A new thought and revelation !

[Wolegib]

This is about the one and done type players. We can talk about Duke and UK and Kansas all day. they are successful and attract one and done players every year. but the reality is that they usually have 2-4 one and done players on the court at all times and sometimes they have one and done "hopefuls" coming off the bench. Some of these guys average less than 10 ppg and still get drafted. But my new thought and revelation involves the team who only has 1 one and done player. And my thoughts are that could lead to disaster and often has.

As I look at a one and done player, if the team only has one, that team will focus everything they do around that player. that team can be very successful like Purdue was this year. However, if that player has an off night. that team loses. I'm thinking of Ball at UCLA and Simmons at LSU. UCLA was successful last year, but not a championship caliber team. And LSU with Simmons was a huge disappointment.

my new thought is if you recruit a one and done is that you need to recruit more than one. and you need to recruit players to fit your style rather than changing your style to fit the players. and that's very hard to do. it's very hard for a one and done player to join a veteran team oriented team and be successful . it's a lot easier to join a team that has a lot of frequent turnover and holes to fill like Kentucky or Duke. And frequently, on a team like Kentucky or Duke or Kansas, the veteran players are role players and not the stars or focal point.. When was the last time Kentucky or Duke had a senior as their star player? yes, they've had some very good seniors, but those guys were not their star player.

looking at two examples, I'll choose JJJ and Langford. Whether true or not, they are both being labeled as one and done players. As fans, we could project JJJ to fill the void left by Swanigan. but when Swanigan played for Purdue , V Edwards, PJ, Mathias and Haas were all sophomores and juniors.. they needed a leader. But now, they are seniors. As such I would expect Purdue to play a more team oriented game. Despite his talent, I do not believe JJJ as a freshman would have been able to duplicate Swanigan's accomplishments of last year and become a one and done player. . and you would have had either a senior or C Edwards go to the bench. it would have been a lot easier for JJJ to become the focus as a one and done if Haas and V Edwards had also left creating multiple holes . their return could have easily been a factor in JJJ's decision.

the same would apply to Langford. I'm not sure Langford wants to share the backcourt with Eastern , Cline and Edwards if he came to Purdue. if Edwards were to leave early, Purdue would be more attractive to Langford.

I believe both JJJ and Langford will be successful players. but they each need a place where they can be the focus and shine. I just didn't see that happening for JJJ. it might have been able to happen for Langford if Painter installed a 3 guard offense.

With all that being said, in a perfect world, with 4 senior starters graduating, and following my thoughts, one would think that Purdue would be an attractive place next year for several one and dones to come here. Like UK, we have the opportunity for a player to come in and be successful immediately. if JJJ were in the 2018 class, I believe Purdue would have been a more attractive choice. A class of Langford and JJJ could have been a monster class.

But my point and thought is that 1 one and done player is not going to take you to a championship. if a team goes that route, you need to have 2-3 one and dones annually. A single one and done can bring success to a school, but can only carry a team so far.

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

You go and get the best players you can, that fit your system, and that fit culturally within your program. If that is 3 'one and done' players one year and zero the next...so be it. You don't limit yourself due to perceptions of a one and done player struggling one night to a loss.

 

[pboiler18]

UCLA had more than 1 one and done last year.

They actually had 3.

 

[FirstDownB]

One thing the one and done culture has revealed is that there are diminishing returns on "one and done" recruits once you get past the top 5 or 10 guys. Some of them bolt for the NBA before they even match the production of a well developed 4-star Senior. And then you have some with the "one and done" mindset without the skills or work ethic to back it up. If you can't recruit the top dogs you are probably just as well off recruiting top 150 guys who fit your system and will stay to develop their game for 3 or 4 years. You just can't afford any recruiting lapses because then you will be relying on underclassmen who aren't as skilled as the one and dones.

On a related note, this is why I don't believe Painter's recruiting style will prevent him from reaching a Final Four. Disregarding the dry spell ~2008-2011 with the paltry recruiting budget, the recruiting has been good enough. There have been teams with similar recruits make it to the Final Four with a similar approach of finding pieces that fit the system and developing them. If he never makes it, it will probably be because of the style of play being more conducive to the grind of the regular season and/or just dumb luck and bad match-ups. Just MHO.

