Floor To Ceiling
- Thread starter nagemj02
- Start date
What? Homerism in his own home?!!!
You look silly and obsessing calling out Purdue fan optimism on a Purdue board.
Pot calling the kettle black? I’ve quickly noticed that you and BoiledSteel seemingly respond to everyone single one of Cheese’s posts with each post having more emphasis on “this is a Purdue board” than the last.
lol. Nothing you wrote makes sense. "Pot calling the kettle black"? Did you even think before you typed that?
And if I responded "to every one of his posts" my count would be much, much higher. Good to see you protecting him from mean ol' me, though.
It makes perfect sense. Calling a person obsessive after obsessively commenting and calling IU posters trolls after every time they post is hypocrisy at its finest.
Nope. Carsen Edwards, Nojel Eastern, Ryan Cline, Eric Hunter, Sasha Stefanovic.
Somehow I forgot about point guard play as a bang my head on a desk theme for the year. We run a motion offense....where a "traditional" PG is not a key factor. The team's success offensively will be significantly determined by ball movement. We can't turn into a 1 man show.
Looking at every game that a team has a realistic chance to lose and calling it a loss is only a floor in the most mechanical and uninformed sense of the definition.
If you said that a team had 15 games that they could realistically lose and the odds ofosing each were between 50% and 70%, the odds of them losing all 15 of those games is nearly statistically insignficant (far less than one tenth of one percent).
You can aruge, and you'd probably be right, that Purdue is also likely to drop a couple of games they shouldn't, but it's unlikely that they'll drop more than 9 of the games that would be tagged as a possible loss preseason.
Looking at this in a thoughtful way I get 9 expected losses plus 2 surprise losses = 11 total losses = 20 win realistic floor (barring major injuries). If you want to argue that number should be 18 or 19 wins, I'd say it seems extremely unlikely, but not impossible. 16 or 17 wins? No way
I think people have very high expectations for a very inexperienced team. To say our ceiling is similar to last year at this point in August when we haven't seen half of our roster play in a regular season game, is somewhat mind-boggling.
I think we will be a much, much improved team by February (hopefully January) than what we see in November.
Overall, I think until we actually see "the floor" (which in theory will be November with us at max inexperience), it will hard to predict the outcome of the season. Last year, we saw it clear as day - you can't win consistently with just a couple good guards. If Haarms becomes more reliable offensively and Boudreaux can ball, that will relieve a lot of defensive pressure off of our guards. And Edwards needs to play as maturely as ever - he will be locked in by our opponents, particularly at the beginning of the season when teams will dare other players to beat us.
We have a couple of studs in CE and Haarms returning. These two have a good supporting cast with Nojel and Cline. Eifert is serviceable.
The rest are question marks. Sasha, Wheeler, Dow, Hunter and Williams will need to contribute.
IMO 23-25 wins is doable. 17 would be my floor.
I think we are in the NCAA with 21 wins, a top 5 finish in the BIG and a first round NCAA win.
Now if CE and Haarms return next year, look out.
Alright, I've mentioned my floor and ceiling earlier in the thread just based on what I felt, but decided to give it a try based on a game to game basis using the schedule. Ceiling ended up being a little higher than I initially had predicted, but floor stayed the same.
Again, I think you have different definitions of what "floor/ceiling" is.
In modern basketball, really any power conference team can win or lose any game. I'd be VERY surprised if we don't have an "upset" loss in the non-conference schedule - heck, we had one last year against Western Kentucky with one of the most experienced teams in program history.
I think it's a bit nuts to put our "floor" at only losing to Notre Dame, FSU and Texas - and one game in the Charleston tournament.
This team has a lot of potential - but it's a lot of raw potential that has a lot of pieces that need to come together. I hope I'm wrong and we come out of the gate playing great, several new players adjust to D-1 basketball immediately, our players play like they've been playing together for years, etc. - it's just very high expectations knowing how college basketball works. Even some of the most talented teams in the country struggle making those adjustments.
Looking at the past, we won a lot of games on last second shots and also suffered several heartbreaking last second losses. I believe the same will hold true this year. The BIG 10 is a very tough league to win on the road. Even our worst teams are good at home and can pull an upset over any team.
We talk about how our team will be much improved over the second half of the season. The same will be true for every young team. I fully expect Duke will be a monster the second half of their season.
