ON Purdue BBall recruiting

[nagemj02]

"But no 4 or 5 stars. Not one. I'd just like to see Matt get one guy. IU got that Mcdonalds all American."


If you are referring to the 2015 class thus far, that's correct. If you are referring to the entire roster that's slated to return next season, there are 4 Purdue players that were consensus 4-star recruits (Kendall Stephens, A.J. Hammons, Isaac Haas, and Rapheal Davis), 5 if you count Vince Edwards (was a 4-star on some rating services and a 3-star on others).


I agree with your, cprh, and ustank's (great handle to type) points on recruiting. The rigidity of his coaching style (in-game and in preparation) does not really help the program, either. Occasionally he'll tweak something and instruct a slight change of strategy here or there, but he basically never made any major offensive or defensive style changes in his tenure until implementing the zone for a short time this past season (which he seemed to give up on, which I don't understand: you can't get better at something if you give up on it that quickly).

If you watched the national title game last night, it appeared that Duke played man-to-man D but also mixed in some matchup zone and might have even gone to a triangle-and-two at one point. It seemed that their mixing defenses worked, as they did a pretty good job keeping Wisconsin out of a sustained offensive rhythm. That's exactly the type of quick decision-making that CMP lacks. Besides having very good or great players, title winning teams always have head coaches that mix up their offensive attack and defensive style at some point during their games. ALL OF THEM DO. They are never running the exact same stuff all the way from the opening tip to when the final buzzer sounds.

 

[purdue4sure]

Originally posted by BoilerDaddy:
I think that the experiences of the last few years have taught Painter to be more direct with recruits and not less. The program that I've heard Painter specifically mention as one that he is trying to emulate is Wisconsin, and Bo also has a reputation for being honest and direct with recruits.

I don't understand dwelling on the players who didn't choose to come to Purdue. I really like the roster that Painter has assembled right now. Its filled with really good young players who appear to buy in fully and fit the system.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

And some people act as if other programs simply offer a kid a scholarship and he accepts. Purdue is the only program where a kid says "no". The realists are not being realistic.

 

[lbodel]

That's not really a fair point given that Wisconsin plays man to man defense all the time and beat arguably the best team in the tournament and made it to the national championship game.

The obsession with zone is weird.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

Nage - I'm curious what you thought of Painter's attempts to mix in zone this year. I thought that the D got a lot better when he pretty much eliminated the zone. From that point on, I thought the half court D was at or near the best in the conference.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[BBG]

Originally posted by BoilerDaddy:
Nage - I'm curious what you thought of Painter's attempts to mix in zone this year. I thought that the D got a lot better when he pretty much eliminated the zone. From that point on, I thought the half court D was at or near the best in the conference.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Have to agree. The whole zone experiment was a disaster IMO. To me I don't think you can compare how one school does things to another because it isn't an apples to apples comparison as the players on each team will be different.

Also as someone else pointed out, Wisky made it to the championship game playing a very similar style of basketball that we do. Again not a fair comparison but it goes more to the point that if you get a team that fits the system you are tying to use, you stand a great chance to win it all.

This post was edited on 4/7 11:27 AM by BBG

 

[BoilerDaddy]

I'm still not opposed to mixing in a zone, but we've seen the difference between mastering a system and playing one where not all the players are in sync (whether man or zone). Painter's argument for doing one thing well appears to have quite a bit of merit.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Boiler Buck]

Another 16 guy we are on...



Forgot about this guy....and this seemed an appropriate thread....

Rapolas Ivanauskas, Barrington

A breakout junior year has Ivanauskas among the top prospects in the Class of 2016 sporting high-major offers from the likes of Iowa, Purdue and Northwestern. Along the way he led the Broncos to their first MSL West title since 1979 while averaging 18 points and 8 rebounds a game. Named "Breakout Junior" for the city and suburbs by mags for players in Illinois.

 

[Boiler Buck]

Re: Another 17 guy


Info on Eastern and other top players in Illinois

Eastern

 

[nagemj02]

Originally posted by BBG:

Originally posted by BoilerDaddy:
Nage - I'm curious what you thought of Painter's attempts to mix in zone this year. I thought that the D got a lot better when he pretty much eliminated the zone. From that point on, I thought the half court D was at or near the best in the conference.


Posted from Rivals Mobile

Have to agree. The whole zone experiment was a disaster IMO. To me I don't think you can compare how one school does things to another because it isn't an apples to apples comparison as the players on each team will be different.

Also as someone else pointed out, Wisky made it to the championship game playing a very similar style of basketball that we do. Again not a fair comparison but it goes more to the point that if you get a team that fits the system you are tying to use, you stand a great chance to win it all.



This post was edited on 4/7 11:27 AM by BBG

They didn't implement enough to really give a fair evaluation on how they played their zone D. If the basketball program traditionally played a different style of defense (say, like Syracuse and their 2-3 zone), do you think they would look great playing something new (say, man-to-man) in their first full season? I'm guessing they would not but that's because it takes time to improve at newly-implemented style. They can't just give up on it for lacking immediate success with it.


