high his BBIQ was because he wasn't talented enough. All the IQ in the world isn't going to make up for an inability to run, jump and shoot.

I think you missed my point, but that’s okay. I did not mention the talent difference. I was talking about understanding where your teammates are on the court, and what the opponent is doing. That’s not related to athleticism or talent. Grady is another example of a kid with good BBIQ. He knew where to be, where to pass, and when to shoot. That’s BBIQ.

 

[Purdue85]

You're trying to look at this from an intellectual perspective. You're over complicating it. BBall is a simple game. The purpose is to put the ball in the hoop.
If you want to get more intricate: Find the mismatch and exploit it.
There's not that much to "understand".

No, you're wrong. I'm not trying to do any such thing, and it's not surprising you're going there.

And, no, I'm not "over complicating it"; I'm simplifying it for you.

Most of us understand the purpose of the game, but thanks.

If you cannot see (recognize?) that there are some people (in virtually any endeavor, discipline, sport, etc.) that simply see things and do things differently, it's clear nobody is going to be able to provide insight to assist.

Most everyone that's been around the game recognizes there are those who simply have a greater "IQ" about the game. It isn't the talent level, as you've already recognized there are plenty of people with great talent, and some who simply do more with it and are able to play the game at a higher level. It isn't about dumb play vs smart play. It's about how they see the game and how the play the game.

That was perfectly illustrated with my reference to MJ and his comments about Barkley. That was really the heart of the point MJ was making.

 

[Purdue85]

Maybe I just don't like the phrase "Basketball IQ"........obviously I don't.

All kidding aside, I think you've nailed it. I think this is one of those "pet peeves" (and I have my share of them).

 

[KingofJersey]

Basketball IQ is the difference between Lebron James and Josh Jackson (former Kansas 1 and done who beat us in the 2017 NCAA tournament). Both players were similar size coming out of high school and have comparably ridiculous high school highlights with dunks, passes, and 3 pointers. I would say equally athletic and it would be hard to argue that one was more skilled than the other at that point of their careers.

The difference is the "feel for the game" which may sound silly but absolutely exists. It's why Lebron averaged 6 assists his rookie season, and Josh Jackson averaged 1.5. It's the reason Lebron runs the point for the Lakers and Jackson is a high flying wing. It's not because Jackson can't dribble or make sound passes, he has all the physical tools that Lebron has.

I don't know good either player is at calculus or how well they can do their taxes, so I'm not going to say the difference is that Lebron is more intelligent than Jackson. It's clear that Lebron understands both offense and defense better than Jackson, so he knows which plays will work better.

 

[proudopete]

I can agree that the term is way over used, but that doesn't mean there isn't something to it. I don't know about great players with low basketball IQ, but there can be some very good players that have varying degrees of it.

Let's just take two players we all know and compare. This is just my opinion and how I saw it. I think Trevion has a very high BB IQ and I always thought Matt Haarms had a somewhat lower amount of it. Matt though was more athletic and can move better.

Trevion: Always seems to know what his options are before he receives the pass. When a double team comes, he can immediately find the open man as he already seems to know where they are. For rebounding, he always seems to be in the right place at the right time. It can't be coincidence, he just knows where to go. On defense, he can defend smaller faster players if he somehow got mismatched on them because of his fast hands and anticipation.

Matt: he is at his best on slipping screens as he only has one job to do in that instance. He is often out of position for rebounds. He often goes for blocks he has no chance at getting, leaving his man for a put back rebound. He makes lots of plays though, because he moves much better than most guys his size and he has the size to influence opposing team shots around the rim.

Both players are very good and valuable, but I think Trevion has the higher BB IQ and that allows him to make his teammates better by getting good position for a pass and knowing what to do with it once he has it. Matt can make his teammates better also, by being that last line of defense at the rim, but he does that using his quickness and size as I think his anticipation is lacking.

Anyway, that is how I see BB IQ.

I often use a personal memory to explain the “sports IQ” difference. This was in a football game but it is basically the same thing. I was in middle school playing in a football game and it was late in the game and we were driving the field to try ana score before the clock ran out. We ran a play that was meant for the receiver of the ball to get out of bounds to stop the clock but he didn’t quite make it, so the clock kept running. All of a sudden, one of our linesman grabbed a ref and showed him that his chin strap on his helmet had come unscrewed. This of course stopped the clock as the linesman ran to the sideline to get it screwed back on his helmet. It was a smart play and I don’t think it was a coincidence that this guy also was one of the coaches son. We were able to get organized with the clock stopped instead of rushing and possibly clocking the ball and losing a play and the sole reason for this was the “football IQ” of the linesman and his ability to twist the screw out of his helmet.
Basketball IQ is the same and does exist. There are so many small, seemingly minor advantages that can be gained by knowing the ins and outs of the game one is playing and I think most people call that “whatever sport your playing IQ”. Crossing the lane and grabbing the ball after a made free throw is an example in basketball. It attempts to break the concentration of the shooter and is perfectly legal.

 

[TX4GB]

Back to recruiting, we made the top 5 for Jameel Brown:

 

[Hausta01]

Back to recruiting, we made the top 5 for Jameel Brown:

View embedded media

Is that Temple or Texas Tech?

 

[Do Dah Day]

Is that Temple or Texas Tech?

based on other tweets - it's temple - I think Tech is a T over a T

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

Is that Temple or Texas Tech?

Temple - I think Texas Tech uses a slightly offset double "T."

 

[Hausta01]

based on other tweets - it's temple - I think Tech is a T over a T

You're right, thanks

 

[Chi-Boiler]

Bruce Thornton announcing tomorrow. Do we have a shot here? UGA most likely?

 

[TX4GB]

Bruce Thornton announcing tomorrow. Do we have a shot here? UGA most likely?

Oh, missed that! Probably so?

 

[Hausta01]

Just picked up a CB for Camden Heide from Brian Snow

 

[TX4GB]

Just picked up a CB for Camden Heide from Brian Snow

Awesome! Maybe the first big recruit from the Minny area?

 

[Roeder]

This would be amazing get if Purdue can land him. Just a smooth scorer that would fit perfect with what Purdue is building. Maybe Loyers commit speed things up?

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Just picked up a CB for Camden Heide from Brian Snow

Wait- is a Brian Snow crystal ball pick good or bad?

 

[guppy likes purdue]

Wait- is a Brian Snow crystal ball pick good or bad?

Any pick is good but if its not close to the players commitment it doesn't mean much.

Plus they added that new confidence meter and it was a medium pick whatever that means