I have said in the past the key to winning is the ability to hit FTs in the clutch at the end of the game. It doesn't matter how great your talent is. If you go down the stretch in a2-3 point game, and you can't make your free throws to close out the game, you will lose. And looking at the history of Purdue basketball, that statement is more accurate than any floor verses ceiling prediction.
We talk about how our team will be much improved over the second half of the season. The same will be true for every young team. I fully expect Duke will be a monster the second half of their season.
I have said in the past the key to winning is the ability to hit FTs in the clutch at the end of the game. It doesn't matter how great your talent is. If you go down the stretch in a2-3 point game, and you can't make your free throws to close out the game, you will lose. And looking at the history of Purdue basketball, that statement is more accurate than any floor verses ceiling prediction.
You're right, there is potential for losing another one of those non-con games, I would put my money on either Ohio or Belmont. I guess it just depends what you call worst case. My worst case would be if returning players don't develop the way they are expected to and Carsen struggles being the main man this season. Obviously it could be worse if there are major injuries, but that's a separate case I'd rather not think about, as I never wish injuries. My worst case is the worst that I could reasonably see happen. I'm not really trying to predict the possibility of a major outlier.
Edit: I guess the more I look at it, what I put as a worst case is really more like what my slightly pessimistic expectation would be for this team. I think reasonably, they end up around 18 or 19 wins. Many on here will say that's too low and that I'm just a hater because I'm an IU fan, but that's my opinion of reasonable expectations. You're probably right that worst case should be 1 or 2 games lower.
I see the worst case being Edwards will face double teams every time he touches the ball, and he tries to live up to his hype of carrying the team, and forces a lot of shots . Isn't that what Langford did in high school? And some nights, his shots will go in, and sometimes not.
The biggest issue Purdue will face is identifying a second offensive weapon/alternative to Edwards. Last year we had several alternatives who could take over a game. This year, I'm not so sure who that player will be. Do we have a player who can be a consistent 15+ ppg player?
The biggest issue Purdue will face is identifying a second offensive weapon/alternative to Edwards. Last year we had several alternatives who could take over a game. This year, I'm not so sure who that player will be. Do we have a player who can be a consistent 15+ ppg player?
I get it - but also look at it from a non-Purdue fan lens:
-Purdue loses players that accounted for 50 points per game and played 114 out of the 200 minutes a game (120 during conference play)
-Purdue returns 1 starter
-Purdue returns players that accounted for 33 ppg
-Of the returning players, one player accounts for 56% of our returning scoring
Now on the flip side, it's not a black and white issue. For example, we have some talented guys that didn't play a ton because of 4 senior starters. They didn't have as much of an opportunity to get into a flow of a game.
But in the end, there's still a lot of inexperience and unproven productivity. It certainly doesn't mean it will not happen.
A lot also depends on defensive play. We have some good individual defensive players - but we were efficient defensively last year because we played good team defense. It's great to lock down one or two guys, but that only gets you so far. I think this team has a great opportunity to be an excellent defensive team - but team defense isn't effective overnight. We've seen some Purdue teams take 2-3 months to really get a solid defense in place.
This team isn't likely going to be some lean, mean offensive machine like last year. And until the defense is in place to keep other team's scoring down, it will be a challenge for this team to outscore several of our opponents. Defense will be the key to this team's success in the long run.
Wait....you know I AM a non-Purdue fan, right? I'm an IU fan. lol
I agree with you completely, there are a lot of unknowns for Purdue this year. I don't think they will be a dominant team. I do think they can probably win 18-20 games though. Just having Carsen gets them a long way towards that. No one really knows until the game starts and we see how much players have improved and how the team looks. Same goes for the Hoosiers this year, they have a lot of potential, plenty of talent, but are pretty young and unproven. I have high hopes that they will come together as a team and figure it out, but that remains to be seen until the games start.
they will not be a 5 seed with 22 wins. Take that to the bank. they are flirting with the 7-9 seed with 22 wins.
Would obviously depend on the rest of the field and other teams resumes, but with that schedule, there are plenty of good resume building opportunities.