 

[bonefish1]

This is about the one and done type players. We can talk about Duke and UK and Kansas all day. they are successful and attract one and done players every year. but the reality is that they usually have 2-4 one and done players on the court at all times and sometimes they have one and done "hopefuls" coming off the bench. Some of these guys average less than 10 ppg and still get drafted. But my new thought and revelation involves the team who only has 1 one and done player. And my thoughts are that could lead to disaster and often has.

As I look at a one and done player, if the team only has one, that team will focus everything they do around that player. that team can be very successful like Purdue was this year. However, if that player has an off night. that team loses. I'm thinking of Ball at UCLA and Simmons at LSU. UCLA was successful last year, but not a championship caliber team. And LSU with Simmons was a huge disappointment.

my new thought is if you recruit a one and done is that you need to recruit more than one. and you need to recruit players to fit your style rather than changing your style to fit the players. and that's very hard to do. it's very hard for a one and done player to join a veteran team oriented team and be successful . it's a lot easier to join a team that has a lot of frequent turnover and holes to fill like Kentucky or Duke. And frequently, on a team like Kentucky or Duke or Kansas, the veteran players are role players and not the stars or focal point.. When was the last time Kentucky or Duke had a senior as their star player? yes, they've had some very good seniors, but those guys were not their star player.

looking at two examples, I'll choose JJJ and Langford. Whether true or not, they are both being labeled as one and done players. As fans, we could project JJJ to fill the void left by Swanigan. but when Swanigan played for Purdue , V Edwards, PJ, Mathias and Haas were all sophomores and juniors.. they needed a leader. But now, they are seniors. As such I would expect Purdue to play a more team oriented game. Despite his talent, I do not believe JJJ as a freshman would have been able to duplicate Swanigan's accomplishments of last year and become a one and done player. . and you would have had either a senior or C Edwards go to the bench. it would have been a lot easier for JJJ to become the focus as a one and done if Haas and V Edwards had also left creating multiple holes . their return could have easily been a factor in JJJ's decision.

the same would apply to Langford. I'm not sure Langford wants to share the backcourt with Eastern , Cline and Edwards if he came to Purdue. if Edwards were to leave early, Purdue would be more attractive to Langford.

I believe both JJJ and Langford will be successful players. but they each need a place where they can be the focus and shine. I just didn't see that happening for JJJ. it might have been able to happen for Langford if Painter installed a 3 guard offense.

With all that being said, in a perfect world, with 4 senior starters graduating, and following my thoughts, one would think that Purdue would be an attractive place next year for several one and dones to come here. Like UK, we have the opportunity for a player to come in and be successful immediately. if JJJ were in the 2018 class, I believe Purdue would have been a more attractive choice. A class of Langford and JJJ could have been a monster class.

But my point and thought is that 1 one and done player is not going to take you to a championship. if a team goes that route, you need to have 2-3 one and dones annually. A single one and done can bring success to a school, but can only carry a team so far.

I disagree with not changing the system to fit the players. This was Keady's problem and one of the reasons he didn't do well in the tourney. He almost always had Pass first, defense oriented PGs.

 

[Wolegib]

I will admit predictability is a bad thing in the tourney. A lot of the upsets are made because teams don't have much time to prepare for that second weekend game and they don't have much film to study. However, if you have a team that always does the same thing every game, it does make it a lot easier for your opponent to prepare to play against you.

 

[Statey]

the same would apply to Langford. I'm not sure Langford wants to share the backcourt with Eastern , Cline and Edwards if he came to Purdue. if Edwards were to leave early, Purdue would be more attractive to Langford.

With all due respect to Carsen, Nojel, and Ryan... Langford is not going to be concerned about sharing a backcourt with these players. Look at the schools he's considering (KU, Duke, UK, UL)... it's not like those schools have fringe walk-on talent in their backcourt. This is a perplexing statement. If he wanted to play with a bunch of total nobodys he'd be looking at Gardner Webb and Chicago State.

And pardon me asking, but are you saying your "new thought and revelation" is that a team needs more than 1 really good player to win a championship? And that only 1 really good player isn't likely to cut down the nets? Welcome to big-time college hoops.

