Depth of this team.........Love it!

[PU52Chevy]

and I am sure the staff does too.............

They are going to have great practices, with good competition to get them game ready.

Also Painter will have lot's of depth to plug and play against match-ups or whoever has the hot hand that night.

If someone is off, sit them for a bit and let the next man up come in eager and hungry for minutes and success.

I don't see any member of this team that is all me me me.....they genuinely all want to succeed and make Purdue the winner in all of this.

This is going to be fun to watch....Boiler Up!

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

Although some people worry about Hill coming in and playing and meshing, remember that he has the ENTIRE summer to get to know the program and the players. Although Octeus turned out to be an incredible player for the program last year, he did struggle a bit at the start of the season because he wasn't afforded that chance like Hill is going to be able to do. I, for one, expect a lot from Hill this season and believe he can be a catalyst on both ends of the floor.

Remember, although Coach Painter isn't seen as a great recruiter he is known as a coach who can identify talent at a high level. If he was able to identify Hill, get him to campus, sell him on coming to the program that has an immense amount of talent, and then sell him the fact that he will STILL be able to showcase himself for an opportunity at a professional career at some level...shows me I shouldn't expect anything less. Coach Painter has shown a good track record of bringing in 5th year transfers (Octeus, Carter, Peck), so I trust him on Hill.

 

[vilehoopster]

and I am sure the staff does too.............

They are going to have great practices, with good competition to get them game ready.

Also Painter will have lot's of depth to plug and play against match-ups or whoever has the hot hand that night.

If someone is off, sit them for a bit and let the next man up come in eager and hungry for minutes and success.

I don't see any member of this team that is all me me me.....they genuinely all want to succeed and make Purdue the winner in all of this.

This is going to be fun to watch....Boiler Up!

Unless you have injuries or foul trouble, depth is really overrated. Your starters play a lot and other players play less, and learn and accept their roles. I think you should play your top players and play them a lot. Unless you're in foul trouble, play 8 or 9 players, 9 at the most, and make sure your starters play a lot of minutes, not 25 minutes, play 'em 30 to 34 minutes. They are your best players because they play the best. Get them and keep them on the court.

That match up thing, not a big believer in that. Make the other team match up with you. Some your players have to learn to guard taller, more physical players, or quicker players; well, play your best players a lot and have them learn how to handle different players and situations.

As for the practice thing, our last coach who went to the Final Four, Lee Rose, he never had the team scrimmage against each other. The team did drills together, but if they scrimmaged, they scrimmaged against the Renegade team of walk-ons.

Now, if injuries bite or your in foul trouble, then you need depth, but really, I think Purdue lost some (two) pre-Big Ten games playing too many players. I almost think too much depth, when it created unclear roles, can be a problem. Start and play your starters, your best players, and have the other players learn to fit their roles.

 

[lbodel]

and I am sure the staff does too.............

They are going to have great practices, with good competition to get them game ready.

Also Painter will have lot's of depth to plug and play against match-ups or whoever has the hot hand that night.

If someone is off, sit them for a bit and let the next man up come in eager and hungry for minutes and success.

I don't see any member of this team that is all me me me.....they genuinely all want to succeed and make Purdue the winner in all of this.

This is going to be fun to watch....Boiler Up!

There are obviously a ton of positives to go with having depth, but it will also be a challenge.

You're not going to have a rotation of 10+ guys. And you also have to keep guys somewhat fresh off the bench if you're planning on playing them. It'll be very interesting to see how the rotation plays out, redshirting, etc.

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

Unless you have injuries or foul trouble, depth is really overrated. Your starters play a lot and other players play less, and learn and accept their roles. I think you should play your top players and play them a lot. Unless you're in foul trouble, play 8 or 9 players, 9 at the most, and make sure your starters play a lot of minutes, not 25 minutes, play 'em 30 to 34 minutes. They are your best players because they play the best. Get them and keep them on the court.

That match up thing, not a big believer in that. Make the other team match up with you. Some your players have to learn to guard taller, more physical players, or quicker players; well, play your best players a lot and have them learn how to handle different players and situations.

As for the practice thing, our last coach who went to the Final Four, Lee Rose, he never had the team scrimmage against each other. The team did drills together, but if they scrimmaged, they scrimmaged against the Renegade team of walk-ons.