5 seeds in the tournament last year
Kentucky 24-10---21-10 going into the SEC Tournament won 3 straight
Ohio State 24-8---24-7 heading into the B10 Tournament
West Virginia 24-10---22-9 heading into Big 12 Tournament
Clemson 23-9----22-8 heading into the ACC tournament
Committee values quality of wins not necessarily the number of wins. If Purdue was 22-9 heading into the B10 tournament I would rule out the possibility of a 5 seed.
I think I missed the part about getting to 22 wins before the BIG tourney. I read it as at tourney selection time. Purdue will need closer 24+ wins pre-NCAA to get to 5 seed.
No worries. Yes will be very surprised, and happy, if Purdue has 22 wins heading into the B10 tourney. Will have been a fantastic coaching job by Painter considering losing 4 intricate starters from the year before. That being said, my expectations are tempered because we have a bunch of inexperienced players. I don't think we'll experience a slide like we did after the 07 class officially moved on, but I think we'll experience some growing pains early on and finish strong to end the year. I see us finishing in the 5-6 range of the B10 and going into the the B10 tournament at 20-11 probably around the 8-9 line. Think a win or two could propel us a seed line higher.
It's really an unpredictable season. They shouldn't be terrible (think 10 wins or less) but it's really hard to tell how good they can be.
I think one or two more good players added, meshing with the other 10 scholarship players would put a ceiling prediction at 27-30 wins. As is, my ceiling prediction is 24-27 wins.
I think one or two more good players added, meshing with the other 10 scholarship players would put a ceiling prediction at 27-30 wins. As is, my ceiling prediction is 24-27 wins.
I don't have any stats to support this (I'm sure they're out there, I'm too busy or lazy to find them), but suspect it's very rare for a team to return an all american and three other guys who played signficant minutes to not have a successfull season (which for most of MP's time at Purdue has been at top 4 finish in the conference).
I understand that the stats of the other guys coming back are less than impressive. I understand that last year's 30 win team lost a ton of production. I have a hard time believing that Matt doesn't have the guys who are back dialed in to the team first mentality or that there won't be enough guys who "get it" from a team defense perspective that the new guys will hold their own on D or sit. If you tell me that this team needs another guy besides Carsen that they can go to when they need a bucket, I'd agree with you. If Matty H, Nojel or Evan B. can become that guy I think this team is in the hunt for a conference championship.
I could certainly be wrong, but if I were a gambler I'd lay heavy money on this Purdue team exceeding 20 wins in the regular season. While I'd love to see more top 50 recruits on this roster, MP has done as good a job as any of developing talent. This season will be his biggest coaching challenge since the baby boilers left and showed that while they'd had very good teams, MP had not yet build a program. I think Matt has now built a program, we'll find out in the next few months.
I understand that the stats of the other guys coming back are less than impressive. I understand that last year's 30 win team lost a ton of production. I have a hard time believing that Matt doesn't have the guys who are back dialed in to the team first mentality or that there won't be enough guys who "get it" from a team defense perspective that the new guys will hold their own on D or sit. If you tell me that this team needs another guy besides Carsen that they can go to when they need a bucket, I'd agree with you. If Matty H, Nojel or Evan B. can become that guy I think this team is in the hunt for a conference championship.
I could certainly be wrong, but if I were a gambler I'd lay heavy money on this Purdue team exceeding 20 wins in the regular season. While I'd love to see more top 50 recruits on this roster, MP has done as good a job as any of developing talent. This season will be his biggest coaching challenge since the baby boilers left and showed that while they'd had very good teams, MP had not yet build a program. I think Matt has now built a program, we'll find out in the next few months.
Best example would be the 2011-2012 Purdue team. Hummel was the AA caliber player, albeit 2 major knee surgeries later, and a decent core of Lewis Jackson, Terone Johnson, DJ Byrd, and Kelsey Barlow returned. Hummel wasn’t nearly as a dynamic player as Carsen but the 2011-2012 team returned more experienced guys. Team went 20-11, 10-8 in the regular season and B10 and got in as 10 seed losing a tough game against Kansas in the second round. I believe there is a lot of similarities between the teams and think both will have comparable seasons when it’s all said and done.
If the best example includes a player coming off of two major knee surgeries you've made my point. I appreciate you throwing out a suggestion. I suspect there are better examples, but again, in fairness, I haven't taken the time to find them.
