A change in philosophy

[Dakota Girl]

Fine....you take your high basketball IQ players with less athleticism and I'll play against you with my lower basketball IQ but better basketball/athletic skills and I'll win 8 out of 10 times.

Over the course of time, it's not about the X's and the O's, it's about the Jimmys and the Joes.

Bones, you almost see what everyone is saying. I was with you right up to the last paragraph. I completely agree that the physical talent side of the equation is the most critical. Understanding the game can make up for some of that. How much it can cover depends on how outclassed you are physically.
But the x, o, jimmy, Joe comment is another subject altogether. It refer's to the talent (both physical and mental) being more important than the plays the coach wants them to run.

 

[bonefish1]

Bones, you almost see what everyone is saying. I was with you right up to the last paragraph. I completely agree that the physical talent side of the equation is the most critical. Understanding the game can make up for some of that. How much it can cover depends on how outclassed you are physically.
But the x, o, jimmy, Joe comment is another subject altogether. It refer's to the talent (both physical and mental) being more important than the plays the coach wants them to run.

So, that leads us back to the original discussion: PU hasn't been to a FF in 36 years. Why is that? Bad luck ( yes, the Hummel situation was bad luck) but that wasn't a guarantee even if he were healthy.
Do our players or coaches lack basketball IQ? That's possible. Are they not recruiting the right players? Probably.
Are they not caking the right characteristics?
But no matter what, a program like PU, which nationally is considered to be a very solid Bball program, not getting to a FF in 36 years is ridiculous.

 

[purdue4sure]

Okay. Two on two. I'll take Kramer and Uthoff and you get Ronnie Johnson and Troy Willimams

Give him Jacob Lawson.

 

[Dakota Girl]

So, that leads us back to the original discussion: PU hasn't been to a FF in 36 years. Why is that? Bad luck ( yes, the Hummel situation was bad luck) but that wasn't a guarantee even if he were healthy.
Do our players or coaches lack basketball IQ? That's possible. Are they not recruiting the right players? Probably.
Are they not caking the right characteristics?
But no matter what, a program like PU, which nationally is considered to be a very solid Bball program, not getting to a FF in 36 years is ridiculous.

It's a long time no question. Most teams that win National Titles do so because they recruit like Purdue does in their best recruiting classes every year. Recruiting high level consistently leads to consistent trips to the F4. Purdue was never a blue blood type program. Those schools own the majority of the titles. I don't have an answer to how to do it at our favorite University.

 

[bonefish1]

Give him Jacob Lawson.

you forgot about my comments where the guy had to have good basketball skills, not just jump-out-of-the-gym skills.
Guys like Herb Dove, Justin Jennings, etc. Great, great athletes, just not good at much other than jumping high.

 

[bonefish1]

It's a long time no question. Most teams that win National Titles do so because they recruit like Purdue does in their best recruiting classes every year. Recruiting high level consistently leads to consistent trips to the F4. Purdue was never a blue blood type program. Those schools own the majority of the titles. I don't have an answer to how to do it at our favorite University.

Those schools may own the majority of titles, but at least 10 Big 10 teams have made the FF since PU last did.
I'm going to continue to argue it's a Keady/Painter coaching philosophy, which takes me around full circle to them primarily recruiting PGs who are there to manage the offense (not create or be the offense), play D and defer to others offensively (Keady/Painter might prefere Bball IQ over a different type of PG who is more offensive minded........?)
Personally, I think this is one of the major reasons we lack a banner.

 

[proudopete]

Those schools may own the majority of titles, but at least 10 Big 10 teams have made the FF since PU last did.
I'm going to continue to argue it's a Keady/Painter coaching philosophy, which takes me around full circle to them primarily recruiting PGs who are there to manage the offense (not create or be the offense), play D and defer to others offensively (Keady/Painter might prefere Bball IQ over a different type of PG who is more offensive minded........?)
Personally, I think this is one of the major reasons we lack a banner.

Yet Ronnie Johnson was the point on Painters two worst teams.
Do you even think about what you are typing?

 

[bonefish1]

Yet Ronnie Johnson was the point on Painters two worst teams.
Do you even think about what you are typing?

