Question: I watch all of these tournament games and every team - Albany, Mercer, Belmont, etc. - has a few really good players. They are out there! Are Matt and his staff going about recruiting the right way? They have the budget. It seems at Purdue you have to approach recruiting like you are a mid-level team and discover the hidden gems. We need basketball players that can pass, shoot, read defenses and are fundamentally sound. Defensive concepts can be taught. Look at Wisconsin! I know that you have to have difference makers, but we need a lot of really good players if we are not going to get the five-star players. I think Purdue needs to think outside the box a little bit in its recruiting approach!
A: Purdue's recruiting - as in trying, at least - the right level of players. It's just missed on some really good ones and taken some wrong ones the past several classes and that's put it in the position it's in. Purdue's trying to get the best players it can and has assembled talent good enough to win with the past classes, but has missed on some guys from attitude/motor, etc., perspectives. That's a difficult balance to strike and one Purdue came out on the wrong side of during and after its run of six straight winning seasons. Trying to right the ship now.
The low-major programs you mentioned have good players, but not ones who would have been considered high-major prospects out of high school for one reason or another. Have to figure that those teams have taken what they have and either gained a ton of collective experience; been able to do one or two things (like shoot or defend) well enough to win; or have simply hit the lottery on a couple overlooked players or kids with baggage.
Purdue recruits the best players out there, within reason, and that's tricky business, because when you go do down to the 11th hour on those guys - as they often do - you often forfeit Plan B and end up reaching on Plan C or Plan D. That means not only taking players not nearly as talented as your first option, but also ones you don't have a long-standing relationship with, so you're getting into a lot of unknowns both from ability and make-up perspectives. Maybe in a case or two, Purdue has spent too much time recruiting those really high-level guys. You have to pick your battles wisely, but you can never fault coaches for trying to get the best players they can. And it's easy to say this-or-that after the fact.
But again, Purdue has had talent on these past two teams, talent enough to win with. Maybe not win big with, but good enough to win with. What it hasn't had has been intangibles: Chemistry, work ethic, basketball IQ, selflessness, etc. It's tough to pinpoint how those things went south so quickly after Purdue had a team just three seasons ago that fit its mold.
That's what Purdue has to get back to, and what will be the No. 1 key to whatever success it may have next season, when it'll be out-manned in some senses as a team with hardly any upperclassmen.
The best teams are the ones where things carry over, and Wisconsin is a great example, though I think you're under-estimating their talent. They have really good players.
But they also have really good players who fit their system and do what Bo Ryan wants, year after year. Painter had that going for a while, but it fell off and now Purdue has to get it back.
Purdue has seemed to take a little bit of a turn in terms of extending early scholarship offers after the 2012 and 2013 classes fill up so quickly and created some difficult situations.
What do you think the cause is of the apparent disconnect between the coaches and players? Do the players "like" this coaching staff, or is that something fans are imagining is a problem?
A: Probably more imagination, a projection from the obvious unrest there's been with so many players leaving the program. No one likes their coach all the time nor should a coach try to be liked all the time.
But when you look at all the transfers that have taken place the past two years, three of them were by guys who weren't going to play much anymore at Purdue, one was by a fifth-year senior who would have played but wanted a chance to start somewhere in hopes of enhancing his professional stock and the most recent one came from a player who simply wasn't happy with how he was being asked to play. Every situation is different, but those are all circumstances that could have arisen no matter how the coach was conducting himself. Again, Painter's not trying to be anybody's best friend here, and a lot of the coaches who would are probably doing TV right now.
Do you think the Chemistry on this team gets better this next year? Is there anyone else besides Rapheal Davis that you believe will be a leader on this team?
A: Absolutely no telling on chemistry and after this season, no predictions. The freshmen - and there will be a bunch of them - seem like people likely to play well with others, but you don't know until they get here.
A couple big things might be how well those on the roster buy in to co-existing with A.J. Hammons on offense. There was some brush-back there this season.
Point guard play will go a long way in determining chemistry, so that puts a lot on Bryson Scott if he's back in that role. It was a tough adjustment for him this season, having been a scorer his whole life, but he has to grow into a ball-sharer if he's going to be a viable option at point guard in an offense that needs to get the ball inside and start there. No matter where he plays, he has to just make better decisions. Everyone does.
Davis stands out as an emerging leader, obviously, but with so few upperclassmen, hard to say beyond that. Scott practices hard and really works, and as long as he's positive and selfless, that lends itself to leadership. Basil Smotherman is a positive, charismatic player. That lends itself well, too.
The freshmen seem - seem - like a mature group for their ages and there are some diligent workers and charismatic personalities among them. But they are still freshmen and you never know 'til they get here. Sometimes people change too as their situations do. So again, no predictions.
