I never said anything about 3-point shooting.
Whatever you want to be right about, it's yours.
National Perspective
- Thread starter collegehoopsfan123
- Start date
Whatever you want to be right about, it's yours.
Are you seriously arguing that Purdue would have a better shot at a Final Four with Haarms, McQuay, or Brantley than it does with Edey?
You know Booker has played less minutes this year than Heide, that is what Izzo has thought about him so far.
And if Cuonzo is a great recruiter and you need talent to win big , why has he got fired everywhere he has been?
Have you seen Buidanga play , he cannot shoot anything other than a dunk?
JaJuan Johnson wasn't a player until his 2nd year.
Booker's 11 pts against us looks very promising for his future.
I know you can't get them all, but the kid was from Indianapolis
Cathedral HS. Seeing him in an MSU uniform is disgusting.
Cuonzo got fired because he is not a head coach, great recruiter though.
The short time he and Painter were together delivered the Baby Boilers.
2010 was our return to the FF until Hummel went down.
Cuonzo also brought in Teague, Landry, Chris Booker, and Melvin Buckley.
That 2004 team with Booker before flunking out, had BT Title and FF
aspirations written all over it after beating #2 Duke in the Great Alsaska
Shootout by 10. Duke went on to the FF while Purdue lost Booker, lost the
season. Cuonzo can flat out recruit. And Cuonzo did this while having
to hear about Keady's age on the recruiting trail. Also got Jaylen Brown
of the Boston Celtics from Atlanta to play for him at Cal Berkeley.
Regarding Bidunga, a roster needs balance, and Purdue could use someone
in the post that can jump. And he can develop a shot. You can't
develop athleticism.
Last edited:
No.
Our 3 best runs (1994, 2000, 2019) since our last FF in 1980 were
with a non-traditional starting center.
I hope Edey bucks this trend and takes us to Phoenix this year.
I have said this over and over again in this thread.
Why do so many people think they know it all?
Our deepest tourney runs since 1980 (1994, 2000, 2019)
all had a non-traditional starting center.
I hope Edey bucks this Purdue trend and takes us to
Phoenix this year. That is all I am saying. Pretty simple.
Please help me understand what you mean by "non-traditional starting center". I watched every one of them play. They all played the same roles that their coaches traditionally expected all past centers to play. Be a warrior under the basket. Defend, rebound, get put backs, and set screens. The difference with the 1994 and 2000 teams was that the centers were short by traditional standards. Those teams were labeled donuts, because there was a hole in the middle. And because they were undersized, they were not the focus of the offense. They were the 4th or 5th option. Is that what you mean when you say they were non-traditional?
And you could have put anyone at center on that 94 team and it was a FF team till Glenn got injured.
He wants to prove you wrong because you are. When you cite Stanback and JBC as examples of athletic centers you are really reaching.
Keady only had 2 E8 runs. One in 94 with Big Dog and then the Cardinal, Mcquay (only 6'7) Cunningham team that lost to Wisky.
Hey ya'll, go listen to that MSU podcast I posted about. One of the hosts has a very good analysis of how Painter constructs his teams and what he sees as the problem with the team construction come March.
The podcast is called "The Final Four is not on the schedule".
The Purdue preview is spot on, very objective and accurate.
The podcast is called "The Final Four is not on the schedule".
The Purdue preview is spot on, very objective and accurate.
Do they say Edey is just another Matt ten Dam? And Smith is not a Big Ten level player? If so, then yeah, Purdue has no chance.
It might be too triggering for you. Listen to it, but be aware of the micro aggressions.
You are entitled to your opinion for sure. But you keep saying “facts” when stating your opinion so I think that’s why people are refuting your “facts”/opinion
ok, so Lee Rose's deepest run had 7 footer JBC and with Painter, Haarms was 7'3", so...
Last edited:
Not about height, about style of play. (Traditional post up back to the basket C or athletic mobile 5 who can go out and guard another big on the perimeter).
I think Edey can be the guy, I really do. Believe me I want him to. The rest of the team has to hit shots though. That’s the real key. See the last few minutes of the Illinois game.
TBH, It literally could have been bonefish on the podcast talking about why we fail. It’s everything he says all the time.
Just the same old, same old. I left a long review of it in his thread he created if you have time and care to read. Just some lazy takes by guys that haven’t watched Purdue all year.