Do you think Ronnie Johnson was surrounded with any other talent? Talentwise, from top to bottom, those were some of the worst we've ever seen and certainly some of the worst talent in the B10. AJ was only a freshman, correct?
Ronnie probably felt like he was the best player and had to put the team on his shoulders. Can't blame him.
But, that's not the Keady/Painter coaching philosophy for PGs.

Ronnie would have been ideal with this past years team. He's a much better ball handler, penetrator and finisher than PJ and could also get his own shot late in the clock. Teams would not have had the success with the press against us if Ronnie were on the floor. You can't argue that.

 

[boilerzz]

With a better basketball IQ, Ronnie would have been ideal with this past years team. He's a much better ball handler, penetrator and finisher than PJ and could also get his own shot late in the clock. Teams would not have had the success with the press against us if Ronnie (with a better basketball IQ) were on the floor. You can't argue that.

FIFY

 

[mathboy]

2012 Purdue - Tyrone Johnson, Rafeal Davis, AJ Hammons, DJ Byrd, Sandi Marcius = 7th in the BIG (Point Gaurd - Ronnie Johnson)

2013 Purdue - Tyrone Johnson, Rafeal Davis, AJ Hammons, Kendal Stevens, Errick Peck, Sterling Carter = Last in the BIG (Point Gaurd - Ronnie Johnson)

Plenty of talent to place higher in the BIG and to have had a winning record. Bad PG play by a talented athlete with low Basketball IQ.

 

[lbodel]

Those schools may own the majority of titles, but at least 10 Big 10 teams have made the FF since PU last did.
I'm going to continue to argue it's a Keady/Painter coaching philosophy, which takes me around full circle to them primarily recruiting PGs who are there to manage the offense (not create or be the offense), play D and defer to others offensively (Keady/Painter might prefere Bball IQ over a different type of PG who is more offensive minded........?)
Personally, I think this is one of the major reasons we lack a banner.

As we all know, there's more that goes into making a Final Four than a PG or what not. So much of it is luck of the draw - look at Butler. Yes, it's easy to simplify and say "we haven't made a Final Four" - but have we had teams that were Final Four caliber? Of course we have. Very few teams are in a position to make it consistently. And then you have the ones that have those caliber teams here and there - and it's a matter of making it happen in those very select few years. I'm not trying to make excuses, but Glenn Robinson getting the flu during the tournament playing in the Elite 8 - is horrible luck. Robbie Hummel going down with an ACL late in the year - horrible luck. Those were both legit Final Four contenders. We didn't NOT make the tournament because of a PG or offensive philosophy. We had good enough teams, it just didn't work out.

Would it make you feel better if we made a Final Four as a fluke (i.e. a higher seed that had a relatively easy path) one year, but then failed to do when we had Final Four caliber teams? Probably not.

This isn't a program that can't win big games. We've shown we can win very consistently with our Big Ten success over the years against very good teams. Even when we've had lesser teams, we've taken Final Four caliber (and eventual national champions) to the wire.

I'd be a lot more worried about things if we were only beating bad/average teams, losing to good teams and struggled to win on the road. Those are problems. But if we can beat a top 10 team in the regular season - then we have what it takes, it's just a matter of getting it done, having some luck and a nice path along the way.

 

[tjreese]

As we all know, there's more that goes into making a Final Four than a PG or what not. So much of it is luck of the draw - look at Butler. Yes, it's easy to simplify and say "we haven't made a Final Four" - but have we had teams that were Final Four caliber? Of course we have. Very few teams are in a position to make it consistently. And then you have the ones that have those caliber teams here and there - and it's a matter of making it happen in those very select few years. I'm not trying to make excuses, but Glenn Robinson getting the flu during the tournament playing in the Elite 8 - is horrible luck. Robbie Hummel going down with an ACL late in the year - horrible luck. Those were both legit Final Four contenders. We didn't NOT make the tournament because of a PG or offensive philosophy. We had good enough teams, it just didn't work out.

Would it make you feel better if we made a Final Four as a fluke (i.e. a higher seed that had a relatively easy path) one year, but then failed to do when we had Final Four caliber teams? Probably not.