 

[tynd10]

With all due respect to Carsen, Nojel, and Ryan... Langford is not going to be concerned about sharing a backcourt with these players. Look at the schools he's considering (KU, Duke, UK, UL)... it's not like those schools have fringe walk-on talent in their backcourt. This is a perplexing statement. If he wanted to play with a bunch of total nobodys he'd be looking at Gardner Webb and Chicago State.

And pardon me asking, but are you saying your "new thought and revelation" is that a team needs more than 1 really good player to win a championship? And that only 1 really good player isn't likely to cut down the nets? Welcome to big-time college hoops.

This. Langford would start, and play starter minutes on every single college team except maybe Duke and UK. I can assure you (not you, but others) that he would not be scared of sharing a back court with those mentioned. He would immediately come in and start over all of them. None of them are even close to his talent.

 

[Wolegib]

My initial thought was adding a guy like Langford wouldn't translate into many more victories than our team would already achieve. With or without him, we'd still probably win 25 games.

To really take advantage of his talents/skills, we'd have to surround him with 2-3 other elite athletes. If we had both JJJ and Langford, I could see a final 4 appearance. But with only one, I see a basic sweet 16 and maybe elite 8. Which we could achieve without him.

No doubt, I want him, but I believe we are ok without him. Getting past the sweet 16 is about talent, but it's also about matchups as well.

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

My initial thought was adding a guy like Langford wouldn't translate into many more victories than our team would already achieve. With or without him, we'd still probably win 25 games.

To really take advantage of his talents/skills, we'd have to surround him with 2-3 other elite athletes. If we had both JJJ and Langford, I could see a final 4 appearance. But with only one, I see a basic sweet 16 and maybe elite 8. Which we could achieve without him.

No doubt, I want him, but I believe we are ok without him. Getting past the sweet 16 is about talent, but it's also about matchups as well.

False...adding Langford to next seasons team would add wins for the simple fact Purdue probably loses 3 of its top 4 scorers after this season in Mathias, Vince, and Haas. Langford would more than likely come in and average a potential double-double next season playing the 3 which would be vacated by Mathias/Vince.

The lineup next season would look like this:

Carsen Edwards
Nojel Eastern
Romeo Langford
Aaron Wheeler/Eden Ewing
Jaquil Taylor

That's an almost ridiculous amount of athletic ability on the floor at once BUT needs a shooter to help spread the floor more. Given Langford's overall talent, he could fill that void and find himself averaging a double-double and making Purdue (and himself) look very good.

 

[Wolegib]

False...adding Langford to next seasons team would add wins for the simple fact Purdue probably loses 3 of its top 4 scorers after this season in Mathias, Vince, and Haas. Langford would more than likely come in and average a potential double-double next season playing the 3 which would be vacated by Mathias/Vince.

The lineup next season would look like this:

Carsen Edwards
Nojel Eastern
Romeo Langford
Aaron Wheeler/Eden Ewing
Jaquil Taylor

That's an almost ridiculous amount of athletic ability on the floor at once BUT needs a shooter to help spread the floor more. Given Langford's overall talent, he could fill that void and find himself averaging a double-double and making Purdue (and himself) look very good.

I respect your opinion, but as for the end result I would disagree. no doubt, we'd have a great team, and no doubt Langford would start and be impressive. as I look at that team, I see a top 10 team with 25 wins. but I don't see a final 4 team. To me, you need two elite players to transform from being a sweet 16 to final 4. if Purdue were to add two top 25 players, then yes. But I don't think adding only one top 25 athlete would be enough to carry this or any team to the final 4.

there are always exceptions. Dwayne Wade at Marquette was an exception. they also had a little tourney schedule help.

 

[tynd10]

I respect your opinion, but as for the end result I would disagree. no doubt, we'd have a great team, and no doubt Langford would start and be impressive. as I look at that team, I see a top 10 team with 25 wins. but I don't see a final 4 team. To me, you need two elite players to transform from being a sweet 16 to final 4. if Purdue were to add two top 25 players, then yes. But I don't think adding only one top 25 athlete would be enough to carry this or any team to the final 4.

there are always exceptions. Dwayne Wade at Marquette was an exception. they also had a little tourney schedule help.

