I've never seen coach K without substantially better talent to get a feel for just how good he is...
For as long as I’ve watched Purdue....
- Thread starter bonefish1
- Start date
That may be true but there is a reason he has made Duke into the best program in a nation.
He isn't considered Elite but he is definitely a great coach. How many people would you rather have than Painter?
This is exactly right. It's always about the head coach. Yes, the name on the jersey has some impact, but there are lots of cases of blue blood schools struggling after a coaching change.
It'll be really interesting to see if Duke can sustain what coach K has built once he's gone. Sort of like Bama and Saban, MSU with Izzo, etc.
Totally agree! Duke wasn't Duke before coach K. I'd be all for firing CMP if we can land the next Coach K but at this point I don't see that as being realistic.
Great coaches get past the S16.... even at Purdue. If Wisconsin can do it, so can Purdue. Bo Ryan was a great coach.
Bo was a very good coach...very good! Had he not got past the S16 he would be a very good coach just based upon how his teams played.
And Brad Stevens was a great coach. Taking Butler to back to back NC games is beyond impressive. Bielen has entered the great coach category as well.
You keep posting this, but it doesn't make it true. Most people in the business of college basketball think more highly of Painter than you. Maybe you need to adjust your perceptions.
The way his teams played and how he coached is why he got past the S16 and made two FF’s. He was not lucky... he was a great coach. Same with Stevens. We’re not cursed or unlucky, We just dont have the right leadership. CMP knows and gets talent, he just can’t coach it. He’ll do fine and be here for another 15 years, but we’ve seen his ceiling.
He was a great coach...at all levels...same with John Beilein (sp?). However, I don't know specifically what he did that made him a better coach when he got past teh S16 and when he didn't? He won at all levels and he did it generally with less talent over many years. I consider the consistency of his success the reason for his greatness.
I would agree that he was successful at all levels. The fact that he made the FF put him over the top. The one thing I always remember whenever GK was discussed and his coaching was that he was missing that FF on his resume. Which is true. GK and CMP both are very stubborn and I think it gets in there way. They were/are set on how they were going to play a game and very slow to react when the plan goes south.
Perhaps? I know Gene was viewed that way. If true (stubborn and it gets in his way to success) do you think he only does that in the tourney or do you think he is stubborn enough that he coaches the tourney as he does all year...which I'm guessing is stubborn and gets in his way there as well.
Well, we haven’t been to a FF since 1980, the year Keady took over. Painter is a true disciple of the Keady coaching tree. Coincidence? Not sure.
This is why I Hope when we do get a new coach, he’s not from the Keady or Painter tree. The program needs a new perception, especially in recruiting.
Same shit after every loss. We win and this nonsense goes back into hiding.
Bad coach but good recruiter? Well that certainly is a unique perspective.
At this point I'm going to go down the thread and start putting these idiots on ignore.
It appears to me that you believe that the coach is enough to bring in all the talent needed...that the coach by himself is more important than the other variables and alone dictates where a player goes...that the coach is much more influential than what I believe. I do not believe that. However, I could be wrong.
If I'm wrong, tell me the specifics of the Keady/Painter coaching tree approach that is wrong AND why that is wrong. If you don't know,that doesn't mean your gut is wrong, just that you don't know WHY your gut FEELS what it does.
If you feel the approach is WRONG in the tourney tell me IF it is also wrong during the season and if not wrong during the season, but only wrong during the tourney WHY? So far I have never read or at least rarely ever read coherent reasoning on teh state of Purdue Basketball. None of this is aimed at you and none of it implies that being unable to provide coherent reasoning doesn't mean you or others are wrong, it just means you don't know why you are right, IF you are.
One major theme that many hold that I believe to be flawed, is to assume that the sampling of Matt's time at Purdue relative to the tourney and/or...recruiting, but ultimately results, in some fashion is THAT duration is a homogenous population of which to sample...that the recruiting aspects and or results due to the financial backing issues were of the same population as today.
Quite simply I don't. I think THAT event prevented the bump from the Baby Boilers and delayed recruiting results and ultimately performance to some degree less than it would other wise.