This isn't a program that can't win big games. We've shown we can win very consistently with our Big Ten success over the years against very good teams. Even when we've had lesser teams, we've taken Final Four caliber (and eventual national champions) to the wire.

I'd be a lot more worried about things if we were only beating bad/average teams, losing to good teams and struggled to win on the road. Those are problems. But if we can beat a top 10 team in the regular season - then we have what it takes, it's just a matter of getting it done, having some luck and a nice path along the way.

not to alter any of your meaning, but Robinson hurt his back wrestling as in horseplay before the Duke game.

 

[bonefish1]

As we all know, there's more that goes into making a Final Four than a PG or what not. So much of it is luck of the draw - look at Butler. Yes, it's easy to simplify and say "we haven't made a Final Four" - but have we had teams that were Final Four caliber? Of course we have. Very few teams are in a position to make it consistently. And then you have the ones that have those caliber teams here and there - and it's a matter of making it happen in those very select few years. I'm not trying to make excuses, but Glenn Robinson getting the flu during the tournament playing in the Elite 8 - is horrible luck. Robbie Hummel going down with an ACL late in the year - horrible luck. Those were both legit Final Four contenders. We didn't NOT make the tournament because of a PG or offensive philosophy. We had good enough teams, it just didn't work out.

Would it make you feel better if we made a Final Four as a fluke (i.e. a higher seed that had a relatively easy path) one year, but then failed to do when we had Final Four caliber teams? Probably not.

This isn't a program that can't win big games. We've shown we can win very consistently with our Big Ten success over the years against very good teams. Even when we've had lesser teams, we've taken Final Four caliber (and eventual national champions) to the wire.

I'd be a lot more worried about things if we were only beating bad/average teams, losing to good teams and struggled to win on the road. Those are problems. But if we can beat a top 10 team in the regular season - then we have what it takes, it's just a matter of getting it done, having some luck and a nice path along the way.

Final Four caliber teams and teams that actually make the FF are two different things. That's like saying "I think my house is worth $1 million dollars but I'm only getting offers for $700K, but I know I have a million dollar house..." So, no, you don't have a million dollar house. And no matter how unlucky you think Purdue is, you don't have FF teams until you prove you can play in the FF.
A 36 year FF drought at a place like Purdue eventually isn't due to bad luck, it has something to do with coaching philosophy and the type of players the coach recruits for their system.

And, as far as PU winning big games, part of your 'well, look what we do in the Big 10" is the problem. Nobody cares what you do in the league. Keady was a great B10 league coach but a terrible tourney coach. Why? Because when he didn't have an entire season to scout an opponent, he didn't make adjustments and when it comes to close games in the tourney, sometimes it comes down to having that guy that can take the ball and go make a play. Usually that's a PG, but Keady nor Painter have typically had that type of PG.
Which brings me full circle to the Bball IQ versus athletic/basketball skills.
Because when comes down to the last few seconds of a possession and you absolutely need your PG to make a play, to you want PJ Thompson with the ball or the guy from Little Rock Ark who buried us?

 

[bonefish1]

And just to clarify, I'm not anti-PJ (like I was anti-Bade....Lenniel here), but I am anti-PJ type of skill set.
And don't give me his assist to TO ratio. He's dumping the ball into 3 future NBA monsters. I could rack up assists also by never trying to make a play and just feeding the post.

 

[tjreese]

Final Four caliber teams and teams that actually make the FF are two different things. That's like saying "I think my house is worth $1 million dollars but I'm only getting offers for $700K, but I know I have a million dollar house..." So, no, you don't have a million dollar house. And no matter how unlucky you think Purdue is, you don't have FF teams until you prove you can play in the FF.
A 36 year FF drought at a place like Purdue eventually isn't due to bad luck, it has something to do with coaching philosophy and the type of players the coach recruits for their system.

