Yeah themail notion we have that much turnover is a head scratcher. Sure we lose people, all teams do, but not at epidemic levels.
I'm hyped about next year's team...
- Thread starter Abugabby
- Start date
Was there an announcement of some sort regarding who the new team leaders are?
It is not a case of just saying that
Look at how much turnover Matta had during his tenure before this past year and then feel free to compare it to Painter's time at Purdue.
Did not intend to...but to bring Matta up was a poor example, just as bringing up a lot of the other top coaches of top programs would be.
The primary point should remain that during Painter's time at Purdue, there indeed has been a ridiculous amount of turnover...especially involving key guys, and it has had an impact on the program.
Okay, I see now that you are relating "development" with "turnover". I am not sure I would make that inference. The players that have stayed, have developed very well. I think you would have to agree with that fact. Your concern is with the players that left the team before their eligibility ran out, right?
Ridiculous turnover? Having trouble with this statement also. So, what starter (my definition of "key guy") left the team?
All I can come up with is Ronnie Johnson and Kelsey Barlow. Maybe you consider Patrick Bade starter who left early also. Donnie Hale? Bryson Scott? Nope. In fact, none of these guys are "key" guys/recruits, except maybe RJ. We have beaten the whole RJ-leaving-thing to death here, so I won't rehash. I just don't think he was a "key guy" in the long run and we are better off with him gone.
As for reliance on 5th year players, I agree with you. I would rather have a 4-year guy filling those positions. I see this as a recruiting failure more than a development failure. Some of this stems from a period of very bad recruiting that pushed us down across all positions.
While some of you snark around various issues, I too think this team will be good. One player I want to see there is Taylor. We will need his size an athleticism from time to time if he has it to give. FWIW.
I agree with you. This team has the potential to be a top-3 team in the BIG. There is a strong core of very good players that will be upperclassmen this year. I expect good things from them.
As for the snarky issues, I just don't know what to tell you. There are some posters that are working very hard to manufacture issues that don't exist. Some here have taken issue with the weirdest of them, but I know they are all fans of the team and wish the team well.
I really haven't reviewed the recruiting and who is coming back for the different teams. However, why would Purdue not have the "potential" to win the conference? Not saying the odds on favorite to win it, but would think the potential is there is the right things happen.I agree with you. This team has the potential to be a top-3 team in the BIG. There is a strong core of very good players that will be upperclassmen this year. I expect good things from them.
As for the snarky issues, I just don't know what to tell you. There are some posters that are working very hard to manufacture issues that don't exist. Some here have taken issue with the weirdest of them, but I know they are all fans of the team and wish the team well.
I don't disagree with you. I would consider the winner of the BIG as a top-3 team, right? I think there are several teams with the "potential" to win the conference. I think we are one of the top 3 with such potential.
Looking at Maryland's schedule, I think they are lined up to have the easiest path. MSU has a slightly better schedule than we do, and IU's is about equivalent to ours. Every one thinks Whisky will be good too. Out of that jumble, I think we are likely to be a top-3 team, certainly with the "potential" to win it.
Yeah I open up to a lot of teams with potential. I do in fact think Purdue will be goodI don't disagree with you. I would consider the winner of the BIG as a top-3 team, right? I think there are several teams with the "potential" to win the conference. I think we are one of the top 3 with such potential.
Looking at Maryland's schedule, I think they are lined up to have the easiest path. MSU has a slightly better schedule than we do, and IU's is about equivalent to ours. Every one thinks Whisky will be good too. Out of that jumble, I think we are likely to be a top-3 team, certainly with the "potential" to win it.
DG,
I think you are selling Haas short. I agree that he is not as athletic and is not as good defensively, but he is still an intimidating deterent in the middle of the paint. And he can be a fantastic offensive player with unmatched power. It doesn't have to be fluid and pretty to be effective.
It will be interesting to see what develops.
"...tell your old man to drag Walton and Lenier up and down the court for 48 minutes!"
Last year could have been a memorable year if we hadn't absolutely collapsed against a full court press. That was all on Painter. Hopefully he learned how to attack a press when he went to West Virginia for a little off season counseling. Wonder how early in the pre-conference competition we will see someone challenge us with a good press.
Please think about your statement. Do you seriously think he doesn't know how?
Purdue handled presses beautifully in the baby boiler era. Did Painter forget how it was done?
It's a personnel issue plain and simple. Freakin Clappy can teach you how to break a press. Doesn't mean you can do it.
And Sheffler. Hell even Craig Riley was effective.