I agree, with only Langford Purdue still isn't a final four team. However, looking at the current roster for that year I don't see us making it further than the round of 32. We would be replacing 4 starters with..... a 3* center....

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

I respect your opinion, but as for the end result I would disagree. no doubt, we'd have a great team, and no doubt Langford would start and be impressive. as I look at that team, I see a top 10 team with 25 wins. but I don't see a final 4 team. To me, you need two elite players to transform from being a sweet 16 to final 4. if Purdue were to add two top 25 players, then yes. But I don't think adding only one top 25 athlete would be enough to carry this or any team to the final 4.

there are always exceptions. Dwayne Wade at Marquette was an exception. they also had a little tourney schedule help.

Elite:
Carsen Edwards
Romeo Langford
(Potentially) Nojel Eastern

 

[Boilerman1973]

Come on just stops talking about Langford that kid will never know what Lafayette looks like ever until he comes here and plays against Purdue because he will be signing with IU. I know go ahead and call me a troll because I said that. But mark my words that's what's going to happen.

 

[Boilerman1973]

And while we're on the topic troll just what does that mean to everybody here because I'm having a hard time understanding what troll means here.

 

[Wolegib]

Come on just stops talking about Langford that kid will never know what Lafayette looks like ever until he comes here and plays against Purdue because he will be signing with IU. I know go ahead and call me a troll because I said that. But mark my words that's what's going to happen.

in my initial post, I also used JJJ as an example. I was trying to use players' names that people here could relate to , rather than Porter, or Ball. I wanted this thread to be more general about recruiting one and done players, than going into specifics about recruiting Langford.

and my opinion, is that adding one player is not enough to make a difference, just having 1 one and done players won't be enough to carry a team to the final four. You need two.

and that's my opinion.

 

[Statey]

My initial thought was adding a guy like Langford wouldn't translate into many more victories than our team would already achieve.

By this logic, you must believe that having Biggie on this past year's team didn't translate into that many more victories than Purdue would have had without him?

And yes, I realize I'm using Biggie as a sophomore in comparison to Romeo as a freshman, but I think that's probably fair; Romeo is going to be an instant talent for whoever gets him and almost a lock as a 1st round pick.

 

[Wolegib]

By this logic, you must believe that having Biggie on this past year's team didn't translate into that many more victories than Purdue would have had without him?

And yes, I realize I'm using Biggie as a sophomore in comparison to Romeo as a freshman, but I think that's probably fair; Romeo is going to be an instant talent for whoever gets him and almost a lock as a 1st round pick.

that's correct. and that's also part of my thinking. When biggie came to Purdue, most people viewed him as a one and done player. and he was good -- darn good. But he alone could not carry this team on his shoulders to a final 4 in either year he was here. however, if Purdue had a second one and done player like Tatum, Jackson, Fultz or ball, etc. I believe the two one and dones could have carried this team to a championship.

Washington did nothing with Fultz. One 1 and done player is just not enough to carry a team to a Final 4. .

And that's part of the reason I don't regret losing out of Langford or JJJ. I have confidence in Painter to provide a winning product . but to take us to the next level, we need two one and done players, not just one. We would need both JJJ and Langford.

 

[Wolegib]

I'm not talking about a 20 win season. Biggie made that happen. I'm talking about taking that next step to the final 4.

 

[Statey]

that's correct. and that's also part of my thinking. When biggie came to Purdue, most people viewed him as a one and done player. and he was good -- darn good. But he alone could not carry this team on his shoulders to a final 4 in either year he was here. however, if Purdue had a second one and done player like Tatum, Jackson, Fultz or ball, etc. I believe the two one and dones could have carried this team to a championship.

Washington did nothing with Fultz. One 1 and done player is just not enough to carry a team to a Final 4. .

And that's part of the reason I don't regret losing out of Langford or JJJ. I have confidence in Painter to provide a winning product . but to take us to the next level, we need two one and done players, not just one. We would need both JJJ and Langford.