And, as far as PU winning big games, part of your 'well, look what we do in the Big 10" is the problem. Nobody cares what you do in the league. Keady was a great B10 league coach but a terrible tourney coach. Why? Because when he didn't have an entire season to scout an opponent, he didn't make adjustments and when it comes to close games in the tourney, sometimes it comes down to having that guy that can take the ball and go make a play. Usually that's a PG, but Keady nor Painter have typically had that type of PG.
Which brings me full circle to the Bball IQ versus athletic/basketball skills.
Because when comes down to the last few seconds of a possession and you absolutely need your PG to make a play, to you want PJ Thompson with the ball or the guy from Little Rock Ark who buried us?

Do I understand you to suggest that when Keady (your example) knows less about an opponent and their players he doesn't do was well as other coaches that don't know anything about an opponent or their players? This suggests that other coaches guess better not knowing the other players and teams than Gene guesses...or something else is at play...like perhaps better players end up being better players when the opposing coaches know less?

Now relative to players. You are under the impression that PG's are key. They are important and as you say "IF" it comes down to a final shot they have the ability to control the situation with less factors at play...I agree. However, to get to that final possession that PG better surround himself with good players or he won't go anywhere. Understand defensively that if I have a PG that controls the game a lot the whole defense can key on him. Whereas a pg that keeps you honest, but not THE major factor mandates the other team to defend the other four players and not just solely on you. Yogi and IU were better this year due to more players scoring. Had it all been all on Yogi IU would have not been very good even with their schedule. The guy from UALR had a magic moment and fell on his face the next game.

if you flip a coin and get 5 heads in a row the odds of a head the next flip doesn't change because you threw 5 heads in a row. What I think you would like to know is ( I know the size of the tourney has changed) is based upon 36 years. What was the probability or Purdue getting to the final four with all the permutations and odds of winning and ignoring the hand selected opponents for various reasons for each year and then those probabilities added up. I suspect the math would surprise you just like I'll take more often than not the field over what is considered the best team. You have so many interactions confounded in trying to draw conclusions it is a leap in faith to get there.

The most reasonable thing IMO to say is that having a great player that can create his own shot off the dribble can be crucial when the game is close and I think all would agree with that. No question THAT is an advantage WHEN that occasion occurs.

I've always operated with the understanding that the tourney had teams hand selected to play preferred teams in preferred brackets to generate the most net revenue. Players and teams were less scouted and consequently opposing coaches knew little about them and unable to prepare with such little information in comparison to the conference where coaches know a lot more and can coach "MORE" as a result rather than guessing as much. In THAT scenario player differences are more important since neither coach knows "as much" about the other team's personnel and tendencies. Then that player that needs less help in getting the ball and getting a shot off on the dribble that has a high probability of making it in the final minutes is important. I would never have guess that a basketball IQ would be so fleeting in what it is and what it isn't

 

[Dakota Girl]

Those schools may own the majority of titles, but at least 10 Big 10 teams have made the FF since PU last did.
I'm going to continue to argue it's a Keady/Painter coaching philosophy, which takes me around full circle to them primarily recruiting PGs who are there to manage the offense (not create or be the offense), play D and defer to others offensively (Keady/Painter might prefere Bball IQ over a different type of PG who is more offensive minded........?)
Personally, I think this is one of the major reasons we lack a banner.

I think you are correct regarding the point guard capability being insufficient for a set play or drive and kick based offense. I don't think Purdue hasn't had great point guards because the coaches prefer not to have them. Everyone wants a physically gifted, smart point guard who can hit threes, drive the lane and finish or pass, as well as hit free throws, and inspire their teammates with outstanding defense and tremendous leadership. You tend to see three or four of those guys a year enter college ball. Usually at Duke, UNC, Kansas, Kentucky, etc.. If painter could recruit that guy he sure as hell would take him. But he can't so he tries to find the next best thing he can get just like 99% of coaches have to do. If he had a Grayson Allen (yeah I know, he's a bit trippy) on last years team we have a great shot at the FF.
So now to your real question (from my viewpoint anyway). Do you take a less athletic, high IQ guy or a highly athletic but poorer decision making guy?

 

[BoilerBiker]

And just to clarify, I'm not anti-PJ (like I was anti-Bade....Lenniel here), but I am anti-PJ type of skill set.
And don't give me his assist to TO ratio. He's dumping the ball into 3 future NBA monsters. I could rack up assists also by never trying to make a play and just feeding the post.

he also shot 43% 3PTs, 82% FTs

 

[Inspector100]

.......................