Now, if injuries bite or your in foul trouble, then you need depth, but really, I think Purdue lost some (two) pre-Big Ten games playing too many players. I almost think too much depth, when it created unclear roles, can be a problem. Start and play your starters, your best players, and have the other players learn to fit their roles.

The biggest advantage of having depth like Purdue does right now is in the off season. It creates a culture of competition. Look at football programs like Alabama, OSU, Oregon, FSU, etc. They are good and continue to be good because of the incredible depth that they have that breeds competition to get better every day.

 

[cprh9u]

Still worried about the lack of depth at PG. Really hoping RD can defend the 1 because if he can, that will allow us to get our best 5 players on the court at one time. Too bad we couldn't get any of our more talented PG targets or actual players to be a part of this team.

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

Still worried about the lack of depth at PG. Really hoping RD can defend the 1 because if he can, that will allow us to get our best 5 players on the court at one time. Too bad we couldn't get any of our more talented PG targets or actual players to be a part of this team.

 

[PU52Chevy]

Unless you have injuries or foul trouble, depth is really overrated. Your starters play a lot and other players play less, and learn and accept their roles. I think you should play your top players and play them a lot. Unless you're in foul trouble, play 8 or 9 players, 9 at the most, and make sure your starters play a lot of minutes, not 25 minutes, play 'em 30 to 34 minutes. They are your best players because they play the best. Get them and keep them on the court.

That match up thing, not a big believer in that. Make the other team match up with you. Some your players have to learn to guard taller, more physical players, or quicker players; well, play your best players a lot and have them learn how to handle different players and situations.

As for the practice thing, our last coach who went to the Final Four, Lee Rose, he never had the team scrimmage against each other. The team did drills together, but if they scrimmaged, they scrimmaged against the Renegade team of walk-ons.

Now, if injuries bite or your in foul trouble, then you need depth, but really, I think Purdue lost some (two) pre-Big Ten games playing too many players. I almost think too much depth, when it created unclear roles, can be a problem. Start and play your starters, your best players, and have the other players learn to fit their roles.

Ha Ha nice lecture...I respect your opinion but I stated mine too.....

Depth is a good problem to have......better than not having it.....having it makes the team better.....just like in business or bacon.

Can never have enough talent believing in the same goal.....

or can never have enough bacon...yummy.

Carry on.....ha ha

Boiler Up!

 

[vilehoopster]

Ha Ha nice lecture...I respect your opinion but I stated mine too.....

Depth is a good problem to have......better than not having it.....having it makes the team better.....just like in business or bacon.

Can never have enough talent believing in the same goal.....

or can never have enough bacon...yummy.

Carry on.....ha ha

Boiler Up!

I guess you're right. Talent is a good, even a great problem (is that an oxymoron?) to have. I guess depth is not the problem, once again, especially with foul trouble and injuries. The problem is keeping everyone happy and players needing to learn their roles. Problems arise when a player goes out of his role (or the position's role) trying to win minutes and become a starter. I think Bryson Scott, playing point, which is more a set-up than scoring position, tried to score a lot of points whenever he went in. He wanted to score to earn playing time, but instead of helping himself, he hurt himself and hurt his playing time by doing more than what Painter wanted from the point guard position. So depth is a good thing, but keeping players happy is more of a problem.

 

[Kesselschmiede]

I guess you're right. Talent is a good, even a great problem (is that an oxymoron?) to have. I guess depth is not the problem, once again, especially with foul trouble and injuries. The problem is keeping everyone happy and players needing to learn their roles. Problems arise when a player goes out of his role (or the position's role) trying to win minutes and become a starter. I think Bryson Scott, playing point, which is more a set-up than scoring position, tried to score a lot of points whenever he went in. He wanted to score to earn playing time, but instead of helping himself, he hurt himself and hurt his playing time by doing more than what Painter wanted from the point guard position. So depth is a good thing, but keeping players happy is more of a problem.

Very good post. While it is a good problem to have, it can cause issues I imagine as players get unhappy because they lose minutes and leave a team then suddenly you are without depth again.

Painter I think will figure it out and the players should learn quickly that if you want to play, you have to earn it. That shouldn't be anything new to them either.

