Anybody else now really ready for basketball now?

[Bay Area Boiler]

Whatever. I'm just noticing a pattern in your posts. Anytime someone says something negative about IU your usually 1 of the first ones to come to their defense.

Then you clearly aren’t reading my posts. I’ve defended:

-the notion that Romeo Langford won’t be a top 5 B10 freshman (mgk)
-Armaan Franklin was better suited to go to IU because he would have never played in front of IT because IT will be a 4 year starter (mgk)
-Evan Fitzner isn’t a good 3 point shooter (meenie). I live 5 minutes from St. Mary’s campus and have seen Fitzner and the Gaels play multiple times and will assure anybody he is not only a good, but consistent 3 point shooter

If that makes me an IU fan or an IU troll then so the hell be it. I’m not here to win any popularity contests so I’ll wear that badge with pride....or I’ll continue to post objectively and call BS when I see it. Enjoy the rest of your Monday.

 

[Fansince72]

Your posts would get a lot more likes over on the IU board.

 

[Bay Area Boiler]

Your posts would get a lot more likes over on the IU board.

I have no interest posting on Peegs

 

[Mgkcbb]

Your posts would get a lot more likes over on the IU board.

Hes got an IU account for that place.

 

[mathboy]

Guys, BAB has brought us lots of good information on many players. He is dead on about Fitzner and others. He does come across as an arrogant prick on most of his posts but let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water.

I welcome his perspective and more realistic expectations.

 

[cheeseman18]

Yeah, to answer the OP, I'm ready for basketball! Not because of football season sucking, but because I'm tired of all the conjecturing and back and forth about who's gonna be good, who's not and all that jazz. It was fun for awhile and I love making projections every year, but I'm just ready for some actual basketball now! I'm ready to put to rest all the guessing and just see how teams play. Man, I love basketball! Less than a month till Hoosier Hysteria and less than 2 months till games, bring it on!

 

[lbodel]

Really thought we had a chance Brohm was going to be a great coach, but it looks like more mediocrity.

At the end of the day, Purdue wasn't supposed to be good. That being said, it's not "ok" for any Big Ten team to lose to a MAC team, particularly one that's not "out of the ordinary" good like we've seen here and there.

That being said, I also would not be surprised if Purdue looked a bit rusty coming out of the gate in basketball. We are playing a lot of new and inexperienced players - and even the experienced ones haven't really played "together" at the college level that much. I would not be surprised to have a bad loss, inconsistent play, etc. But that does come with inexperience.

 

[nagemj02]

Its just in Purdue fans nature to be overly pessimistic and cautious, I think. Probably has alot to do with Hummel's knee injuries and Haas injury.

If you notice, Matt Painter won 30 games last year, won 19 in a row, made the sweet 16 without his starting center, and finished top 5 in KenPom. By any and all accounts, he had not just a good but great year. But to hear alot of Purdue fans tell it, last year was supposedly some massive disappointment because the team lost in the Sweet 16 without its starting center. And of course, Matt Painter is somehow to blame for all of this and needs to do better.

Now compare that with other fan bases, who seem mostly overly optimistic.

Theres a B1G coach last year who:

-Went 16-15
-Missed the tournament and postseason play altogether
-Lost at home to Indiana State and IPFW each by 20+
-Ended the year losing to a bad Rutgers team on a neutral court
-Didnt beat a single good team all year, went 0-9 vs tournament teams
-Did this with both one of the best bigs in the conference and a senior guard top 50 recruit


And the fans of that coaches program absolutely adores him and thinks he is awesome. But Purdues fans are disappointed with someone vastly superior because he only made the Sweet 16 down his starting center. And he did all of this without a single top 70 recruit btw, since people place so much importance on recruiting rankings.


But this disappointment has kind of carried into next season IMO. Fans seem to have very tempered expectations for this seasons team now and I cant figure it out.

Like you said, Vegas essentially pegs them as the 20th best team in the nation preseason. Imagine Illinois fan base or Indianas fan base with this coach and roster, the hype would be through the roof for this team. Its a weird/funny dynamic IMO.

I guess all the injuries have made the fan base a little gun shy.

Archie Miller has coached at IU for one season. Matt Painter has coached at Purdue for 13 seasons (14 if you count his coach-in-waiting season). That's a MAJOR DIFFERENCE in time alloted to gauge a head coach's abilities or lack thereof.