The four players you mentioned did have experience, but out of the four Jackson was a solid player and Byrd, Johnson and Barlow were all role players. Eastern, Cline, Boudreaux and Haarms dwarf that quartet in terms of talent.
So if we take a much better AA as a starting point (love RH but the injuries took a major toll) and add in a less experienced but signficantly more talented supporting cast, how many more wins does that equate to? Seems like at least a couple as a conservative estimate and could be significantly more.
The four players you mentioned did have experience, but out of the four Jackson was a solid player and Byrd, Johnson and Barlow were all role players. Eastern, Cline, Boudreaux and Haarms dwarf that quartet in terms of talent.
So if we take a much better AA as a starting point (love RH but the injuries took a major toll) and add in a less experienced but signficantly more talented supporting cast, how many more wins does that equate to? Seems like at least a couple as a conservative estimate and could be significantly more.
Ryne Smith was also on that team. I dont think it's fair to say those 4 dwarf the other 4 in talent at this point. Carsen is certainly better than Hummel, but at this point I would the supporting cast was better on the 2011 team.
That was just my example for a Purdue team, as I think in a way there is some similarities in terms of lost production from the year prior. I guess I don’t know off the top of my head a team that lost 4 starters but returned an AA and how they fared the next year. I think the combination of returning or incoming players is more relevant than the AA. I’m not a guy who gets caught up in recruiting rankings rankings for the most part, but I do think the one thing that combats talent is experience and chemistry. On paper Purdue wasn’t the most talented team but they had not only a bunch of experience but tons of chemistry. Purdue loses all that and doesn’t bring in a class full of guys who can play major roles right away and as a team there’s not a whole bunch of chemistry, yet. I do believe Carsen’s playmaking abilities will keep Purdue’s ceiling high, but the floor is lower than some suggest if the team doesn’t gel. I expect Purdue to make the tournament, but won’t be blind-sided if they don’t. A tough non-conference schedule will be good experience for a young team come B10 play.
"at this point I would the supporting cast was better on the 2011 team"
You don't give any rationale, so I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion, but let's say we threw those players in a draft (include Ryne Smith if you like) and took turns taking the best available player. Would you really take members of the 2011 team over this year's squad? I guess you could argue that they're more proven, so if risk aversion is important to you I could see your arguement, but the 2011 guys were proven to be average players.
I'd take Haarms first and relative to the best support player in 2011, LewJack, to me it's not even close. Jackson was a nice player but Haarms is one of the best returning sophomores in the country and he looks to be just starting to scratch the surface of his potential.
Is Johnson the next best player on the 2011 team? I'd happily take a 6'8" lunch bucket players who rebounds and can shoot the ball over a shooting guard who was average defensively and couldn't get his own shot.
Barlow or Byrd versus Eastern? Not sure how you argue against Eastern there.
Smith, Barlow or Byrd vs Cline? Seems like a toss up to me.
If you want to argue that we're not sure what this year's team can do in major minutes I don't disagree, it's not certain, but life is uncertain and I'd much rather the inexperienced athletes for this year's team versus the core of teams that would lose 35 games between 2012 and 2013.
I haven't seen enough from the current guys to say they dwarf the players on the 2011 team. The current guys certainly have a higher upside. Going position by position, I would break it down in the following way given what we KNOW about each player.
LewJack > Eastern
Ryne > Cline
Byrd > Wheeler
Barlow < Evan
Carroll < Haarms
I don't think it's a horrible example, there are some similarities. I agree that last year's team was as good as it was because of how hard they played and how unselfish they were. The seniors had talent, but as you say, didn't get to 30 wins based on talent.
The question is whether those positive traits were a function of chemistry, which is specific to a given team, or culture, which can bet transferred over from team to team. Given the type of guys that Matt has recruited and what we've seen to date from the guys who played last year and are coming back, my expectation is that it's culture, but we'll find out this year.
As I posted earlier, my biggest concern is whether this team can find a reliable #2 scoring option. If they can, I think 22 regular season wins and a top four conference finish is a good goal for fans (internal team goal should be to win the conference). If they don't find that guy they're going to have to grind out a lot of games and will be fighting to make the tournament.