Another that I also consider "generally" flawed is to assume that tourney coaching where you don't know the other team as well as during the season somehow equates to being a better coach, by not knowing the other team as well assuming of course that in game guesses are better for some coaches than others OR that teams that don't worry so much concentrate on their own team for improvement and thereby play better in the tourney. I think most in this forum would consider that Purdue improves Purdue...leaving the decision if in game guesses by not knowing the other teams is what differentiates coaches in the tourney versus season. Some may reason that it is IN FACT in game guesses that separates coaches and that is why no FF recently. Perhaps, but for any too young to remember...Lee Rose (1980) made his adjustments before the game began. Lee did NOT want emotional decisions to affect what he was doing. I'm not advocating such...just pointing out the approach the last time Purdue went to the FF. I see this more of an evolution rather than a revolution and wonder what if...what if Big Dog never got hurt, what if Robbie didn't blow out his knee...what if Purdue sold her soul...would the results be different. I think so, but none can be proven. There are a lot of different opinions and even those that are not really supported other than hunches coulde be correct...I just don't know the reasoning behind them
I am 100% in the camp that the coach is the most important piece of the puzzle when it comes to recruiting and bringing players into a program.
Name, facilities, TV, etc all come into the equation, but the No.1, 2, and 3 factors is how well a coach sells a kid on the opportunity. (the opportunity to get the kid to the next level).
There's a direct correlation between recruiting success and tourney success. Sure, they'll be some outliers and even coaches (Stevens) who take less talented teams deep into the tourney, but overall, if you took a 25 year sample, you'd find that the teams playing in FFs also are the same teams that have top 20 recruiting classes. I don't know our average recruiting position ranking over the last 20+ years but I'd be surprised if we averaged in the top 20.
But, then it's the chicken vs egg discussion. But ultimately, it boils down to recruiting and can a coach get the talent to build consistent tourney teams.
They hit three's the other night because they consistently broke down our perimeter defense, got into the lane, which forced other defenders to help and that allowed kick outs and uncontested threes. You go zone to stop dribble-drive penetration. A zone masks someone like Ryan Cline or Boudreaux who were consistently getting beat off the dribble. That's elementary basketball 101.
Last edited:
NO,you completely missed what I said AND THAT is key. Nobody is debating..or I am not, even though there is evidence I could that the coach is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT VARIABLE, but that the coach alone is over 50% of the variables in play. This issue is NOT what is the most important variable in play of which I believe is many much less than 50%.
If you want to believe that the coach ALONE...that a single coach without the name due to previous exposure and possible money is enough to take people to Purdue...that the salesmanship of that coach is over 50% of all the variables...then we disagree. Now that said,...the scope you refined was just recruiting, but suggested that recruiting was key to that tourney data point and I too think players are more important when teams play teams they may know little about as selected by a group of people to play each other at selected sites to make some money and hype fans. I'm not sure that coach K starting out today as the young coach was when he started out at Duke would automatically have Purdue where Duke is today. Maybe...maybe not...would he have got similar recruits that propelled him with the start he had at Duke and the snowball took off?
Anyhow, I don't think a coach ALIONE is over 50% of the decision for a player to go to a certain school. Could a coach be the most important...certainly! A coach much less that 50%, but carring another variable or variables much less than 50% could easily add up to over 50%...and then if you add several more variables it is quite easy to see that a coach as important as he is, may still not be enough, but when combined with the other variables is enough to swing a player
They did hit 3s because of dribble penetration. Obviously teh 3 ball was a consideration or should have been due to the effectiveness of how they shot. In elementary basketball 202 it discusses ball penetration by the dribble adn ball penetration by the pass which is typically quicker, but requires another. The zone allows ball penetration by the pass more so than the dribble. The man allows ball penetration by the dribble more than the pass. Both can create kick outs to theorectically open players..either by a man helping out in a man D or in a zone D since the zone player is not even assigned to a man specifrically. Your hunch may or may not have made a difference, but it is NOT as clear as you made it out to be or everyone would play zone instead of almost all playing man. Last year at this time and almost every year dribble penetraion is an issue...especially early in the year
So many people weren't even buying into this team, just a few weeks ago. We stayed with a very scrappy VT team. Like I said in a previous post, a scrappy good team like that last year, beat us by a lot more and that was with a ton more experience than this team.
I was just pondering where BBall 101 is played ... probably freshman HS or HS JV ... we're functioning at Bball 909 ... no comparison.
I think what goes on is people assume that what works in elementary, works in high school and works in college and although some may, much doesn't. Player skills and athleticism alter all those things
brohm is a great example of the importance of a coach in recruiting, as we've seen the quick, drastic turnaround (noting that dh2 began with the $ benefits) . coaches style of play, attitude/mentality, opportunity & willingness to play freshman early being key.
painter already has a step on brohm - track record of developing players to the pros (more sticking in the league longer would also help).
now that painter has the benefit of $$ at his disposal, coupled with the unprecedented exposure of cheating... I would anticipate seeing a significant bump in recruiting results as well.