Serious question. Did you watch McQuay play? I ask because your description is not at all what his style of play was.
I may have caught a game or two he played in since I was a student at Purdue the same time as him.
Yes, Haarms fits that description more so than McQuay. The point was it wasn’t about height, it was about athleticism and being an atypical Purdue center. Do you think McQuay was more similar to Haas and Edey?
Last edited:
If you listen to the podcast that bonefish posted, the MSU guy makes a comment about how Painter’s deepest run came with a different kind of 5. It is really not a completely crazy observation.
Also, I’m not really sure why the OP set everybody off. All that was said was that Purdue needed more guys like Jujuan Johnson. Who wouldn’t want another JJ at Purdue? The guy was a beast. Long, athletic scorer who was also a rim protector but could guard a guy on the wing too. Yes, I saw Jujuan play too.
Also, I’m not really sure why the OP set everybody off. All that was said was that Purdue needed more guys like Jujuan Johnson. Who wouldn’t want another JJ at Purdue? The guy was a beast. Long, athletic scorer who was also a rim protector but could guard a guy on the wing too. Yes, I saw Jujuan play too.
The reasoning in the thread with all the ignored sources of variation would not be my desire to find in research. Most people that shoot people use their right hand. They are not left handed. Therefore left handed people are not a threat. Most terrorists are muslims. Are most Muslims terrorists...in the USA?
Most people gain knowledge as their feet get larger. Does large feet signify intelligence? The father had just shown his daughter there were no ghosts in the room, under the bed...in the closet...no where and so he kissed her goodnight and returned to his bedroom where he was about to get in bed he heard his daughter's blood curdling scream and he rushed to her room and flipped on the light to see what the problem was. His daughter said there were ghosts! The father said we just went over this and I showed you there were no ghosts in your room. The little girl said daddy they go away when the lights are on...The game has changed in 20 years. The rules have changed, the shot clock has changed. However, it has always been about execution. If a "system" is the problem then why isn't the system a problem pre conference and in the conference? If the "system" is the problem what would happen in the tourney to make the "system" no longer effective? Did the rules change from when the system was effective? Did the system change? No, that is the crux of the thread... in that the system is faulty, but it is great, until it isn't.
One national tourney team that won scored more points than the opponent, but the tourney champ before held the opposition to less points. If we took the heights of the population of basketball players we would find that the player heights get taller from high school to college to the pros implying that height is a key element correlated with higher basketball level attained. However, inside all those players heights out of a population that also has some normal athletic ability if it was measured and there are many more people that are skilled and athletic that are 6'7 than there are 7 feet tall...because drum roll....there are more 6'7" in the population to choose than 7'. However, coaches still try to recruit tall players if they have the room to develop them...because even though they are slower...there are much fewer of them and they can do things 6'7" players can't. Purdue wouldn't be where it is without the success the bigs at this point. Purdue would just be another program in the Big. Lot of things go into a winning team and it doesn't hinge on a person being too tall. Purdue just beat a much more athletic team (Ill) with skill. With the Bigs Purdue had and the success of those teams Purdue is now recruiting at a higher clip and with that will get taller skilled and athletic players than a few years ago.
Next year Purdue will be more up and down and it will have two more 7+ feet players...and Purdue will be good whether those players play much or not. I've been on record for a long time saying I prefer two 6'9" or so 4s, but I'm not about to think that Purdue is not good because of Zach or Haas and the limitations they have or that you can't win with them even though you did.
Last edited:
Any Purdue fan would love to have another JaJuan Johnson, but I wouldn’t trade Edey for any other player in the country this year. National championships can be won with a variety of styles and Painter is great at adapting his team to capitalize on the strengths of his best players. UConn won a national championship last year with a great post game surrounded by shooters and Purdue is positioned to do the same this year.
Give me more JJ and Hummel frontcourts all day long.
2010 with healthy Hummel had FF in the bag, maybe more.
2011 with healthy Hummel is singing a very similar narrative.
8 years later, 2019 with Haarms certainly had another mobile
starting center and Painter's only Elite 8.
Fast forward to 2024, best chance since with a post-centered
offense. An Elite 8 loss would be acceptable, FF preferable.
As of today, I like what I saw in 2010 and 2019 more.
A Sweet 16 loss this year would be devastating. Time will tell.
If we had this, if we had that,,,,,,,,,,
I don't see how people can't see it. If we don't have Edey the last two years we're just another B1G Team with zero chance of winning a national title.