Question: Want to take back anything you said earlier in the season about certain guards being "selfish"?
A: No, not going to apologize for speaking out against sweeping character indictments being made about kids because of how they played basketball. However, if I'd known then what I know now about what was going on behind the scenes, I probably wouldn't have been quite so vocal about it. Haha.
A: Purdue's recruiting - as in trying, at least - the right level of players. It's just missed on some really good ones and taken some wrong ones the past several classes and that's put it in the position it's in. Purdue's trying to get the best players it can and has assembled talent good enough to win with the past classes, but has missed on some guys from attitude/motor, etc., perspectives. That's a difficult balance to strike and one Purdue came out on the wrong side of during and after its run of six straight winning seasons. Trying to right the ship now.
The low-major programs you mentioned have good players, but not ones who would have been considered high-major prospects out of high school for one reason or another. Have to figure that those teams have taken what they have and either gained a ton of collective experience; been able to do one or two things (like shoot or defend) well enough to win; or have simply hit the lottery on a couple overlooked players or kids with baggage.
Purdue recruits the best players out there, within reason, and that's tricky business, because when you go do down to the 11th hour on those guys - as they often do - you often forfeit Plan B and end up reaching on Plan C or Plan D. That means not only taking players not nearly as talented as your first option, but also ones you don't have a long-standing relationship with, so you're getting into a lot of unknowns both from ability and make-up perspectives. Maybe in a case or two, Purdue has spent too much time recruiting those really high-level guys. You have to pick your battles wisely, but you can never fault coaches for trying to get the best players they can. And it's easy to say this-or-that after the fact.
But again, Purdue has had talent on these past two teams, talent enough to win with. Maybe not win big with, but good enough to win with. What it hasn't had has been intangibles: Chemistry, work ethic, basketball IQ, selflessness, etc. It's tough to pinpoint how those things went south so quickly after Purdue had a team just three seasons ago that fit its mold.
That's what Purdue has to get back to, and what will be the No. 1 key to whatever success it may have next season, when it'll be out-manned in some senses as a team with hardly any upperclassmen.
The best teams are the ones where things carry over, and Wisconsin is a great example, though I think you're under-estimating their talent. They have really good players.
But they also have really good players who fit their system and do what Bo Ryan wants, year after year. Painter had that going for a while, but it fell off and now Purdue has to get it back.
Purdue has seemed to take a little bit of a turn in terms of extending early scholarship offers after the 2012 and 2013 classes fill up so quickly and created some difficult situations.
What do you think the cause is of the apparent disconnect between the coaches and players? Do the players "like" this coaching staff, or is that something fans are imagining is a problem?
A: Probably more imagination, a projection from the obvious unrest there's been with so many players leaving the program. No one likes their coach all the time nor should a coach try to be liked all the time.
But when you look at all the transfers that have taken place the past two years, three of them were by guys who weren't going to play much anymore at Purdue, one was by a fifth-year senior who would have played but wanted a chance to start somewhere in hopes of enhancing his professional stock and the most recent one came from a player who simply wasn't happy with how he was being asked to play. Every situation is different, but those are all circumstances that could have arisen no matter how the coach was conducting himself. Again, Painter's not trying to be anybody's best friend here, and a lot of the coaches who would are probably doing TV right now.
Do you think the Chemistry on this team gets better this next year? Is there anyone else besides Rapheal Davis that you believe will be a leader on this team?
A: Absolutely no telling on chemistry and after this season, no predictions. The freshmen - and there will be a bunch of them - seem like people likely to play well with others, but you don't know until they get here.
A couple big things might be how well those on the roster buy in to co-existing with A.J. Hammons on offense. There was some brush-back there this season.
Point guard play will go a long way in determining chemistry, so that puts a lot on Bryson Scott if he's back in that role. It was a tough adjustment for him this season, having been a scorer his whole life, but he has to grow into a ball-sharer if he's going to be a viable option at point guard in an offense that needs to get the ball inside and start there. No matter where he plays, he has to just make better decisions. Everyone does.
Davis stands out as an emerging leader, obviously, but with so few upperclassmen, hard to say beyond that. Scott practices hard and really works, and as long as he's positive and selfless, that lends itself to leadership. Basil Smotherman is a positive, charismatic player. That lends itself well, too.
The freshmen seem - seem - like a mature group for their ages and there are some diligent workers and charismatic personalities among them. But they are still freshmen and you never know 'til they get here. Sometimes people change too as their situations do. So again, no predictions.
Question: Want to take back anything you said earlier in the season about certain guards being "selfish"?
A: No, not going to apologize for speaking out against sweeping character indictments being made about kids because of how they played basketball. However, if I'd known then what I know now about what was going on behind the scenes, I probably wouldn't have been quite so vocal about it. Haha.