Last edited:
I'll give it a go. Keep in mind there is no clear cut answers, or solutions to these questions. Just like there would be no clear cut answers if I were to flip your questions around and ask what's keeping us from getting to the FF, or landing top 50 recruits....
Bringing in talent:
It is my belief that the coach is by far the biggest factor in landing top talent. I'm not saying the coach alone is over 50% of the reason a recruit would choose a school, but it is by far the biggest reason (ie. If the coach is 35% of the reason a recruit chooses a school, and the next biggest factor is say location at 10%).
A lot of you will say things like playing time and play style are factors as well. It is my belief that both those factors fall under the "Coach" category. The coach controls playing time. The coach controls play style.
At Purdue we need to get rid of the "defense lives here" and being a "Blue Collar" team brands. These brands don't resonate with young people, and especially not with elite talent. This years team is playing incredibly fast, however the view of most in the country is that Purdue is still a slow playing team that makes its mark on the defensive end (obviously not this season). Our marketing department, along with our coaching staff needs to be promoting how we have seemingly finally changed to look like a modern basketball team.
Furthermore, we need a Gen Ed major. I'm not saying we make admission standards less, but we need to offer an easier option (no required math). I'm sure this point will draw a ton of criticism.
Lastly, we absolutely need to get rid of the "IU Sucks" chant when we aren't playing IU. People outside of Purdue don't get it. It makes us seem petty and weird (although fun to scream when hammered drunk at Purdue sporting events). When we are playing a home football game and say it on kickoffs, you can go on twitter and see tweet after tweet of people asking why we are chanting IU Sucks when we arent playing them. I know for sure one basketball recruit that didn't understand why it was being said (IU recruit as well).
Tourney Success:
Our team is setup year after year to be competitive in the Big Ten, but not on the national level. Big Ten play is physical. We can be competitive, because we usually have dominant bigs that can overpower people physically. Most Big Ten teams don't have super athletic teams, so we can get away with this without being run off the court. When it comes to the NCAA tournament and we get matched up with a superior team athletically we get run off the court. We need less Clines and Sashas and more Malik Halls and Louis Kings. We need less Haas and Hammons and more JJJs and TJDs.
Plain and simple, we need to get more athletic while also not losing skill (ie. top 50 talent). This season we got more athletic in some areas. Haarms is more athletic than Haas. Nojel more athletic than PJ. Wheeler more athletic than Vince. The issue is the guys I just mentioned that we lost were all more skilled than who we have now.
*I'm sure these opinions are going to set some off*
Trust me, I don't advocate Painter making zone a primary defense. But it's something that you need to have in your back pocket for if anything to throw a wrinkle in there to disrupt the other offense. Not saying that by not going zone that's why Purdue lost (it isn't), but in the second half, VT guards were mercilessly getting into the lane that not only allowed for easy buckets, but kick out, uncontested threes. They dictated the tempo and played at their pace the entire second half. If anything, jumping into a zone, even if it's only for a possession or two, completely disrupts their tempo and forces them to try something different other than simply beating one of our guards off the dribble every time down and doing whatever they want.
I agree Purdue isn't built to be a consistent zone defensive team, but that doesn't mean you can't implement it in certain situations to try and slow or alter the other teams game plan. Every coach along the line in some fashion does this. All I'm saying.
Last edited:
Going Zone 101 is to stop more athletic players from getting into the lane at will. Once the opposing player breaks down the defense and gets into the lane it causes a break down or collapse from the rest of the defense resulting in baseline cuts or uncontested threes which are extremely high percentage shots. Going zone makes it harder for the opposing team to get into the zone.
Basketball 101
Correct. When you have a team of superior athletes (Virginia Tech) playing against inferior defenders (Cline, EBo, Grady, Sasha) that are consistently breaking down the defense and getting into the lane that result in easy layups and/or uncontested 3's, altering a man to man defense that isn't working and implenting some zone principles is the likely solution.
If you don't set your team up to be able to compete and win in the B1G, then your not going to make it to the tourney anyways. The main reason Painter hasn't had success in the tourney is significant injuries at or near the end of the season. You can close your eyes to the truth, but it's still the truth. No, one can't guarantee there would have been a couple of F4s or a championship, be I can guarantee the injuries have been a major impediment to attaining those goals.
