defense doesn't win championships. If it did, our FF drought would be 35 years.
Get rid of "defense lives here"
- Thread starter bonefish1
- Start date
eh, it seems to work for UVA and Wisky. But I see where you are coming from though.
What a naive comment. You usually post better stuff than this.
Maybe we should get rid of the "e" in Purdue? Keeping it has not resulted in a FF for 35 years. Maybe "Purdu" can make the FF? No wait, maybe it is the "Play Hard" motto. That's the issue. I'm sure of it. If we "Played easy" no doubt we would have won the A-LR game.
Here's the problem: everyone loves a player like Chris Kramer. He's tough, plays hard, etc, but in the tourney, teams can game plan for a team that only has 3, maybe 4 legit offensive threats in the floor. Kramer was a great defender, but below avg on offense.
Did you see what Little Rock did? They packed the paint and dared our guards to shoot from 3. And since none of them are a threat to drive, they could close out hard if needed.
Did you see what Little Rock did? They packed the paint and dared our guards to shoot from 3. And since none of them are a threat to drive, they could close out hard if needed.
I don' think we have the best conditioned team, in fairness, we have a former 4 star shooting guard recruit that in his Jr. year is not even in the rotation so that hurts too.
We never once underachieved in the NCAA tournament with Kramer on the team. We lost to three #1 seeds and one #3 seed in his four seasons with two of those four years losing to the eventual national champions. He was not the issue and we would have won against ALR if he were on the team. To imply that you wouldn't want a player like him is incredibly moronic.
I liked Kramer, but the fact is, he was a poor outside shooter and below avg ballhandler.
Look at PJ and Hill.
AJ is an OK 3 pt shooter, poor ball handler and can't finish or break down the D.
Hill is an OK balhandler, poor shooter and limited at finishing.
But, they're both decent defenders.
My point is, for whatever reason, Painter ( and Keady) can't get guards that are the complete package. I've seen many more guards in mid-major teams that would start at PU over what we currently have. That's on Painter.
I disagree with you about Kramer's ballhandling ability. I thought he was always very solid and strong with the basketball and had the ability to put it on the floor and get the hole (remembering Texas A&M winner right off the top of my head) when the opportunity was there. Poor outside shooter? Yes. Below-average ballhandler? No.
My god, anyone that ever watched Kramer play would of loved having him.
I hated him because he wasn't on my team...
My point is, most of the time, you need very good to great guards to succeed in the tourney.
Painter isn't able to get those types of guards, nor was Keady.
The question is Why not?
My contention is that it's a coaching philosophy and 'culture' of the program. That other coaches are going to say "why go to Purdue? You want to spend all your energy on D and then have no legs late in the game? You want to get sat down after a missed 3 or poor drive? Do want to showcase some skills to get to the NBA or just dribble around the perimeter and hope to make a good post feed?"
Maybe Carsen is the answer, but the common denominator between Keady and Painter is a lack of tourney success and lack of guards making it to the NBA.
Painter isn't able to get those types of guards, nor was Keady.
The question is Why not?
My contention is that it's a coaching philosophy and 'culture' of the program. That other coaches are going to say "why go to Purdue? You want to spend all your energy on D and then have no legs late in the game? You want to get sat down after a missed 3 or poor drive? Do want to showcase some skills to get to the NBA or just dribble around the perimeter and hope to make a good post feed?"
Maybe Carsen is the answer, but the common denominator between Keady and Painter is a lack of tourney success and lack of guards making it to the NBA.
So, in 11 years, Painters put 1 guard in the NBA. Keady? A few in almost 30 years?
And our record in the tourney still sucks.
So you want an all-time great guard on our roster every year? NEWSFLASH. There's a reason why his number is hanging in Mackey. He was special. We don't get a player like him every year.
I don't disagree that we need great guard play. I just disagree with the cause-effect theory you are proposing. I don't think the kind of offensive/defense we run is what is keeping us from having great guards. Frankly, I think guard play, like most other positions on the team, is a combination of maturity and skill. We had maturity in Hill, but lacked strong ball handling skills in both PJ and Hill.
I think we just need to win a few more recruiting battles. Our abiliity to attract a great guard has little to do with the motion offense.
The point is that we aren't able to attract quality guards. It's very frustrating to watch the tournament and see so many teams with much much better guard play. No one is expecting a player like EM to walk through the door every year, but I do think it's reasonable to expect Painter to be able to recruit players that have more versatility, more athleticism, and more play-making ability than he typically does.
No question we have missed on some good guards in the likes of Randle, Moore, McIntosh. In two of those we lost the recruiting battle and the other we could've had if we had offered coming out of high school so I guess we can blame Painter for not recognizing Nic Moore coming out of high school (nobody else did either by the way). Instead we got Ronnie Johnson who was like a poison.
