Just for fun....had Painter used the portal..
- Thread starter bonefish1
- Start date
Then whatever it would have taken. He fills the exact hole we have, another athletic big that can get rebounds, play inside or out, and let us play defensively against teams with multiple athletic big men.
Once we lost Jacobsen, we lost the ability to do that very well. Furst and Berg aren't the answer for that.
It's a moot point obviously, but he's just the type of player to fill that hole. I'm pretty sure Painter would have figured out a way to use a guy like that.
Exactly. His last year stats at Illinois were 12 pts, 37 percent from three, 6 boards a game, 3 assists. Is he a star? Of course not. Is that way better than what you are going to get from any healthy big on the current roster not named TKR right now? Absolutely.
Obviously I have no idea if he's have been a cultural fit. But assuming he would have, I don't see how this staff doesn't turn him into an upgrade over what we have healthy right now.
None of this is an attack on Painter. It's a hypothetical question of who would have helped IF we had used the portal. Obviously, we didn't use it and at the time, they hadn't changed the rules so we couldn't use it because we were capped. But yeah, he would have helped. I don't see how that's in question.
Heās never even been a good rebounder. Kid is 6ā10, wants to be a guard and isnāt an efficient shooter or scorer. Doesnāt want t to get pay interior defense or rebound.
Probably a decent kid, has never learned how to play winning basketball.
Doesnāt rebound, doesnāt defend, doesnāt play physically. If you could take his physical attributes and turn him into a completely different player I agree.
There is literally zero way to spin "28% is better than 32%." That is delusional. He's shot poorly so far this year but he's in a role completely different from last year at Stanford. And if you feel 32% is somehow horrible from 3 as a frosh, then I don't know what to tell you. I don't even understand how you can make the case "Lance showed he could be better in other years but no way Carlyle can after his freshman year."
As far as Carlyles defense, he isn't a bad defender. He's still learning without any doubt but he's not bad and he's quick. And him being a good enough defender has given Indiana a Top 30 defense at the moment.
At the moment he's about the same as Harris and Cox. Shoots a tiny bit worse from 3 than Cox by about a percent and shoots way better from 3 than Harris(who is at 21%). Slightly better PER right now and averaging a steal a game. I expect him to get better as he gets to play in his role more and he will have his moments here and there. But I'm not sure what I'm supposed to expect from the 4-5th scoring option? 15ppg?
A top 30 defense against the teams IU has played isnāt the brag you think it is. Probably more of an indictment.
Why did you pick that season and not the others where he shot better than that? Maybe Carlyle could have come here and been a better shooter because this staff has shown they can make guys better shooters. However, IUās staff has not shown that at all. But he doesnāt fit for Purdue because he would have been maybe the 5th or 6th option and I donāt think he was going to play that role (in his eyes).
IU has a ātop 30 defenseā because they havenāt played anyone that is anywhere near good. Anyone Purdue has played would beat all of those teams, except maybe Marshall.
Those two are also freshman playing against competition that Carlyle has yet to play against in his career.
There is a lot of value in not over paying for transfers. Use the money for retention. Shaka is doing the same at Marquette.
Because Painter clearly seen "he shot 28% last season and still took a flyer on him. You don't think he would take one on a freshman that shot 32%? You know Loyer shot 32% as a freshman too yea?
And Pom takes SOS into account when doing efficiency ratings. In case you didn't know. And IU is 26th for now. Purdue is 39th. As of now UCLA has the top defense at 12.
"Has yet to play against in his career." His career high of 31 last year was against a good Washington State team and he had 28 against Arizona. Like I said, he's going to have his moments but he's adjusting to a completely different role compared to what he has a Stanford last year.
lol please tell me you donāt really think IU has had anywhere near a hard schedule???
I trust paint to know whoās good and whoās not good for his system/team. And clearly Carlyle was not. Loyer is also a better shooter than Carlyle will ever be.
Probably a good thing I said I didn't know if he would be or not then huh?
And 6 rebounds a game doesn't equal "can't rebound."
I thought I was very clear! Obviously I was way over your heads, so Iāll make it easy for you. The question was if painter went to the portal, who would he have signed.
I pointed out Painter is always very public about who he is recruiting where it be someone in the portal or high school.
With his last scholarship to give, he could have signed somebody via the portal. But instead, on one of his scouting trips, he saw Cox who was outplaying the guy Painter went to see play. As it turned out, the guy Painter went to see, signed else. That provided Painter a choice. He could sign someone out of the portal. Or he could sign the guy who he just saw outplay the guy he was recruiting.
Painter decided to sign the high school guard instead of a guard out of the portal . That player turned out to be Cox.
With both Jacobson and Burgess as part of the class, painter really had no interest in pursuing a big man in the portal. With Catchings in the fold, painter wasnāt really thinking about signing a 3 in the portal. And lastly, painter was pursuing Harris, so he really had no desire to pursue a guard in the portal.
You can name 20+ players if you like. But painter had already made up his mind. He wasnāt really interested in anybody in the portal. It was never about the NIL. Painter just wasnāt interested in anybody.
The scholarship that could have gone to someone in the portal, went to Cox. That should tell you all you need to know about the type and position painter was looking for
I pointed out Painter is always very public about who he is recruiting where it be someone in the portal or high school.
With his last scholarship to give, he could have signed somebody via the portal. But instead, on one of his scouting trips, he saw Cox who was outplaying the guy Painter went to see play. As it turned out, the guy Painter went to see, signed else. That provided Painter a choice. He could sign someone out of the portal. Or he could sign the guy who he just saw outplay the guy he was recruiting.