As a parent who went through the recruiting process what I can tell you from my son and I experience and talking to other parents who have gone through the experience especially when ur kid is a high profile player many times often those kids or parents have many different reasons a kid or parents choose a school based off the name of the school the coach who is coaching at that school opportunities to play as a freshmen location of a school are some of the seasons kids pick particular schools these are some of them. Most kids whether top 25/50 or 200 want to go to the Kentucky duke Kansas North Carolina of the worlds bcuz of exposure simple put opportunity to be seen in front of nba scouts etc.
The top tier players feel entitled want promises fed to them and want coaches chasing them like the are a pro I’m telling u I’ve seen it all. Many get a kick out of all the attention they get from weirdo scouting services guys who follow them all over the world with a tape recorder in hand making them feel special. They see there name on mock drafts and now they big man on campus and now fans are at there beckon call remember these are kids still in HS.
I’m not saying all of them act that way a lot of them do bcuz they are giving everything handed to them instead of earning it which makes them feel entitled to everything they get why a school like Purdue is not enticing to them. Most often than not many don’t have the grades to get into academic schools like the Purdue schools of the world so they go to a school we’re the academics are not all that important bcuz many feel I’m only here a year anyway.
In each case it’s different but some of you might think it’s on the coach why they don’t land top 25/50 recruits some of y’all really don’t no a coach can only sell so ultimately it comes down to some of the things I mentioned b4 why kids choose not to come to Purdue. Yes tournament success helps to secure kids committment but not always it’s just hard to no what goes on in a kids mind when u r being hounded everyday all day almost by coaches the weirdo scouting services guys bugging u all the time it can take a toll on a kid trust me we went thru it to the point u just want to get it over with.
Some kids love all the attention so does their parents then they get lost up in all the attention pick the high profile coach and school name and the promises the coach made to them they get there find themselves sitting in the bench now what.
Promises don’t help lying don’t help stretching the truth don’t help getting too 50 kids but IMO just keeping it real is the only way to hopefully get what you want out of that coach and hope even that coach do what he says bcuz many of these coaches lie thru there teeth and when u get on campus u sign on dotted line everything can change once u get into practice.
My son and I didn’t want promises and there were many coaches trying to promise us things I quickly eliminated those schools bcuz I was the only one talking to coaches no AAU coach no HS couch no guardian or handler no one was talking to coaches but me I kept all that away from my son and handled my son recruitment between the 2 of us and all I wanted from a coach was for them to keep it real I did my homework on every school every coach and ultimately my son made his choice based on what he wanted out of the school and opportunities that he had to play as well.
Bottom line unless u have gone they this process it’s more to it than selling a pipe dream to a top 50 kid bcuz that top 50 kid could also mess up the culture and chemistry of a team bcuz why his rankings says he’s the best player and he’s entitled to get what he wants. That can cause all kinds of problems in the locker room and on the court if that kid is playing for himself his stats bcuz of his ranking and name. The pieces have to fit they have to like each other off the court and play together on the court if none of that is working is it worth it. Painter doing what he does the right way don’t mean he not selling his program those top tier 50 tank kids don’t necessarily change u winning or loosing bcuz of what Evan Daniels say or Paul Biancardi or many of the rankings services say about the player what changes is how well that player fit with the pieces already there that can win championships or titles.
You can compete and win the big ten with a team that would be competitive in the tourney as well (like an ACC team). You can make an argument for 2 years concerning injuries that happened near or during the tournament. What about the other 8 years Purdue was in the tourney under Painter? Maybe i'm not the one closing my eyes to the truth?
How can u say what was lost are more skilled 5 games into the season. No doubt those guys who are now gone had 4 great years and developed over time correct results show it. Wheeler is skilled Sasha is skilled nojel is skilled how can u come to a conclusion that they not skilled in 5 games that seems pretty unfair to those players. I’m not sure what it definition of what skilled is but nojel can play 4 positions offensively and defensively has b-ball IG can dribble make decisions pass rebound and run a team. Sasha can dribble hellava shooter plays as hard as he can on defense know how to play basketball wheeler can shoot he can get to the basket he’s playing out of position unfortunately but he has basic handles can defend has basketball knowledge as well so tell me we’re do they lack skill. If they all should spend 4 years here at Purdue u may say same thing about them like u did about those 4 seniors. 5 games into the season no way with the limited minutes u can tell me that these guys don’t have the skills to play at this level they do. Those 4 guys were great and brought Purdue back to some relevancy but they are gone now and the these guys will turn out to be really good to but to say that 5 games into the season they not as skilled to me is a slap in the face to those players when they have the skills to definitely play at this level if they couldn’t they wouldn’t be here