McIntosh would have made this a final 4 team. He'll likely never play in the NCAA tourney but could have been a key player in two or three tourney runs.
Purdue's conference only stats:
-#4 in the Big Ten in points per game
-#7 in the Big Ten in opponents points per game
-#3 in field goal percentage
-#6 in field goal percentage defense
-#3 in 3 point field goal percentage
-#6 in 3 point field goal percentage defense
Our offensive stats were better than our defensive stats.
Yes, EM was special. But, PJ and Hill aren't even Big 10 caliber and I question the kid that's red shirting fright now. LewJack was a really good PG but again, no jumper.
I would bet that 1/2 the MAC teams have better guards than P.
That's on Painter, whether he can't get them here or can't keep them here.
You're judged on what you do in the tourney, not conference. Keady was a great B10 conference game coach but terrible in the tourney.
You can argue this whole 'defense first' philosophy, but the fact is, we haven't been to a FF in 36 years, and that's not due to bad luck.
Thompson is Big Ten caliber. Never going to be all-conference but he can play at this level.
Well I consider Hummel's knee (twice) fairly bad luck for us but that's just me.
Come on man. PJ is 5'10 guard, not a very good athlete, decent 3 or shot, avg to poor ball handler for a B10 PG, poor finisher, can't get to the rim, can't create his own shot, can't break down a defender to create something late in the shot clock.
I don't know what his offer list was but I'll bet there weren't any other B10 offers.
I'm not trying to be mean to the kid, but that's the truth and sometimes the truth hurts.
Reminds me of the old Bade arguments.
Lenniel
He has limitations but he can play and compete in the Big Ten. He proved as much this year. I don't care what his offer list was. That's only important until you actually start to play games.
What's he do well? He shot under 37% from 3,
He got killed when teams pressed, he had a good assist to TO ratio but that's more due to Haas and AJ, not PJ. He limited his TOs because he does have the skills to drive and create which is where a bunch of TOs happen.
We missed Bryson Scott big time this year.
Oh so your solution was Bryson Scott huh? Wow. Please tell me what it was that he did well in college. I can tell you that list is shorter than the one for PJ. Keep worshipping at the recruiting rank altar guy.
You're crazy if you don't think Scott is a better PG than PJ. The only thing Pj did better was shoot the 3. In all other aspects, Scott would be an upgrade.
Guarantee that McIntosh will play in the NCAA's. Collins brings back a very good nucleus and adds:
Barret Benson C Willowbrook, IL 6'9" 245 7/6/15 Four Star
Isiah Brown G Seattle, WA 6'1" 180 5/31/15 Three Star
Rapolas Ivanauskas F Wolfeboro, NH 6'8" 208 4/18/15 Four Star
Northwestern should be a tough out next year.
Can you tell me off the top of your head who was in the Final Four 2 years ago? I can't. I could tell you who won the Big Ten.
To act like it doesn't matter is silly.
What PJ did this season was better than what Scott ever did here. He had like one or two good halves of basketball at Purdue.
Here's the difference between you and me. You worship potential and I care about results. Scott was the more highly regarded prospect but he never even came close to being a reliable option for us. PJ was a reliable option that actually helped us win some games this year and he still has two more years to go.
I never fully understood defense or offense. If you score every time you have the ball you would at worst have a tie. On defense if you don't let anyone score, you have a tie. They are equally important.
Now this response is truly funny! Bryson Scott? Wow, bonefish, that is quite a reach! Thanks for the LOL.
Now this response is truly funny! Bryson Scott? Wow, bonefish, that is quite a reach! Thanks for the LOL.
I mean, Bryson's ceiling is probably higher; unfortunately, he didn't function well within the offense.
The Bryson experiment may have failed, but you're not doing squat in the tournament with PJ as your starting PG.
Purdue missed what Bryson Scott COULD have provided; I AM NOT saying he would have, but his natural athletic ability at the PG position is something that Purdue missed.
Yeah, and we also missed Kelsey Barlow's athleticism - but he's a nutcase.
To simply say Bryson "didn't work in our offense" is such a mis-representation - particularly blaming the offense. He showed, when he stuck to a game plan, he could not only function within our offense, but succeed. He just chose to stick to his own game plan most of the time. Just because you're good at something, doesn't mean you get to do that all the time. Ryan Cline is an excellent 3 point shooter, but he's not shooting every time someone passes him the ball.
Bryson could push the offense, but he had to pick and choose his moments. He didn't do a good job with that and his stats backed it up - he was a professional forcer. He shot 36% from the field and had more turnovers than assists, not to mention the foul trouble.
All fair points. His ceiling was still higher than PJ's though.
Sucks that he couldn't figure it out early enough.
Similar threads