Well I won't disagree with the thought that you generally need more than 1 top-25 player (McDAA caliber, regardless of whether they're actually selected to the team) to expect to compete for a championship. I guess I was just a little surprised that this seemed like a new revelation. It's quite hard for an undertalented team to "out-scheme" their way to championship contention. Butler probably fits into that category to a degree as a recent exception to the modern day KU, UK, UNC, etc. model. But BU did have Hayward, who was nowhere near McDAA level coming out of HS, but developed immensely under Stevens to near-lottery status.

 

[BBG]

I know go ahead and call me a troll because I said that.

Well to be clear, we call you a troll for a lot more reasons than saying he will go to IU.

 

[FirstDownB]

It's quite hard for an undertalented team to "out-scheme" their way to championship contention. Butler probably fits into that category to a degree as a recent exception to the modern day KU, UK, UNC, etc. model.

Meh. Not really. Oregon, South Carolina, Gonzaga, Oklahoma, Wisconsin. A lot of really good players, but very few if any one and done recruits in that bunch. And that's just the past 3 years. It may be splitting hairs between "elite" and "very good" talent, but I think that is the minor revelation being alluded to here, that if you don't have multiple top 10 freshman talents on your roster like UK, UNC, etc. your next best odds are if you have a roster full of good, well coached, developed talent as opposed to one or two marginally elite freshmen leading the way.

And yes Biggie is an exception in every possible way.

 

[tjreese]

False...adding Langford to next seasons team would add wins for the simple fact Purdue probably loses 3 of its top 4 scorers after this season in Mathias, Vince, and Haas. Langford would more than likely come in and average a potential double-double next season playing the 3 which would be vacated by Mathias/Vince.

The lineup next season would look like this:

Carsen Edwards
Nojel Eastern
Romeo Langford
Aaron Wheeler/Eden Ewing
Jaquil Taylor

That's an almost ridiculous amount of athletic ability on the floor at once BUT needs a shooter to help spread the floor more. Given Langford's overall talent, he could fill that void and find himself averaging a double-double and making Purdue (and himself) look very good.

when you can't play in the WUG it is easy to forget Haarms

 

[tjreese]

Well I won't disagree with the thought that you generally need more than 1 top-25 player (McDAA caliber, regardless of whether they're actually selected to the team) to expect to compete for a championship. I guess I was just a little surprised that this seemed like a new revelation. It's quite hard for an undertalented team to "out-scheme" their way to championship contention. Butler probably fits into that category to a degree as a recent exception to the modern day KU, UK, UNC, etc. model. But BU did have Hayward, who was nowhere near McDAA level coming out of HS, but developed immensely under Stevens to near-lottery status.

But...boy did Matt want Haywood seeing his future as well

 

[Wolegib]

I would agree there is always a team that somehow defeats the odds and makes it to the final four. but I'm saying "on paper" this is my formula to get there. good coaching and a solid team might get there with a little luck But if everything went as it should, I believe you need two studs to take you the distance.

and I considered Swanigan in my definition of one and dones because coming out of high school, that was the label most people placed on him. we were fortunate he stayed two years. the same applies to miles bridges. most people could say he could have easily been a one and done. rather than specifics, I was talking 'on paper" generalities. on paper Butler should never have made the final four. on paper, Butler should have never beaten Purdue either. but, it did happen.

 

[Dakota Girl]

My initial thought was adding a guy like Langford wouldn't translate into many more victories than our team would already achieve. With or without him, we'd still probably win 25 games.

To really take advantage of his talents/skills, we'd have to surround him with 2-3 other elite athletes. If we had both JJJ and Langford, I could see a final 4 appearance. But with only one, I see a basic sweet 16 and maybe elite 8. Which we could achieve without him.

No doubt, I want him, but I believe we are ok without him. Getting past the sweet 16 is about talent, but it's also about matchups as well.

I'll disagree with you here Wole. Assuming the team has the talent to be a sweet 16 performer adding a true high talent NBA ready player will definitely give that team the ability to reach the Final four.
I agree with you that matchups, and other factors can still screw it up but the key becomes being this situation frequently.

 

[tjreese]

I'll disagree with you here Wole. Assuming the team has the talent to be a sweet 16 performer adding a true high talent NBA ready player will definitely give that team the ability to reach the Final four.
I agree with you that matchups, and other factors can still screw it up but the key becomes being this situation frequently.

knock on the door enough and it will open