Question: Last year: Certainly Kelsey Barlow could have been key last year. John Hart was a good shooter and that was one of the things we lacked. In addition since the scholarships were only passed on to a walk on their scholarships were wasted.
This year: I think that Sandi Marcius, Anthony Johnson, Donnie Hale, and Jacob Lawson all could have made positive contributions to this year's team. Even if they previous years were not as good as you would have liked they would have all likely gotten better. Again, scholarships went unused so even if they did not all contribute it was a waste.
I appreciate what all six of the above players contributed during time at Purdue and believe that they would have been even better than in previous years.
An occasional transfer may be OK but even one transfer per year is too much.
Answer: Obviously, agree on the volume of transfers. No program is going to be healthy turning over its personnel the way Purdue has, especially in the past few years. You can't be young every single year because of attrition and expect to both be good and stay good.
But I think when you itemize the transfers, you have to draw some distinctions and not lose sight of the fact that those guys who transferred just weren't very good and showing either minimal capacity to improve or glaring issues that would prevent them from improving.
For one thing, Kelsey Barlow was kicked off the team. So he counts as attrition, but not as a transfer. Yes, he might have helped last season's team on paper and as a player, but at the same time, environment matters, and for everything positive thing he provided as a player, he offset it entirely with his conduct and general aloofness. Barlow was the quickest guy on the floor his junior year to deviate from what Purdue was supposed to be doing on offense, and when he left, you saw things almost immediately improve.
Part of me still thinks Purdue is suffering from the Curse of Barlow. Purdue wanted all its players to follow the lead of its more substantive leaders from years ago, guys like Robbie Hummel, Ryne Smith and Lewis Jackson. Seems like there has been more Barlow influence, at least from an outsider's perspective, showing up simply in past rosters' general casualness, with their being exceptions of course.
Some of those transfers listed here - two of which, at least, did get their degrees from Purdue, it should be noted - were absolutely addition by subtraction, one of them being a situation where Purdue would have eaten the scholarship for the balance of that player's career just to keep him off the roster if he didn't leave. The others, motor issues and that stuff is very much better not around than around, because it impacts practices and rubs off on others. So it's not always clearly better to have a certain player around as to not having that player around.
Yes, these are issues that were not diagnosed in recruiting and thus not solely in the laps of the players. Purdue needed to recruit better, more motivated, brighter players from 2010 on than it did.
Purdue would have liked Sandi Marcius back. That is pretty well documented. But players leave for all sorts of reasons and as the Ronnie Johnson case just showed us again, it's not always solely because of the player alone's wishes. That's not to say those players were thrilled to death on their own, but most every player at some point really struggles or questions things, and the voice in the ear can amplify and ultimately make the difference.
Players change. They're young and evolving. What you see on the floor is the product of everything around them, their coaching, their work ethic, their behavior, their stresses, their influences and everything else. Personal situations change and as they do, so can players.
The coaches who are most outspoken against social media are those with stuff to hide. Everyone else dislikes it because it's one more way for players to get their heads full of often-misguided influences.
So it is not so cut-and-dried in terms of finding fits in recruiting, but something Purdue's not done a great job with regardless. Every case is different, but there are so many transfer cases that it does not reflect well on Purdue.
But you have to look at it from both sides, as well. Players want to play, and those that transferred found places they could do that. So it wasn't just about Purdue losing guys as it was guys looking for better opportunities.
Good for them.
Purdue, though, has to get this under control and keep its roster mostly intact from year to year.
This year: I think that Sandi Marcius, Anthony Johnson, Donnie Hale, and Jacob Lawson all could have made positive contributions to this year's team. Even if they previous years were not as good as you would have liked they would have all likely gotten better. Again, scholarships went unused so even if they did not all contribute it was a waste.
I appreciate what all six of the above players contributed during time at Purdue and believe that they would have been even better than in previous years.
An occasional transfer may be OK but even one transfer per year is too much.
Answer: Obviously, agree on the volume of transfers. No program is going to be healthy turning over its personnel the way Purdue has, especially in the past few years. You can't be young every single year because of attrition and expect to both be good and stay good.
But I think when you itemize the transfers, you have to draw some distinctions and not lose sight of the fact that those guys who transferred just weren't very good and showing either minimal capacity to improve or glaring issues that would prevent them from improving.
For one thing, Kelsey Barlow was kicked off the team. So he counts as attrition, but not as a transfer. Yes, he might have helped last season's team on paper and as a player, but at the same time, environment matters, and for everything positive thing he provided as a player, he offset it entirely with his conduct and general aloofness. Barlow was the quickest guy on the floor his junior year to deviate from what Purdue was supposed to be doing on offense, and when he left, you saw things almost immediately improve.
Part of me still thinks Purdue is suffering from the Curse of Barlow. Purdue wanted all its players to follow the lead of its more substantive leaders from years ago, guys like Robbie Hummel, Ryne Smith and Lewis Jackson. Seems like there has been more Barlow influence, at least from an outsider's perspective, showing up simply in past rosters' general casualness, with their being exceptions of course.
Some of those transfers listed here - two of which, at least, did get their degrees from Purdue, it should be noted - were absolutely addition by subtraction, one of them being a situation where Purdue would have eaten the scholarship for the balance of that player's career just to keep him off the roster if he didn't leave. The others, motor issues and that stuff is very much better not around than around, because it impacts practices and rubs off on others. So it's not always clearly better to have a certain player around as to not having that player around.
Yes, these are issues that were not diagnosed in recruiting and thus not solely in the laps of the players. Purdue needed to recruit better, more motivated, brighter players from 2010 on than it did.
Purdue would have liked Sandi Marcius back. That is pretty well documented. But players leave for all sorts of reasons and as the Ronnie Johnson case just showed us again, it's not always solely because of the player alone's wishes. That's not to say those players were thrilled to death on their own, but most every player at some point really struggles or questions things, and the voice in the ear can amplify and ultimately make the difference.
Players change. They're young and evolving. What you see on the floor is the product of everything around them, their coaching, their work ethic, their behavior, their stresses, their influences and everything else. Personal situations change and as they do, so can players.
The coaches who are most outspoken against social media are those with stuff to hide. Everyone else dislikes it because it's one more way for players to get their heads full of often-misguided influences.
So it is not so cut-and-dried in terms of finding fits in recruiting, but something Purdue's not done a great job with regardless. Every case is different, but there are so many transfer cases that it does not reflect well on Purdue.
But you have to look at it from both sides, as well. Players want to play, and those that transferred found places they could do that. So it wasn't just about Purdue losing guys as it was guys looking for better opportunities.
Good for them.
Purdue, though, has to get this under control and keep its roster mostly intact from year to year.