Ronnie would have been ideal with this past years team. He's a much better ball handler, penetrator and finisher than PJ and could also get his own shot late in the clock. Teams would not have had the success with the press against us if Ronnie were on the floor. You can't argue that.

I emphatically disagree. RJ stopped the ball on offense. He also had problems fighting through screens on defense and was largely chasing his defensive assignment. Go back and look at games he played and how he took the air out of the ball when our team had just built solid momentum into control of the game. He didn't understand tempo. Then look at the offensive pace played by the past two Boiler teams. It is night and day difference. I am sorry, I get very excited about this and have to rant.

 

[proudopete]

I wish he would've just began with the Keady/Painter/point guard bashing premise.

I would've just avoided this thread altogether.

Funny I thought we were discussing basketball IQ? When in reality it was just a precursor to point out how bad our coaches and players have been.

 

[tjreese]

I emphatically disagree. RJ stopped the ball on offense. He also had problems fighting through screens on defense and was largely chasing his defensive assignment. Go back and look at games he played and how he took the air out of the ball when our team had just built solid momentum into control of the game. He didn't understand tempo. Then look at the offensive pace played by the past two Boiler teams. It is night and day difference. I am sorry, I get very excited about this and have to rant.

He had the physical tools...just low basketball IQ.

 

[BBG]

I wish he would've just began with the Keady/Painter/point guard bashing premise.

I would've just avoided this thread altogether.

Funny I thought we were discussing basketball IQ? When in reality it was just a precursor to point out how bad our coaches and players have been.

It's typical lennial (yeah bonefish is him), when backed in a corner he changes the parameters. It's how he has always tried to support his point in the past.

I had hoped he had changed, but appears he hasn't.

 

[BBG]

He had the physical tools...just low basketball IQ.

Hahaha... well done.

 

[bonefish1]

I think you are correct regarding the point guard capability being insufficient for a set play or drive and kick based offense. I don't think Purdue hasn't had great point guards because the coaches prefer not to have them. Everyone wants a physically gifted, smart point guard who can hit threes, drive the lane and finish or pass, as well as hit free throws, and inspire their teammates with outstanding defense and tremendous leadership. You tend to see three or four of those guys a year enter college ball. Usually at Duke, UNC, Kansas, Kentucky, etc.. If painter could recruit that guy he sure as hell would take him. But he can't so he tries to find the next best thing he can get just like 99% of coaches have to do. If he had a Grayson Allen (yeah I know, he's a bit trippy) on last years team we have a great shot at the FF.
So now to your real question (from my viewpoint anyway). Do you take a less athletic, high IQ guy or a highly athletic but poorer decision making guy?

I think there are lot more than 4-5 really good PGs per recruiting class. I'm not saying you need guys who are impact freshmen.
My issue is when you see mid-major teams with PGs who are consistently better than what PU has. Guys who are bigger, more athletic and better shooters than what we're putting on the floor, that's an issue.
I KNOW Painter tries to recruit some really good PGs and of course he would love to land them and not have to pick through the second or third level of recruits. But this all goes back to how he (and Keady) utilize and develop the PG position.
Recruits aren't stupid. They see how a player is utilized or developed in a system. Most top PGs aren't necessarily pass-first types of PGs, some are really good passers and facilitators but you have to have shooting and creating skills to get to the next level. They're PGs because they like controlling the offense, creating, etc. and when a top PG recruit sees that Painter doesn't get guys to the next level at the PG position, a lot of guys probably drop PU from their list.

 

[Dakota Girl]

I think there are lot more than 4-5 really good PGs per recruiting class. I'm not saying you need guys who are impact freshmen.
My issue is when you see mid-major teams with PGs who are consistently better than what PU has. Guys who are bigger, more athletic and better shooters than what we're putting on the floor, that's an issue.
I KNOW Painter tries to recruit some really good PGs and of course he would love to land them and not have to pick through the second or third level of recruits. But this all goes back to how he (and Keady) utilize and develop the PG position.
Recruits aren't stupid. They see how a player is utilized or developed in a system. Most top PGs aren't necessarily pass-first types of PGs, some are really good passers and facilitators but you have to have shooting and creating skills to get to the next level. They're PGs because they like controlling the offense, creating, etc. and when a top PG recruit sees that Painter doesn't get guys to the next level at the PG position, a lot of guys probably drop PU from their list.