MacAdoo, Lenier, Lambier, Malone, and more greats that played power ball.
There seems to be a ground swell of belief that this team is automatically going to be worse than last year. Of course it is centered around the loss of graduating players.
If no returning players make any improvements then the theory would make sense.
It's not logical to make that assumption. Players get better. Just getting more minutes will improve several players production.
Way too much negativity. Ya'all must be fun to live with...
If no returning players make any improvements then the theory would make sense.
It's not logical to make that assumption. Players get better. Just getting more minutes will improve several players production.
Way too much negativity. Ya'all must be fun to live with...
Every year we graduate or lose some great kids. People focus on the loses and start posting weird stuff. You know it when you read it. I happen to think that this next season's team might be better than last season simply from the change in personnel. But hey, it is just one more opinion on the internet.
I also think the team may be better this season. I think that the center position had the necessary depth to not suffer significantly from graduating AJ. Not a knock on AJ but belief in Haas.
Another year for Caleb could be a huge plus.
I think the most potential improvement is on the perimeter.
Leadership from Vincent.
Greater confidence for PJ, Dakota, and Cline.
Potential contributions from Jaquil, Smotherman, Spike and Edwards.
i think it depends how you read into it.
i'm very optimistic for next season.
but do think it will be a great challenge to better our ranking - as high as #8 coaches/#9 AP and finishing the season at #10/#12.
if we improve on that, i'll be ecstatic!
now doing better in the tourney, that would probably be expected by everyone.
Last edited:
I definitely do not see any sort of ground swell of belief that next year's team is going to be worse, never mind automatically going to be worse.
Nor, in the case where the matter is discussed and someone is of the opinion that next year's team may/will not be better than last year's, do I believe that it is entirely centered around the loss of graduating players.
Was Davis better a year ago than he was the year before? Did he improve...at all? What about Stephens? The only thing that saved Purdue last year in light of what happened with those two was the arrival of Swanigan, and Cline being able to provide depth behind Mathias.
Players are supposed to get better...but that has not always been the case at Purdue during Painter's time...teams are supposed to get better in theory as well as they become older and experienced...that has not happened either due to the turnover (which in part is directly related to the failure to improve as individuals).
Some legitimate reasons to suggest that next year's team may not be better...they lost their leader, on the floor as well as off of it, and nobody returning has shown the ability to remotely lead as he did (that does not mean that it won't happen, but it is a valid concern)...they lost their best player, and their best player at both ends of the floor for that matter...Swanigan was nowhere near as effective when paired with Haas as he was when paired with Hammons...there was no concern about foul trouble at the center position because of having Hammons and Haas, and that luxury no longer exists (never mind that Haas was more prone to fouls than Hammons)...the luxury of replacing one dominant 7-foot post player with a fresh 7-foot dominant post player no longer exists...same questions persist at PG that did before (although hopefully there may be a better answer or better answers next year with the addition of Albrecht and Edwards)...with guys that have not been very adept individually on the defensive end, how does this team get stops, never mind get stops when they have to get stops?...Hammons was able to erase mistakes that were made defensively on the perimeter, and Purdue does not have that any longer...finally, and most important in my mind at least, last year's team had many of the same troubles and issues for the course of the season a year ago, and it is what did them in in the games that mattered most, as well as THE game that mattered the most...if those things were never resolved (and especially so in that some of them were known going into last season), then what is there to suggest that the same thing will not happen next year?
Anyone that knows the guys on the team have a feel for who will be the leader/leaders this year?
I would respond with a counter argument to this block of text but it just isn't worth it.
Well, clearly he was the one bringing up the ball. I lost power here recently when a storm went through and that too was clearly Painter's fault as well.
His personnel is mostly a direct result of he and his staff's past decisions and efforts, so yes, it had a lot to do with him.
Yeah because he & the staff have their pick of the litter when building a team. Odd way to criticize him. I think the guy knows how to teach & break a press. It comes down to match ups & if your team has the personnel to do. Last year we had a lot of young & inexperienced guys. & I'm positive the guys that were on the floor who had physical limitations were more responsible for not being able to break a press than the coach was. Maybe that's just the athlete in me talking. But I never understood why kids never get criticized for sitatuions like that. Of course "it all comes back to the coach", "it was all on him", "it was decision to recruit those players." Blah blah blah.... Use all the tired tropes you want but at the end of the day, the athlete has to perform & put into action what he's been taught.
You have to be kidding, right? Seriously...that is your defense of the fact that Purdue was grossly incapable against even a token press, never mind a legitimate one...that he simply was not able to have the pick of the litter when building a team?