"That's not really a fair point given that Wisconsin plays man to man defense all the time and beat arguably the best team in the tournament and made it to the national championship game.

The obsession with zone is weird."


Duke mixes defenses and they won the title. So did nearly every other team that has won a national title since I've been watching college basketball over the past 25 years.

People that say someone has "an obsession with zone" are completely missing the point. It's NOT about that. It's about keeping the opposition (the same goes for an offensive attack) off-balance so that you have a better chance of winning.





This post was edited on 4/7 7:50 PM by nagemj02

 

[BoilerDaddy]

Nage - Your arguments seem anicdotal to me. If you were to provide some data to show that teams that regularly switch between man and zone are statistically more successful than teams that don't, it would carry more weight with me.

As I look at the Big Ten, it appears to me that the teams that switch defenses often (such as IU) often aren't good defensive teams. (Now I'm being anecdotal, but that's kinfof the point.)
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[lbodel]

And also, teams that play zone a lot typically aren't very good man to man.

That being said, and while this doesn't really fit to either point, Duke is traditionally a man to man defense. If you remember, Duke was a bit shaky early in the season and the defense was an issue. So that's why Coach K started playing some different defenses. So obviously that fits into a coach adjusting based on his situation - and it also shows you don't play man to man if you aren't good defensively.

That being said, we are good man to man, so it would seem silly to abandon it.

 

[Kesselschmiede]

Originally posted by lbodel:
And also, teams that play zone a lot typically aren't very good man to man.

That being said, and while this doesn't really fit to either point, Duke is traditionally a man to man defense. If you remember, Duke was a bit shaky early in the season and the defense was an issue. So that's why Coach K started playing some different defenses. So obviously that fits into a coach adjusting based on his situation - and it also shows you don't play man to man if you aren't good defensively.

That being said, we are good man to man, so it would seem silly to abandon it.

Exactly this. You don't abandon what you are good at and suggesting otherwise is just ridiculous. why should we? Just because some internet forum poster thinks it's the answer to every problem? We had the freakin defensive player of the year on our team and he got that by playing what we are great at, man-to-man.

 

[Inspector100]

Originally posted by TJBoiler:
Inspector Fife DID say that. Now I was listening to the radio so no it's not quote by quote. I assume I could go to JMV's website and dig up the podcast. Fife was not dogging Painter but making a point about recruiting players to play a certain style of Basketball that fit into said style.

.............................................

TJB, thanks for addressing that again. I understand that it wasn't necessarily a quote of Fife and rehashing it by checking for a Podcast is unnecessary, too. I go back to my original statement here that Fife has no reason to talk about Purdue. He doesn't know what CMP tells a recruit unless the recruit tells him. To pass that information on to the press is not a classy move. If Fife got the information third hand, it may not be complete and accurate, and can become more incomplete and less accurate when Fife spins it to his advantage. It stinks, in my opinion, that Fife is negatively recruiting against Purdue.

Fife was head coach at IPFW and then considered a job as assistant to Painter at Purdue. He may have even spent a day as an assistant, but abruptly left that spot to take the same spot at MSU. I don't think that was a classy move either. For those reasons, I don't think the recruiting at MSU is on the up and up when Fife is involved. The only positive I can take from this is that he (they) fear Purdue as a very competent and competitive opponent.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

I read it as Fife was paying Painter a compliment. I don't think it's negative recruiting to say that Painter is honest with recruits,
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[Kesselschmiede]

Originally posted by BoilerDaddy:
I read it as Fife was paying Painter a compliment. I don't think it's negative recruiting to say that Painter is honest with recruits,
Posted from Rivals Mobile

This. But certain haters on this board will spin anything to fit their need so they can try and appear right on a message forum.

 

[Inspector100]

Originally posted by BoilerDaddy:
I read it as Fife was paying Painter a compliment. I don't think it's negative recruiting to say that Painter is honest with recruits,
Posted from Rivals Mobile

Here is the comment I am discussing with TJB. It is part of the lead post to this thread.

"Fife then brought up Matt Painter as an example. Fife said Matt tells recruits that they will have to be tough and have to play physical hard nosed defense to start and play at Purdue. I understand defense wins but #1 to recruit 5 star recruits Purdue is already at a disadvantage versus say a Duke or Kentucky. That's Matt's selling point? No wonder he struggles to get top recruits."

The point being made by the OP is that CMP doesn't discuss the offense, that it is all about defense and toughness. Therefore, CMP doesn't land the top recruits because they get the impression that defense is all that matters. We know that is not the case. CMP coaches the entire package of Purdue basketball and his recruiting efforts would reflect that. There us more than defense in this package as we have just learned with the Scott situation. So, hope that helps.