 

[meenie]

Please ban the loosiers. They waste our time. Loosiers, please go away and stay away.

 

[Boilerscuz]

Ehhh, Colby has got that guy that just wants to be part of the group vibe, he's harmless and his last comment was totally on point.

 

[BoilerAndy]

Defending what? Their fans should have moderately high expectations given the players they return + the incoming talent?? Guilty I guess....Rather be caught guilty than with my head buried in the sand.

People do not think your head is buried in the sand. You are misinterpreting what people think about where your head is.

 

[Mgkcbb]

 

[Mgkcbb]

HAARMS looks like hes put on some weight. Hes looking a bit more muscled.

Wheeler's got some really long arms. At some point in his Purdue career, Painter is going to turn Wheeler into a defensive nightmare for the opposition.

 

[SIBoiler2]

Guys, BAB has brought us lots of good information on many players. He is dead on about Fitzner and others. He does come across as an arrogant prick on most of his posts but let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water.

I welcome his perspective and more realistic expectations.

He's from the Bay area. After listening to Pelosi, Waters, and Feinstein I'd expect nothing less.

 

[Bay Area Boiler]

He's from the Bay area. After listening to Pelosi, Waters, and Feinstein I'd expect nothing less.

I’d rather listen you than them and that’s saying something as I’m guessing you’re insufferable. I’m still a Midwesterner at heart.

 

[IUfanBorden]

I assume he’s referencing IU, whose fans have come on here arguing they will have the better team this year because they have more players returning who logged major minutes.

The counter argument to that is that their guys played major minutes because they played on a crappy team, that doesn’t make them better than Matty H, Cline or Nojel, who played fewer minutes because they were on a very talented, senior heavy team.

Of course the arguement on either side is purely hypothetical, but you could argue that those three guys for Purdue (possibly Sasha and Wheeler as well) would have played major minutes last year if playing for a team as bad as IU.

Not to get into a pissing match, but........Indiana wasn't that bad. Early? Oh, yes. But by seasons end? No...Not at all. I think some look at the early losses to ISU and FW, and come to a conclusion on those two games. OR...see the "16-15" record, and come to the conclusion of "bad team". When the truth is, they really weren't that bad. Close losses at UL(71-62), Duke(91-81---oh the missed FT's), Purdue(74-67; two point game late), MSU(63-60) and the buzzer beating loss to OSU, in 2 OT(80-78). That team sat at 16-12, 9-7, with two games left. Just ran out of gas. IU wasn't that far away from being an NCAAT team. A bounce here or there, and in all likelihood, they get in.

Now they return quite a bit from that team. Bring in the Big 10's top ranked class; Top 10 nationally. I don't think its that far fetched to think Indiana could be better. But honestly, I think both will be better than what others think.

 

[Mgkcbb]

Not to get into a pissing match, but........Indiana wasn't that bad. Early? Oh, yes. But by seasons end? No...Not at all. I think some look at the early losses to ISU and FW, and come to a conclusion on those two games. OR...see the "16-15" record, and come to the conclusion of "bad team". When the truth is, they really weren't that bad. Close losses at UL(71-62), Duke(91-81---oh the missed FT's), Purdue(74-67; two point game late), MSU(63-60) and the buzzer beating loss to OSU, in 2 OT(80-78). That team sat at 16-12, 9-7, with two games left. Just ran out of gas. IU wasn't that far away from being an NCAAT team. A bounce here or there, and in all likelihood, they get in.

Now they return quite a bit from that team. Bring in the Big 10's top ranked class; Top 10 nationally. I don't think its that far fetched to think Indiana could be better. But honestly, I think both will be better than what others think.

Borden, Indianas last game was them losing to a team that was 2-10 in their previous 12 games.

Indiana themselves went 0-3 to finish the season.

I dont know why people want to try and bend reality, but those are the facts. They didnt finish strong, they were bad.

 

[IUfanBorden]

Borden, Indianas last game was them losing to a team that was 2-10 in their previous 12 games.

Indiana themselves went 0-3 to finish the season.

I dont know why people want to try and bend reality, but those are the facts. They didnt finish strong, they were bad.