The team is composed entirely of guys that he and his staff recruited, and entirely of guys that he and his staff worked with...and the inability to handle a press has at least as much to do with the approach as it does with the personnel involved, if not more...and Purdue had a horrible approach, and even worse execution...and that is indeed a direct reflection of the coach and staff.
Guys failed to execute because they were not put in positions to execute...and the approach that dictated simply crossing half court opposed to attacking the press at all was a poor one that created more issues...and those are both directly on Painter and staff.
As for your final point...while grossly exaggerated...if indeed it is nothing more than the athlete having to perform and put into action what they have been taught, then Painter and staff either don't have the right athletes...or they are not teaching them very well...in his case, it may actually be a combination of both.
We'll never know the exact reason why the press gave us trouble last year. But you can site the terrible coach & bad recruiting & I'll cite lack of experience & physical limitations.
To say we couldn't conquer the press & "falls all on Painter" is a stretch at best. Of course he takes some blame, but just because he recruited the players doesn't mean it completely absolves the players of any blame.
It boggles my mind how some of you on here think you are some sort of expert yet clearly have virtually zero basketball knowledge and you are leading that group right now.
First you say Painter isn't making progress yet had a top ranked team and followed it up with solid recruiting classes. If we held your expectations up against just about every coach in America, you would be firing them every year.
You clearly are entirely too emotionally involved to think this through clearly and should probably just stop commenting or critiquing something you know very little about. Just because you watch basketball on TV, it does not mean you are an expert.
This has to be one of the most ridiculous thing I have read on here in a while. It is up to the player to do what the coach tells him to do. Period. End of story. Not debatable. Painter frequently pulled players that weren't doing what they were told and tried many different things like a coach is supposed to do.
Open your eyes and try and understand what you are watching just once. Some of you just have no clue.
reminds me of the seasons when people blamed MP for poor FT shooting. They came on the board acting as if they were the only ones smart enough to recognize that it was causing losses and they claimed that Painter wasn't having them practice enough.
Novel concept...recruit guys that can make free throws...seems to work fairly well for other programs.
Don't disagree...and it was the coach who repeatedly had the wrong guy inbounding the ball...often to the wrong guy...often in the wrong spot...and on the rare occasion that they managed to get the ball across the half-court line when being pressed, it was at the coach's direction that they pulled up immediately...either getting trapped, or settling into a conservative offensive mode...so the players may very well have done exactly what the coach had told them to do.
That's the strange thing about those seasons. The staff brought in guys who shot 80% in high school, then they showed up at Purdue and shot 60%. The height of the goal and the distance to the free throw line is the same. But they keep missing. Why? The players and coaches talked about how much they practiced, but they kept missing. And all the while, some people on this board complain that it's MP's fault because he's not having them practice FTs.
That was my point. The armchair experts claim to know what the problem is and how to fix it, when it's clear they are only responding emotionally to what they see on their TV screen. And I'm not referring to you.
Last edited:
Now you're just reaching for even more ridiculousness to try and make a point. Thinking a coach would tell a player to be out of position, pull up too early or or pass to the wrong guy is just making crap up to try and make yourself look right on a forum.
I mean after reading that garbage I know that I can never take anything post seriously ever again. I played basketball for 4 years at the college level and not once did my coach tell me any of those things. When they happened, it was because of me not doing what I was told.
I mean you really can't be this ignorant can you? I'm sorry to lodge a personal attack but I am legitimately speechless that anyone can post what you did and not be joking.
These anti-painter people are just getting more and more ridiculous aren't they?
I've been trying to avoid this back and forth since it predictably spiraled downward, but you really can't think something so silly can you? Come on, you're smarter than that.
Interesting. You have identified the "wrong guy inbounding" to the "wrong guy". Interesting that you alone should pick that out. Guess I will need to re-watch the games, 'cause I thought we had the right guys in place for those two actions most of the time.
Now, I did see 3 of our guys run down court oblivious to the press opponents threw at the guy handling the ball. They got in position and waited. That did upset me. They seemed to ignore Painter's yelling until the ball handler got trapped. Something about situational awareness. That is correctable, but we still struggled with it. However, I will bet you were concentrating on watching the ball and not the team. That might be why you came up with all those "wrong guy" notes. Watch the reactions of the guys without the ball and I think you will see what I am talking about.
You are not far off in your critique, but I think you are clearly missing the center of the target with the "wrong guy" statements.
Man, you need to post more often. It's insane to think some people actually think like this. It's even worse on KHC.
Similar threads