 

[Dr_billy_badass]

I think one of the other beneficiaries of great depth is that you get to practice against it every day. You have guys constantly pushed in practice no matter the position or role. They are constantly tested and forced to get better through practicing hard and competition or you lose minutes. If you know you are a starter and far and away the best option, you may be tempted to do just enough to get the job done in practice.

 

[boilerzz]

Unless you have injuries or foul trouble, depth is really overrated. Your starters play a lot and other players play less, and learn and accept their roles. I think you should play your top players and play them a lot. Unless you're in foul trouble, play 8 or 9 players, 9 at the most, and make sure your starters play a lot of minutes, not 25 minutes, play 'em 30 to 34 minutes. They are your best players because they play the best. Get them and keep them on the court.

That match up thing, not a big believer in that. Make the other team match up with you. Some your players have to learn to guard taller, more physical players, or quicker players; well, play your best players a lot and have them learn how to handle different players and situations.

As for the practice thing, our last coach who went to the Final Four, Lee Rose, he never had the team scrimmage against each other. The team did drills together, but if they scrimmaged, they scrimmaged against the Renegade team of walk-ons.

Now, if injuries bite or your in foul trouble, then you need depth, but really, I think Purdue lost some (two) pre-Big Ten games playing too many players. I almost think too much depth, when it created unclear roles, can be a problem. Start and play your starters, your best players, and have the other players learn to fit their roles.

You know what happens when you don't have depth? A guy like Ronnie Johnson gets to keep playing instead of sitting his ass on the bench.

 

[bnsummers]

You know what happens when you don't have depth? A guy like Ronnie Johnson gets to keep playing instead of sitting his ass on the bench.

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner!

 

[lbodel]

I think one of the other beneficiaries of great depth is that you get to practice against it every day. You have guys constantly pushed in practice no matter the position or role. They are constantly tested and forced to get better through practicing hard and competition or you lose minutes. If you know you are a starter and far and away the best option, you may be tempted to do just enough to get the job done in practice.

This is very true.

However, it also brings a challenge to a coaching staff. When you have 8 guys who could start, you also have to keep things positive. It's no secret that today's kids expect a lot and to keep those minds positive is a real challenge, even if they aren't getting the time they probably deserve and would be getting elsewhere. That being said, I do think we have a good group of guys, but we also have competitive guys. Painter is probably not going to be able to make everyone on this team happy and pumped about their situation - but I think there isn't a player on this team who won't benefit from it if they keep on working hard.

 

[purduedogbarkshard]

I think the depth @ guard will help....the quicker guards on other teams could force a few Boiler fouls.

 

[purdue4sure]

Still worried about the lack of depth at PG. Really hoping RD can defend the 1 because if he can, that will allow us to get our best 5 players on the court at one time. Too bad we couldn't get any of our more talented PG targets or actual players to be a part of this team.

And if MP had signed the nations #1 PG, you would find something else to worry and whine about.

 

[cprh9u]

And if MP had signed the nations #1 PG, you would find something else to worry and whine about.

Hey until we have some more on the court results, I think some criticism is warranted.

 

[purdue4sure]

Hey until we have some more on the court results, I think some criticism is warranted.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And if he wins a National Championship, you'll whine about the NCs that "should have been won".

Was it you who asked how many Final Fours the Gene Keady tree produced, but never explained your point?

 

[West James]

You know what happens when you don't have depth? A guy like Ronnie Johnson gets to keep playing instead of sitting his ass on the bench.

Bingo! Also, there's somthing to knowing [to any degree possible] your role/responsibilities on a team, or your job for that matter. Just as a player/worker[to any degree possible] wants to know what [basically] to expect when he goes to work/takes the court/arrives for the game, you, as a player don't want to constantly have new things/responsibilities thrown at you every time you turn around/play a new game [for that matter, the coach likes some semblance of consistancy as well]. Most coaches & players want to know who's going to be starting the game, well before the game. If a player plays himself in or out of the starting line up/rotation, so be it, but don't just constantly make line up changes, for the sake of change. Find your starters early, then back ups early, then [to any degree possible] stick with that rotation [baring players playing themselves in or out of the rotation/starting line up]. Don't just change things/line ups/players/rotations, for the sake of change. Find out as early as possible, who starts, who the subs are. That breeds consistancy/knowing what to expect/comfort/reduced stress/wins.

Who knows when next, Purdue will have the opporotunities affordid it now. Strike while the iron is hot!