Ok. Because they didn't finish strong, that makes them bad? What IF they had finished strong? What if the 30 footer by OSU doesn't go in? What if IU doesn't blow a 17 point lead versus, Rutgers? Are they now suddenly good? What IF Davis hits his FT's versus Duke, and IU winns that game? Or if they don't turn it over late, on multiple posessions vs Purdue; in a 3 point game?
My point is, Indiana was closer to being 20-11, than they were being 10-21; which is how you are acting. AS if they were some "10" win team, or something. They finished .500 in the league. A bounce here or there that goes their way versus a Duke, UL, Purdue, etc, etc...and they're in the argument for a bid.
Look this team was bad early....Pretty good in between, and struggled to the finish line. But they weren't a BAD basketball team. And they weren't a good basketball team. Just somewhere in the middle IMO.

Anyways...I take very little of what you say, serious. You've been wrong on so many accounts, I've lost track. Hell even your own call out your stupidity. Like you know, your predictions on Langford. That shit is funny.

 

[northside100]

Not to get into a pissing match, but........Indiana wasn't that bad. Early? Oh, yes. But by seasons end? No...Not at all. I think some look at the early losses to ISU and FW, and come to a conclusion on those two games. OR...see the "16-15" record, and come to the conclusion of "bad team". When the truth is, they really weren't that bad. Close losses at UL(71-62), Duke(91-81---oh the missed FT's), Purdue(74-67; two point game late), MSU(63-60) and the buzzer beating loss to OSU, in 2 OT(80-78). That team sat at 16-12, 9-7, with two games left. Just ran out of gas. IU wasn't that far away from being an NCAAT team. A bounce here or there, and in all likelihood, they get in.

Now they return quite a bit from that team. Bring in the Big 10's top ranked class; Top 10 nationally. I don't think its that far fetched to think Indiana could be better. But honestly, I think both will be better than what others think.

Not a pissing match at all, I like your post. I actually agree, IU wasn’t bad in the sense that they were embarrassing or not competitive, but by IU standards (I’d say the same for Purdue), any team that misses the tourney is bad.

My point wasn’t to take a shot at IU but to illustrate the huge discrepancy in playing time opportunities between IU and Purdue last year. Morgan could play just about anywhere, if he were at Purdue last year I’d imagine Vince would have slid over to the 3 and Carsen and Dakota would have rotated in bringing up the ball, pushing PJ to the bench. I don’t see how one could argue that anyone else on IU’s roster would have started for Purdue or gotten anywhere close to starter’s minutes. I don’t know whether those guys are better than Haarms or Eastern, but they surely would have been in the same position of playing limited minutes. I see IU as being much improved, but the arguement that “we’ll be better than Purdue because we have so much more production coming back” doesn’t hold water to me.

 

[IUfanBorden]

Really thought we had a chance Brohm was going to be a great coach, but it looks like more mediocrity.

Give it time my man...This was a great hire for Purdue. Just hope that UL doesn't come calling. Not sure he would woud leave.......But man the Brohm's are royalty in Louisville.

 

[IUfanBorden]

Not a pissing match at all, I like your post. I actually agree, IU wasn’t bad in the sense that they were embarrassing or not competitive, but by IU standards (I’d say the same for Purdue), any team that misses the tourney is bad.

My point wasn’t to take a shot at IU but to illustrate the huge discrepancy in playing time opportunities between IU and Purdue last year. Morgan could play just about anywhere, if he were at Purdue last year I’d imagine Vince would have slid over to the 3 and Carsen and Dakota would have rotated in bringing up the ball, pushing PJ to the bench. I don’t see how one could argue that anyone else on IU’s roster would have started for Purdue or gotten anywhere close to starter’s minutes. I don’t know whether those guys are better than Haarms or Eastern, but they surely would have been in the same position of playing limited minutes. I see IU as being much improved, but the arguement that ‘we’ll be better than Purdue because we have so much more production coming back doesn’t hold water to me.

Good post. I agree. Outside of Morgan, I don't see anyone else who would have, 100% started for Purdue. MAYBE....MAYBE a healthy Davis. And maybe , MAYBE the Justin Smith of late season. SMith is a stretch. Davis probably not. But to me, thats the only two. Well, I mean had RoJo played the entire season as he did the last month, he could've made an argument. But enough with the IF's. In reality, Morgan IMO is the only guy that would've started at Purdue.