Possibly a chicken vs. egg or a self fulfilling profecy situation?
I would loved to have watched the 15-16 team with A-Aron Craft behind the wheel.

 

[bonefish1]

Possibly a chicken vs. egg or a self fulfilling profecy situation?
I would loved to have watched the 15-16 team with A-Aron Craft behind the wheel.

So, in your opinion, what do you think is the reason that Purdue hasn't made the FF in 36 years (and you can't say 'bad luck').

 

[mathboy]

So, in your opinion, what do you think is the reason that Purdue hasn't made the FF in 36 years (and you can't say 'bad luck').

Big dog's back injury and Hummel's ACL were not bad luck. Okay, so what were those events? Our 2 best chance of an FF rode on their health.

 

[bonefish1]

Big dog's back injury and Hummel's ACL were not bad luck. Okay, so what were those events? Our 2 best chance of an FF rode on their health.

So, you're saying that every 18 years, we have a really good shot at a FF?

Yes, those 2 injuries were bad luck, but who knows whether we would have been in the FF with both those guys healthy? Would our chances have been better? Of course, but not guaranteed by any stretch.

So, besides bad luck, what are the other specific factors that have prevented PU from reaching the FF in the last 36 years?

 

[Dakota Girl]

So, in your opinion, what do you think is the reason that Purdue hasn't made the FF in 36 years (and you can't say 'bad luck').

Sorry but I can as luck is part of the equation which is exactly why it is important to recruit well consistently so you get a lot of shots at it over a long period of time. I don't think scheme or coaching decisions during the game are a huge factor. I think it's about getting enough 4 and 5 star recruits that you don't have holes in talent level at any one of three position groups, posts, wings, or points. In addition you have to have a combination of skills in those positions such as ball handlers, shooters, rebounders, drivers, and defenders. If you have the IQ to go with the skills, well that's the peak. The higher ranked players tend to have combinations of skills which also greatly helps. Soooo...that's all I want.

 

[BoilerDeac]

"Basketball IQ" is a silly statement. It usually means a guy lacks talent or athleticism (kind of like 'scrappy'). And why is it almost always labeled on white guys, (also like 'scrappy').
Basketball IQ doesn't get you to the NBA, talent does. You can have a huge 'basketball IQ', whatever the hell that means, but over the course of a game, talent usually will prevail.

I strongly disagree as well. For instance, knowing how to play help defense, when to switch, how to take away angles or create angles are all part of a player's "basketball IQ."

Take Michael Beasley...all the talent in the world, yet has been in and out of the NBA for his entire career.

 

[BoilerDeac]

Williams shooting percentage last season was .513 compared to .448 for Uthoff. They have nearly identical 3pt % with Uthoff at 38% and Williams at 34%.

Rebounding is similar as well at 5.8 per game for Williams and 6.3 for Uthoff.

You say they have different skill sets yet they have nearly identical stats and are the same size. Williams is by far the most athletic yet one is projected to be drafted and one is not. Perhaps the difference in skill sets is actually the one thing you say doesn't exist.

Uthoff took 173 threes...Williams only took 75. Comparing percentages there is unfair, to be honest.

That's like comparing a spot up three point shooter's percentage to the likes of a Ray Allen in his prime...the latter was taking much more difficult three point shots.

 

[mathboy]

Uthoff took 173 threes...Williams only took 75. Comparing percentages there is unfair, to be honest.

That's like comparing a spot up three point shooter's percentage to the likes of a Ray Allen in his prime...the latter was taking much more difficult three point shots.

Both took sufficient number of 3's to compare percents.

I think that you are losing sight of the core thought here. Various posters are attempting to help Bonehead understand that players must have more than just physical skills to be a good player. There is something that folks call "basketball IQ" that factors into every aspect of the game.

