Bear with the lead-in here, I promise there are very
Purdue-related points at the end
Iowa State is my #2 team behind Purdue (my dad went there)
and has been a welcome/only source of sports happiness the past several
years. Fred Hoiberg has done an
INCREDIBLE job there, which makes me happy and jealous at the same time. If you haven't watched them play, I recommend
it tremendously entertaining and impressive on many levels. It never ceases to strike me how very similar
Purdue and Iowa State are as universities, but how COMPLETELY different Hoiberg
and Painter are as coaches. Strikingly
different in almost every area of coaching philosophy and, obviously, in recent
bball results. The linked Grantland
article is a good read, and the paragraph below begins to summarize the
differences in coaching philosophy:
It helped that Hoiberg and his staff - many of whom came from
the NBA - brought a different, more progressive perspective to the (sometimes)
stodgy collegiate basketball world. (Assistant coach) Abdelmassih describes the
offense they installed as "position-less," with an emphasis on ball movement
and 3-point shooting. "We love mismatch-type kids," he says. "Bigger players
who can play multiple positions and do multiple things on the floor." Babb
thinks his former coach's flexibility is also attractive to players seeking
fresh digs: "He's not one of those big image coaches where it's 'my way, my
way, my way.' He adjusts every year to the players that he has."
Hoiberg and staff have been a part of the highest level of
bball. They run a successful, modern,
NBA-influenced system with players that are of similar caliber in terms of
ratings to what we get at Purdue (median recruiting class rating of 58 since
Hoiberg arrived). They recruit skilled
players, primarily guards who have size and forwards/centers who are
undersized, almost all of whom can shoot, which creates mismatches at every
position on the floor, different positions in different games, and they choose
which ones to target based on the matchups each game. Our system, in contrast, relies on
monstrous/plodding size which ATTEMPTS to create a mismatch at one position on
the floor, but which creates problems in several other areas (foul trouble,
foul shooting, defending quickness, versatility, turnovers, etc.). They don't worry about depth (generally play
8 guys) and are just average rebounders.
In other articles about Hoiberg, his players say that he has
literally ***NEVER*** said a word about taking bad shots. I would kill to not hear another rant about
bad shots from our coach. If you have
anyone under 6'6" who can't hit a wide open 17 foot jumper, he probably shouldn't
be out there. Where Painter places
probably the most emphasis, Hoiberg places exactly ZERO emphasis. He lets his guys play and they are
successful. He wants them to play with
confidence. Players want to play for
him. Their heads are not cluttered with
thoughts about being benched if they take a certain shot. Playing hard comes naturally because they
play in a FUN and effective system; it is not forced by the coach yelling at
them. Just the other night, Hoiberg said
that his #1 rules change wish is to reduce the shot clock b/c all that most
teams do with it is run "false motion" for a while and set up a real play. Sound familiar??? Hadn't heard that one from him before, but it
was consistent with most of his comments: they are the opposite of what Painter
would say.
OK, two main points:
Point #1: In the
absence of 3 NBA players on his roster, Painter's core basketball beliefs and
approach to building this team are not at all aligned with most of the truly
successful coaches out there today. I
just don't think I can handle another article/quote/rant from him about shot
selection, lack of effort, needing "to be better" over and over and over. It has gotten unbelievably old, tired, and
unsuccessful. It is obvious that his
obsession with feeding the post, relying on plodding size as opposed to skill, small
guards, 2's instead of 3's, etc. is not a recipe for success. His approach makes me feel like we are
spinning our wheels as a bball program as we head toward repeated, mediocre
outcomes year after year. It's become
obvious that the things that are important to Painter are not the things that
lead to success (which I define as B10 championships, deep tournament runs, and
final 4's). Hoiberg gets it. Painter doesn't. Simple as that, as sad as it is to say. For the record, I've generally been a Painter
supporter, but I just don't see us headed in a meaningfully positive direction
with him as our leader. The competition
is passing / has passed us by and I doubt that will change anytime soon. Without Octeus falling into our laps this
year, we are likely a last place B10 team.
Overall talent is certainly an issue, but it's not a complete disaster. But the system around that talent Painter's
system has turned the team into a disaster.
Point/question #2: Is
there any chance that Brian Cardinal wants to be the head coach at Purdue? I assume that no one on the board is truly in
the know on this, so treat it as a rhetorical question. There are so many similarities in background
between he and Hoiberg, at least from a distance. Both had long NBA careers, understand how basketball
is played at the highest level, are heroes at their alma maters, have no prior
coaching experience, and are not easily swayed by bigger jobs that would be
more attractive to most coaches. One
difference is that Hoiberg spent time in the Timberwolves front office and is
viewed as having a great bball mind who lives/breathes bball 24/7 (to the point
where he is always mentioned when NBA jobs become available). I don't know how Cardinal is in this
regard. Cardinal is around Purdue and
the bball program, which gives me hope that there could be very hush-hush
conversations or even thoughts the he could be the next guy. You would think that he would be involved in
some sort of assistant capacity if he were interested, so that could be
interpreted as a bad sign. But, to me,
we need someone who brings qualities that others don't, while also being a
feasible candidate (read: not excessively expensive), and who is interested in
staying here and not jumping to a better job if he is successful. We found that in Joe Tiller in 1997 and I'm
pretty sure that we will need the same for bball in the near future. I'm not positive that Cardinal is the answer,
or that it's a feasible option. But, to
the point of a post from earlier today, there are very few, if any,
great-looking coaching options out there who could relatively quickly and permanently
turn this thing around. If Cardinal is
an option, there are certainly risks, but it could be what Purdue needs.
That's all.