I don't think IU will be better because "they return more". But I think its part of the equation. IMO, you add what IU has returning, and the class they have coming in, coupled with what Purdue lost, and what you guys have coimng in, and I think one could make an argument with that. But who knows. I do think Purdue will be better than what most think. Painters a good coach. Defensively he's really good. Anytme you have that---you have a chance.

Good luck this year. And thanks for the decent post.

 

[Mgkcbb]

Ok. Because they didn't finish strong, that makes them bad? What IF they had finished strong? What if the 30 footer by OSU doesn't go in? What if IU doesn't blow a 17 point lead versus, Rutgers? Are they now suddenly good? What IF Davis hits his FT's versus Duke, and IU winns that game? Or if they don't turn it over late, on multiple posessions vs Purdue; in a 3 point game?
My point is, Indiana was closer to being 20-11, than they were being 10-21; which is how you are acting. AS if they were some "10" win team, or something. They finished .500 in the league. A bounce here or there that goes their way versus a Duke, UL, Purdue, etc, etc...and they're in the argument for a bid.
Look this team was bad early....Pretty good in between, and struggled to the finish line. But they weren't a BAD basketball team. And they weren't a good basketball team. Just somewhere in the middle IMO.

Anyways...I take very little of what you say, serious. You've been wrong on so many accounts, I've lost track. Hell even your own call out your stupidity. Like you know, your predictions on Langford. That shit is funny.

What if Indiana won all the games they lost by not finishing? Yes, of course that would make them better.

I mean think about what you just asked me

"What if Indiana scored points when they got stopped and were able to stop teams they couldn't stop, wouldnt that make them good?!"

Of course, if they were good instead of bad, that would change my thoughts on them. But they werent good, they were bad.

 

[Mgkcbb]

"what if instead of going 16-15 and 0-9 vs tournament teams, they went 23-8 and 6-3?! Would that change your mind?!"

Why yes, yes of course it would. Unfortunately for you, they werent able to beat anyone with a pulse and finished 0-3 to end the year. Theres a reason for that.

 

[IUfanBorden]

What if Indiana won all the games they lost by not finishing? Yes, of course that would make them better.

I mean think about what you just asked me

"What if Indiana scored points when they got stopped and were able to stop teams they couldn't stop, wouldnt that make them good?!"

Of course, if they were good instead of bad, that would change my thoughts on them. But they werent good, they were bad.

I don't see how your own havent eaten you. You act as if IU got embarrassed every night out. As if they weren't competitive. ANd thats simply not the case. I really question if you actually watch games. I beginning to think you just read KenPom. Or whatever other stat based site is out there. BAD teams dont take really good teams like MSU, OSU, Purdue, UL and Duke to the wire. BAD teams don't beat a then pretty good Notre Dame team. Again, you are letting Indiana's early season losses to FW and ISU blind your judgement. Or their late season collapse; If thats what you wanna call it. YOu are defining an ENTIRE season on a handful of games. You are totally inoring the fact that IU drastically improved from November to Feb. Same as Purdue. Look bad vs UT and WKU. Rebounded very well. Why? Because they were a pretty darn good team. WOuld it be fair of me to judge Purdue on their games vs WKU, UT, loss at Wisconsin, or the close win vs what you call a BAD IU team?

THink about what I just asked you? How about you try thinking about what you just said.

Man how your own haven't eaten you is beyond me. You arguably have to be one of the worst posters I've encountered. I mean anyone who says Langford won't be among thre Top 5 frosh in the BIG is just terrible.

 

[IUfanBorden]

"what if instead of going 16-15 and 0-9 vs tournament teams, they went 23-8 and 6-3?! Would that change your mind?!"

Why yes, yes of course it would. Unfortunately for you, they werent able to beat anyone with a pulse and finished 0-3 to end the year. Theres a reason for that.

You do realize that winning and losing doesn't always define "good and bad"---Right? Now, if IU had lost to Purdue by 20...Duke by 20....UL by 20...So on and so on...Well I'd agree. But they didn't. MOF, they very easily could've beaten all three. And should ahve beaten MSU and OSU. But because they didn't, that makes them bad? Are you stupid? They lost to MSU, OSU and Purdue by a combined 12 points. Two of those came down to the final possession.

Just stupid. I'm not arguing IU was a good team. They were to inconsistent for that. But they weren't some automatic win either. They were quite competitive. And had a chance to win every night out.