Last edited:
That helps me understand your view. I personally would never choose a team that way as:
1) to me it's incredibly conservative to choose solely based on what you KNOW and
2) We know for a fact that Haarms is so much better than TC and I expect ED to be so much better than Barlow that in my mind it far outweighs a coin toss between Smith and Cline and taking LewJack's experience over Eastern's potential (which I can see) and Byrd's experience over Wheeler (I wouldn't make that trade off, I didn't like Byrd as a player but I probably unfairly blame him for not providing enough leadership on those bad teams).
But the only thing you’re argument is based on is potential and upside. No doubt Haarms and Eastern have more upside than anyone on the 11-12 team, but Haarms and Eastern are still only sophomores who aren’t very experienced. Won’t disagree that this years team won’t be better than 11-12 IF those players live up to expectations but you can’t conceivably say they will.
If you go player by player break down there’s some fair comparisons. DJ Byrd was the 6th man in the B10 that year. Don’t think Cline will have the numbers Byrd did. TJ only struggled when he became the go to player the following year, he played his secondary role fine. Barlow and Eastern are pretty good comparisons at this point in Nojel’s career. Obviously Eastern has much more upside due to his size and length but he needs to develop a consistent mid-range game first. Jackson was a very steady and reliable PG as a senior. Next years team has way more upside but you’re only going to see those results if that potential is reached. Higher ceiling for this years team based on potential but bigger floor due to lack of experience and chemistry.
"the only thing you’re argument is based on is potential and upside"
I would not call Boudreaux or Haarms inexperienced. If Haarms makes modest improvement from his freshment to sophomore years he'll be signficantly better than anyone on that 2011 team. If he doesn't improve at all he'd be my #2 selection behind LewJack. I'm not assuming that EB will be as productive in the BIG as he was in the Ivy, but he's shown in small samples that he can compete at this level.
I saw enough from Eastern last year to feel confident that at a minimum he can handle the ball, rebound and play high effort defense. His jumper was good enough in high school to give reason to believe that he'll improve offensively versus last year, but anything further is potential and upside.
Painter seems to be expecting a lot from Cline as his minutes improve. i'm not sure that I buy that but even if his improvement is modest he's as good as most of those 2011 players.
Haarms is inexperienced for the role he’s expected to take on. Haarms was an energy guy off the bench last year who could spell Haas and be used in offense for defense situations. I agree you’ll see improvement from Haarms this year on both ends, but where he needs to improve the most is controlling his emotions and improving his basketball IQ and on-court awareness or he won’t be able to consistently stay on the floor. I still think he’s a year away in the regard to where we can really count on him to be a reliable starter.
Other than Hummel and potentially Lewjack, would you take anyone from that 2011 team over Haarms?
If I recall correctly, that 2011 team has some similarities to our current team. LJ had a quick first step that few defenders could match, but LewJack was the only man to drive the ball consistently. Barlow was on that team, bit he seemed to often help the opponents as much as his home team with dumb decisions. It seemed a few of the other guys could shoot, but that was about it.
I do see some similarities in the physical size and athleticism of Eastern and Barlow, but Eastern plays much, much smarter ball. I see similarities between Hummel and Boudreau in that they are both cagy players who put blue color work-ethic into their game. Hummel is the much more proven player at this point, but he was hobbled a bit that year, and not 100%. So does Evan at 100% = Hummel at 80%?
LewJack vs Carsen is no contest. Lew was good, but Carsen is a much better player who is far more versatile. Here is the big difference: the 2011 team had no one to match up to Haarms. The combo of Haarms and Boudreaux is far better than Hummel and who ever tried to play center on the 2011 team (I was never that impressed with Sandi).
That brings us to the 5th man on this year's team. If it's Cline, then I think we need to look at T. Johnson or Ryne Smith as the best comparison. Cline won't be forced to play outside his comfort zone like TJ, but I suspect TJ was the better player.
Okay, so then where do Wheeler or Sasha fit in the comparison? Dow, Hunter and Williams are good enough to play. Look at the 2011 roster, remove the starters, and the real issue jumps out - depth! I think the 2018 version of the Purdue Boilermakers is significantly better than the 2011 version. Just my 2 cents.
You could very well be right about depth. The issue is that those 5 subs have never logged a minute at the collegiate level. While I think these guys will be good down the road, I'm not seeing any impact players this year out of that group outside of potentially Wheeler. It's just my opinion though. We will find out in a couple months.