Painter decided to sign the high school guard instead of a guard out of the portal . That player turned out to be Cox.
With both Jacobson and Burgess as part of the class, painter really had no interest in pursuing a big man in the portal. With Catchings in the fold, painter wasnāt really thinking about signing a 3 in the portal. And lastly, painter was pursuing Harris, so he really had no desire to pursue a guard in the portal.
You can name 20+ players if you like. But painter had already made up his mind. He wasnāt really interested in anybody in the portal. It was never about the NIL. Painter just wasnāt interested in anybody.
The scholarship that could have gone to someone in the portal, went to Cox. That should tell you all you need to know about the type and position painter was looking for
Painter didn't have room for Carlyle even if he wanted him. And Painter isn't just going to kick dudes out to add anyone. But according to you, Loyer was horrible from 3 as a freshman.
Loyer made 59 threes his freshman year compared to 32 for Carlyle. That .6 % Loyer has on Carlyle is equal to 27 more made baskets. Trying to compare the two is kind of funny when math is actually applied. Do better next time.
Yep he was bad as a freshman once he hit the second half of the year. Rumor was he was injured but still played through it. What was Loyer like this last year and this year already? I see no improvement from Carlyle on his 3 pt shot. He has missed bad a lot this year. But itās ok, heās your guy, so he for sure will come around, right?
Nah, you said youād assume that he would be a cultural fit. Six rpg for a 6ā10ā kid playing 32 mpg is awful.
Youāre right though, I shouldnāt have said he canāt rebound, just that he doesnāt. Thatās the problem with him, way more promise than production.
No I said
"Obviously I have no idea if he's have been a cultural fit. But assuming he would have"
So when you said that Hawkins would have been a 'a ridiculously good addition', do you think that would have been true even if he were a poor cultural fit?
If everyone comes back do we have a logjam in the front court? Are you assuming someone leaves (Waddell, TKR?)
Yeah I know schollies wonāt count technically but I see it as we have west coming in and benter coming off redshirt so have a full 13 man roster. In front court we will have berg, TKR, Jacobsen, burgess, Waddell, and Heide. I think of that group we will have some good rebounders. Maybe adding someone like a Trevion or biggie assuming Waddell doesnāt give us meaningful minutes.
Yes we will a logjam everywhereā¦but yeah I agree, why not bring in 1-2 guys from portal to fill in or just have?
Unless this team is B1G champs, we have room to improve. And rebounding and D inside are the two areas most needed imo.
You can trust CMP to do two things....always strive to get better & doing it with high character guys as long as we have room.
There are a million reasons why not, as you know. If you can get a guy thatās going to come in and compete, push the returners, play a role and be a good teammate even of he doesnāt get the role or pt he was hoping for Iām all for it. As you know, those guys are incredibly rare.
Completely agree that there will be room for improvement regardless.
Question will be whether you can bring someone in who is going to be better than an RB who is a year older and more experienced a year further removed from injury than this yearās version and a DJ who is coming off a redshirt season and is hopefully more physically developed. Iām not saying MP shouldnāt try, I think next season is the one to go for broke, but it seems like a big ask.
Yes, given next year's seniors........I will be disappointed in CMP if he doesn't go for broke, and bring a guy in, that improves even this good team. Every year 50+/- guys are available that, even with our talent, will help our team. I trust his judgement to sort through those ~ 50ish guys & bring the right guy in.
To your original point on winning the Big Ten, I only see him aggressively pursuing one of those guys if this season doesn't go as well as expected.
Most if not all of those 50 guys will want some combination of cash and/or assurances on PT and a featured role. If this season is a disappointment and we don't see much from Cam at the four or the combination of RB and Berg at the 5 and/or DJ's recovery is not on track, Painter may have to operate outside of his comfort zone in going to add a frontcourt player. If that's not the case it seems more likely to me that he'll bank on Cam, RB and DJ rather than writing a check or making promises.
Who knows, long season yet to go. Will Berg may end up being a force by March.
First of all, I have zero reason to believe he would have been some horrible cultural fit and neither do you. He spent all four years at Illinois. He wasn't bouncing around. I don't remember any rumors of him being a locker room cancer. I didn't see any play that showed he was selfish or not a team player.
Second of all, the six rebounds and 12 pts a game you have decided are not impressive sure are better than anything Furst or Berg have been doing. So yeah, barring some poor cultural fit which neither of us have any reason to believe would be true, he would have been a very needed addition.
And yes that's assuming there wasn't some crazy cultural barrier which made that unlikely. Dude isn't AJ Storr who clearly would not fit in here.
I'm done though with a ridic back and forth over a hypothetical discussion. Feel free to have the last word.
Purdue has had some pretty good individual players on a couple of crap teams, were they losers too?
Teams matter. How someone fits on one team and how that team performs doesn't translate necessarily.
We saw two guys come to Purdue and Tennessee last year. One was a key cog on a national runner up team, the other the top player on an elite right team and currently in the NBA. They both played for the same team and that team didn't exactly play like it.
Next year we will have two interior players that have shown something, Jacobsen and Burgess to go along with what will be our star inside player TKR. I don't think that's a logjam. Furst is gone and I don't think Berg is going to be the answer.
Bringing in an athletic 6-10ish guy who can rebound and play some defense and can play outside in is something that would definitely be value added. There's quite a few out there at the mid major level, I have to believe there's one or two that would jump at a chance to play one season here and would fit just fine.