I really don't get the logic. So, you subtract a superstar (Edey) and then you assume you just go out and land a bunch of potential all American type guys that end up living up to their hype and then are willing to stay at Purdue for 3 or 4 years. I suppose it could happen but it's easier said than done.
I don't see how people can't see it. If we don't have Edey the last two years we're just another B1G Team with zero chance of winning a national title.
I really don't get the logic. So, you subtract a superstar (Edey) and then you assume you just go out and land a bunch of potential all American type guys that end up living up to their hype and then are willing to stay at Purdue for 3 or 4 years. I suppose it could happen but it's easier said than done.
Where did I say I wanted to trade Edey for anything? I’ve said multiple times that I think he is already at the top of the list and with a good tournament run would cement himself as the greatest Purdue player of all time.
Pointing out that Haarms was not the typical Purdue 7 footer really doesn’t change that. Two things can be true at the same time.
emotion is much more prevalent than logic in all facets of life. It is a human thing, but still at the top of the animal kingdom although the others are closing in.
Well the next few years you’ll get your wish because painter has recruited to be more like the Hummel and Johnson teams
Yeah for sure about the difference in our run to thr E8. However, deeming the podcast as “very good analysis” it’s a bit of a stretch 😂. It’s common sense that all of us here knew. Just generic and lazy takes by those guys…nothing out of the ordinary that the common fan wouldn’t be able to tell if they pay any attention to Purdue.
Time will tell. We'll still have two massive centers that aren't uber athletic. If either of them develops I can see them playing a role similar to Hass. I don't think it's bad. I think it's what separates us from others within the B1G.
Yeah, it was okay but a little too much of “he’s just tall and gets a favorable whistle” about Zach for my liking.
Potential is just that, potential. It doesn’t guarantee anything.
If Purdue doesn’t make the FF again this year, the finger will be pointed at Painter, his roster construction and his focus on running the offense through the 5.
You say “same old, same old”… yeh, I agree. Will this year’s tournament result be that for Purdue?
McQuay was only 6’7-6’8. He was more of a PF than a C. He was a great athlete but not a Painter type low post player
I'm trying to recall how often I see an uber athletic 7 feet tall player. Hakeem Olajuwon might be one and there probably are a couple more, but normally uber athletes are not 7 ft tall. In the discussion about low post play, one of the things lost...not mentioned, or not known, is Zach's quickness this year where he is able to play more off the blocks. He doesn't shoot there, but the defense has to be close or he can just sit massive screens over and over if he doesn't pull the defense out and so Purdue already has effectively created driving lanes...just not going to have Zach score out there.
We don't know what Berg will provide or his endurance, but runs the court quicker than Zach and has experience before Purdue playing on the perimeter. He came to Purdue because low post play was something he needed to improve.
Jacobson will be an effective player in and on the perimeter. The kid appears to be a very good shooter. So here is a question for anyone. Is there a college team that would not take Zach if they could? Is there a team that would not get the ball to Zach in the low post if they had him?
“I don’t see how people can’t see it”.
I love Edey, He’s dominant and will be a 2 x NPTY. But, he also plays the least important position come tournament time.
And, nothing in the last 5 years has shown that Painter can adjust to tourney ball.
If you were to list the reasons for Painter's deepest run, how many would you get to before you got to Haarms being a different kind of 5?
That's the issue people are taking. It's a complete lack of understanding of cause and effect. Of course, in an ideal world, Purdue will have a skilled 5 who is also mobile. But suggesting Purdue made deep runs because they had mobile 5's (which is questionable) is disingenuous at best.
Our deep run that year was due to having a dynamic scoring guard who went crazy in the tourney.
But…Haarms being mobile, not being a low post scorer and not clogging the lane also resulted in Edwards being able to do what he did.
If Edey and Edwards were on the team together, would Edey still be the focus of the offense,
I would love to have Edwards play with Edey. With the attention Edey gets, Carsen wouldn't have had to take as many contested 28 footers because he would have been open a lot more. And he would have shot a lot of threes. Given the attention Edey gets in the lane, Carsen would've also had a lot more opportunity to break people down off the dribble and get to the rim.
One thing Matt Painter is very good at (tho some refuse to acknowledge) is adjusting his gameplan to his roster. If Edey and Edwards were playing together, I'm certain both score north of 20 ppg.
Similar threads