 

[Mgkcbb]

I mean 16-15 and 0-9 vs tournament teams and missing postseason play altogether (not even NIT worthy)speaks for itself

Indiana wasnt "good" they werent "above average" they were terrible.

Losing every single game you play vs good teams isnt evidence they were sneaky good, its evidence they werent good enough to win vs good teams.

Like how do I even get involved in these troll discussions?

 

[IUfanBorden]

I mean 16-15 and 0-9 vs tournament teams and missing postseason play altogether (not even NIT worthy)speaks for itself

Indiana wasnt "good" they werent "above average" they were terrible.

Losing every single game you play vs good teams isnt evidence they were sneaky good, its evidence they werent good enough to win vs good teams.

Like how do I even get involved in these troll discussions?

Speaking of terrible.......Yeah, you. Never said they were good. Never said they were above average. Felt they were an average team that lost some tough games. Not a bad team. And certainly not terrible.

But speaking of terrible......

Yep----You. Biggest troll by far. I mean you have to be. There is no way you believe half the shit you type. Just a recap:

Illinois will be better than MSU...Yeah, suuuuuure they will.

Langford wont be a Top 5 freshman in the Big 10-----Yeah, ok.

Everyone once in a while, you get something right. But that is exception. An outlier. Bottom line---Your takes are awful. And the thing is---THIS board---Your home board---Agree's.

 

[BoilerAndy]

You do realize that winning and losing doesn't always define "good and bad"---Right? Now, if IU had lost to Purdue by 20...Duke by 20....UL by 20...So on and so on...Well I'd agree. But they didn't. MOF, they very easily could've beaten all three. And should ahve beaten MSU and OSU. But because they didn't, that makes them bad? Are you stupid? They lost to MSU, OSU and Purdue by a combined 12 points. Two of those came down to the final possession.

Just stupid. I'm not arguing IU was a good team. They were to inconsistent for that. But they weren't some automatic win either. They were quite competitive. And had a chance to win every night out.

Good to see the expectations of some of the Hoosier fanbase is finally becoming grounded in reality.

Purdue football could easily be 3-0 instead of 0-3 right now. They have lost all 3 games by a total of 8 points. The head coach admits they are not a good team. Good teams find ways to win those games.

But I appreciate the hope for the future. That's my attitude for the football team.

 

[IUfanBorden]

Good to see the expectations of some of the Hoosier fanbase is finally becoming grounded in reality.

Purdue football could easily be 3-0 instead of 0-3 right now. They have lost all 3 games by a total of 8 points. The head coach admits they are not a good team. Good teams find ways to win those games.

But I appreciate the hope for the future. That's my attitude for the football team.

I agree. Purdue isn't a BAD football team. I mean the loss to EMU is BAD. But that doesn't make Purdue bad. Just an average team, that's lost some tough games. Just some tough breaks.

I just think the terms "good" and "bad" are one, to broad. And two, used to loosely. Indiana early in the season was a BAD team. Couldn't score...couldn't shoot, and couldn't defend. They done nothing good----except lose. BUT...as they became more comfortable, well, they got better. And better. Better to the point as to where they were competitive. Very competitive. SImply didn't close teams out; Or games. I guess you can see that as a sign of a "bad" team. Or you can see as a team that's getting better, learning a system, etc, etc...By seasons end, I thought IU was an average team. Average teams don't beat good, to really good teams missing FT's, turning the ball over, etc, etc...Their margin of error is very slim. Bad teams get blown out when they miss freebies, give up offensive rebounds, extra possessions, turn the ball over, etc, etc...They don't take teams to the wire. They don't take teams like Duke, UL, PU, OSU, MSU, etc, etc...to the wire. They get blown out.

JMO.

I do like this years team. Return a solid core. Bringing in a really good class, headline by a really, really good freshman. I would be disappointed, and would certainly question if the "kool aid" was sour if this IU team misses the NCAAT. SHould have, on paper of course, a really good trio in Morgan, SMith and Langford. After that, its hit and miss. SOme good talent after that. But unfortunately MOST of that, "good talent" are freshman. We shall see.

 

[rezzerfly]

He's from the Bay area. After listening to Pelosi, Waters, and Feinstein I'd expect nothing less.

Thanks, Obama