Hoiberg
Purdue-related points at the end
Iowa State is my #2 team behind Purdue (my dad went there)
and has been a welcome/only source of sports happiness the past several
years. Fred Hoiberg has done an
INCREDIBLE job there, which makes me happy and jealous at the same time. If you haven't watched them play, I recommend
it tremendously entertaining and impressive on many levels. It never ceases to strike me how very similar
Purdue and Iowa State are as universities, but how COMPLETELY different Hoiberg
and Painter are as coaches. Strikingly
different in almost every area of coaching philosophy and, obviously, in recent
bball results. The linked Grantland
article is a good read, and the paragraph below begins to summarize the
differences in coaching philosophy:
It helped that Hoiberg and his staff - many of whom came from
the NBA - brought a different, more progressive perspective to the (sometimes)
stodgy collegiate basketball world. (Assistant coach) Abdelmassih describes the
offense they installed as "position-less," with an emphasis on ball movement
and 3-point shooting. "We love mismatch-type kids," he says. "Bigger players
who can play multiple positions and do multiple things on the floor." Babb
thinks his former coach's flexibility is also attractive to players seeking
fresh digs: "He's not one of those big image coaches where it's 'my way, my
way, my way.' He adjusts every year to the players that he has."
Hoiberg and staff have been a part of the highest level of
bball. They run a successful, modern,
NBA-influenced system with players that are of similar caliber in terms of
ratings to what we get at Purdue (median recruiting class rating of 58 since
Hoiberg arrived). They recruit skilled
players, primarily guards who have size and forwards/centers who are
undersized, almost all of whom can shoot, which creates mismatches at every
position on the floor, different positions in different games, and they choose
which ones to target based on the matchups each game. Our system, in contrast, relies on
monstrous/plodding size which ATTEMPTS to create a mismatch at one position on
the floor, but which creates problems in several other areas (foul trouble,
foul shooting, defending quickness, versatility, turnovers, etc.). They don't worry about depth (generally play
8 guys) and are just average rebounders.
In other articles about Hoiberg, his players say that he has
literally ***NEVER*** said a word about taking bad shots. I would kill to not hear another rant about
bad shots from our coach. If you have
anyone under 6'6" who can't hit a wide open 17 foot jumper, he probably shouldn't
be out there. Where Painter places
probably the most emphasis, Hoiberg places exactly ZERO emphasis. He lets his guys play and they are
successful. He wants them to play with
confidence. Players want to play for
him. Their heads are not cluttered with
thoughts about being benched if they take a certain shot. Playing hard comes naturally because they
play in a FUN and effective system; it is not forced by the coach yelling at
them. Just the other night, Hoiberg said
that his #1 rules change wish is to reduce the shot clock b/c all that most
teams do with it is run "false motion" for a while and set up a real play. Sound familiar??? Hadn't heard that one from him before, but it
was consistent with most of his comments: they are the opposite of what Painter
would say.
OK, two main points:
Point #1: In the
absence of 3 NBA players on his roster, Painter's core basketball beliefs and
approach to building this team are not at all aligned with most of the truly
successful coaches out there today. I
just don't think I can handle another article/quote/rant from him about shot
selection, lack of effort, needing "to be better" over and over and over. It has gotten unbelievably old, tired, and
unsuccessful. It is obvious that his
obsession with feeding the post, relying on plodding size as opposed to skill, small
guards, 2's instead of 3's, etc. is not a recipe for success. His approach makes me feel like we are
spinning our wheels as a bball program as we head toward repeated, mediocre
outcomes year after year. It's become
obvious that the things that are important to Painter are not the things that
lead to success (which I define as B10 championships, deep tournament runs, and
final 4's). Hoiberg gets it. Painter doesn't. Simple as that, as sad as it is to say. For the record, I've generally been a Painter
supporter, but I just don't see us headed in a meaningfully positive direction
with him as our leader. The competition
is passing / has passed us by and I doubt that will change anytime soon. Without Octeus falling into our laps this
year, we are likely a last place B10 team.
Overall talent is certainly an issue, but it's not a complete disaster. But the system around that talent Painter's
system has turned the team into a disaster.
Point/question #2: Is
there any chance that Brian Cardinal wants to be the head coach at Purdue? I assume that no one on the board is truly in
the know on this, so treat it as a rhetorical question. There are so many similarities in background
between he and Hoiberg, at least from a distance. Both had long NBA careers, understand how basketball
is played at the highest level, are heroes at their alma maters, have no prior
coaching experience, and are not easily swayed by bigger jobs that would be
more attractive to most coaches. One
difference is that Hoiberg spent time in the Timberwolves front office and is
viewed as having a great bball mind who lives/breathes bball 24/7 (to the point
where he is always mentioned when NBA jobs become available). I don't know how Cardinal is in this
regard. Cardinal is around Purdue and
the bball program, which gives me hope that there could be very hush-hush
conversations or even thoughts the he could be the next guy. You would think that he would be involved in
some sort of assistant capacity if he were interested, so that could be
interpreted as a bad sign. But, to me,
we need someone who brings qualities that others don't, while also being a
feasible candidate (read: not excessively expensive), and who is interested in
staying here and not jumping to a better job if he is successful. We found that in Joe Tiller in 1997 and I'm
pretty sure that we will need the same for bball in the near future. I'm not positive that Cardinal is the answer,
or that it's a feasible option. But, to
the point of a post from earlier today, there are very few, if any,
great-looking coaching options out there who could relatively quickly and permanently
turn this thing around. If Cardinal is
an option, there are certainly risks, but it could be what Purdue needs.
That's all.
Hoiberg
