Prior to Sunday, Purdue hadn't lost four games in a row since 2005-06, a season in which it had no players, when it was a credit to those kids and their new coaches that they beat anyone at all.
That undermanned team bought in wholly to what those coaches were pushing, as did the team that followed it and the teams that followed that one.
Sunday, Purdue lost its fourth straight game with players who are significantly more talented and significantly healthier than those from Matt Painter's first team, that group that wasn't very good, but listened and tried and won in some ways just by playing hard against all odds. They, for the most part, were wired to play the way Painter coached them to play and even in losing, fans appreciated them for the way they played.
Those teams were hungry and selfless and because of it, compatible with what they were being coached to do.
And so, such strings of losing back then were not even comparable to what's going on right now with the Boilermakers, whose season has gone terribly sideways these past four outings, capped by Sunday's loss at Penn State.
This is a young group, but one that's starting to make you wonder how long it'll take to grow into that compatibility with the style of play it's been coached to fit into, if it even can, or to grow into positions where it plays like a team with experience and leadership. You hear that term "Purdue fit" so often. So far, the jury remains out on this core.
Is that the fault of the coaching staff that recruited it? Of course. Same as it was last year when Purdue fielded a team that was too unskilled and had too many personalities that didn't quite fit.
But the fine line always lies in finding the best players you can get and getting the best players you can get who fit in with your way of doing things.
If this group - now a season-and-a-half into sophomores' careers - still can't get back on defense or stop the dribble off a ball screen or not take bad shots at bad times, then as Painter says, "It's who you are."
These are talented players. Any of you would have watched Ronnie Johnson, Terone Johnson, Bryson Scott, A.J. Hammons, Jay Simpson, etc., in high school and looked at them the same way coaches did: As talents you can win at the Big Ten level with.
Intangibles, though, are tricky business and it's those intangibles that now bring the fit into question.
It's a group that shows flashes, like the very effective offensive start it got out to against Penn State Sunday, when all it did really was play how it's supposed to; or the second-half run fueled by a heartened Hammons' offensive rebounding.
But it comes and goes for a team that plays 10, now maybe 11, guys, none of whom have been consistent enough - or good enough, really - to keep other guys off the floor.
The rebounding came in the second half, but was nowhere to be found earlier as one of the best rebounding teams in the league got worked by one of the worst. The Boilermakers didn't get an offensive rebound until 24 minutes of game had passed.
Turnovers killed Purdue in the first, one that stands out being the post outlet from A.J. Hammons that went through Kendall Stephens' hands. It was the sort of play the center can make to lubricate the Purdue offense.
It's big stuff (defense, shooting) that's holding Purdue back right now and little stuff, too, like missed layups in transition, botched end-of-half sequences the past two games and back-to-back missed one-and-one foul shots with the game still undecided late in the game at Penn State.
But what continues to hold this team back is its inability to play Purdue-style basketball or its inability to teach Purdue-style basketball, one or the other.
You can blame Matt Painter all you want and things certainly aren't peachy for him right now with these past two teams. You can talk all you want about $2.2 million, but you could triple my salary tomorrow and it doesn't make me any different a writer or you could triple your accountant's fees and it wouldn't make them any better at taxes and stuff.
Painter is teaching the same things he always has, for the most part. Obviously, there's been some variation to personnel, like the tweaks that have come with the rare anchor big man at both ends of the floor. The variation - as is always the case in the transient nature of college sports - has come with the personalities involved.
Copyright, Boilers, Inc. 2014. All Rights Reserved. Reproducing or using editorial or graphical content, in whole or in part, without permission, is strictly prohibited. E-mail GoldandBlack.com/Boilers, Inc.
That undermanned team bought in wholly to what those coaches were pushing, as did the team that followed it and the teams that followed that one.
Sunday, Purdue lost its fourth straight game with players who are significantly more talented and significantly healthier than those from Matt Painter's first team, that group that wasn't very good, but listened and tried and won in some ways just by playing hard against all odds. They, for the most part, were wired to play the way Painter coached them to play and even in losing, fans appreciated them for the way they played.
Those teams were hungry and selfless and because of it, compatible with what they were being coached to do.
And so, such strings of losing back then were not even comparable to what's going on right now with the Boilermakers, whose season has gone terribly sideways these past four outings, capped by Sunday's loss at Penn State.
This is a young group, but one that's starting to make you wonder how long it'll take to grow into that compatibility with the style of play it's been coached to fit into, if it even can, or to grow into positions where it plays like a team with experience and leadership. You hear that term "Purdue fit" so often. So far, the jury remains out on this core.
Is that the fault of the coaching staff that recruited it? Of course. Same as it was last year when Purdue fielded a team that was too unskilled and had too many personalities that didn't quite fit.
But the fine line always lies in finding the best players you can get and getting the best players you can get who fit in with your way of doing things.
If this group - now a season-and-a-half into sophomores' careers - still can't get back on defense or stop the dribble off a ball screen or not take bad shots at bad times, then as Painter says, "It's who you are."
These are talented players. Any of you would have watched Ronnie Johnson, Terone Johnson, Bryson Scott, A.J. Hammons, Jay Simpson, etc., in high school and looked at them the same way coaches did: As talents you can win at the Big Ten level with.
Intangibles, though, are tricky business and it's those intangibles that now bring the fit into question.
It's a group that shows flashes, like the very effective offensive start it got out to against Penn State Sunday, when all it did really was play how it's supposed to; or the second-half run fueled by a heartened Hammons' offensive rebounding.
But it comes and goes for a team that plays 10, now maybe 11, guys, none of whom have been consistent enough - or good enough, really - to keep other guys off the floor.
The rebounding came in the second half, but was nowhere to be found earlier as one of the best rebounding teams in the league got worked by one of the worst. The Boilermakers didn't get an offensive rebound until 24 minutes of game had passed.
Turnovers killed Purdue in the first, one that stands out being the post outlet from A.J. Hammons that went through Kendall Stephens' hands. It was the sort of play the center can make to lubricate the Purdue offense.
It's big stuff (defense, shooting) that's holding Purdue back right now and little stuff, too, like missed layups in transition, botched end-of-half sequences the past two games and back-to-back missed one-and-one foul shots with the game still undecided late in the game at Penn State.
But what continues to hold this team back is its inability to play Purdue-style basketball or its inability to teach Purdue-style basketball, one or the other.
You can blame Matt Painter all you want and things certainly aren't peachy for him right now with these past two teams. You can talk all you want about $2.2 million, but you could triple my salary tomorrow and it doesn't make me any different a writer or you could triple your accountant's fees and it wouldn't make them any better at taxes and stuff.
Painter is teaching the same things he always has, for the most part. Obviously, there's been some variation to personnel, like the tweaks that have come with the rare anchor big man at both ends of the floor. The variation - as is always the case in the transient nature of college sports - has come with the personalities involved.
Copyright, Boilers, Inc. 2014. All Rights Reserved. Reproducing or using editorial or graphical content, in whole or in part, without permission, is strictly prohibited. E-mail GoldandBlack.com/Boilers, Inc.