The idea was to compare two players of relatively similar physical skills, and show how much better the one was who had the higher IQ. No two people are exactly alike, so any such comparison has flaws, as you have pointed out. I give Proud Pete credit for trying. I think it was a valiant attempt, but one in vain, perhaps.

But hey, we are all Purdue fans here, so Boiler up!

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

Fine....you take your high basketball IQ players with less athleticism and I'll play against you with my lower basketball IQ but better basketball/athletic skills and I'll win 8 out of 10 times.

Over the course of time, it's not about the X's and the O's, it's about the Jimmys and the Joes.

I think the San Antonio Spurs would be interested in that argument....
Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobilli, and Tony Parker aren't going to simply wow anyone with their raw athleticism...but they sure know and understand the game in depth.

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

So, that leads us back to the original discussion: PU hasn't been to a FF in 36 years. Why is that? Bad luck ( yes, the Hummel situation was bad luck) but that wasn't a guarantee even if he were healthy.
Do our players or coaches lack basketball IQ? That's possible. Are they not recruiting the right players? Probably.
Are they not caking the right characteristics?
But no matter what, a program like PU, which nationally is considered to be a very solid Bball program, not getting to a FF in 36 years is ridiculous.

Don't forget the injury to GRob in the NCAA Tourney....that was incredibly bad luck as nobody was going to stop GRob in the tourney.

 

[SIBoiler2]

It's typical lennial (yeah bonefish is him), when backed in a corner he changes the parameters. It's how he has always tried to support his point in the past.

I had hoped he had changed, but appears he hasn't.

I'd forgotten about Lenny and since BF is also on ignore I missed the similarities. Are he and Courtnonsense brothers or cousins?

 

[Inspector100]

He had the physical tools...just low basketball IQ.

Well played, and with sauce.

 

[purdue4sure]

I think there are lot more than 4-5 really good PGs per recruiting class. I'm not saying you need guys who are impact freshmen.
My issue is when you see mid-major teams with PGs who are consistently better than what PU has. Guys who are bigger, more athletic and better shooters than what we're putting on the floor, that's an issue.
I KNOW Painter tries to recruit some really good PGs and of course he would love to land them and not have to pick through the second or third level of recruits. But this all goes back to how he (and Keady) utilize and develop the PG position.
Recruits aren't stupid. They see how a player is utilized or developed in a system. Most top PGs aren't necessarily pass-first types of PGs, some are really good passers and facilitators but you have to have shooting and creating skills to get to the next level. They're PGs because they like controlling the offense, creating, etc. and when a top PG recruit sees that Painter doesn't get guys to the next level at the PG position, a lot of guys probably drop PU from their list.

Alan Iverson. A good example of all the talent in the world, but a low basketball IQ.

 

[bonefish1]

Alan Iverson. A good example of all the talent in the world, but a low basketball IQ.

I think you're kidding, but how can you say Alan Iverson had a low Bball IQ?
The guy was a No 1 NBA draft pick, played for 14 seasons, was an 11 time all-star.
Yeh, you're right, he must have a low Bbal IQ. Purdue4sore.

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

Alan Iverson. A good example of all the talent in the world, but a low basketball IQ.

Iverson had a HUGE basketball IQ...he was just a total me first player. You can't really blame him though as he played on the 76'ers with absolutely little to no help on his teams. The season he carried the 76'ers to the Finals was incredible.

 

[proudopete]

I think you're kidding, but how can you say Alan Iverson had a low Bball IQ?
The guy was a No 1 NBA draft pick, played for 14 seasons, was an 11 time all-star.
Yeh, you're right, he must have a low Bbal IQ. Purdue4sore.

Someone in this thread is sore. I'm not sure it's Purdue4sure however.

 

[purdue4sure]

I think you're kidding, but how can you say Alan Iverson had a low Bball IQ?
The guy was a No 1 NBA draft pick, played for 14 seasons, was an 11 time all-star.
Yeh, you're right, he must have a low Bbal IQ. Purdue4sore.

Never won a championship, which is your measure of success. As a PG, he was known to NOT get his teammates involved. Yeah, that's a high-IQ PG. No thanks.