painter hate

[BoilerFan#35]

I understand that you are frustrated that he hasn't landed the top recruits but he has had five NBA players and none of them left college early when they certainly could of been drafted. Doesn't that show that they really enjoy college and playing under Painter? I think it will just be a matter of time before he lands some big recruits. I think we have some chances in 2016.

This post was edited on 4/19 8:13 AM by BoilerFan#35

 

[Boiler Buck]

I think 2016/17 are some key opportunities for Painter. Between the recruits and schollies available he has a chance to capitalize on what should be nice momentum of his team's record the last two years. But that is assuming he can win a conference title next year.

As far as "Painter hate" I think that kind of title in an OP is bad PR for readers who might be recruits or their circle and should be changed.

There are several supporters of Painter like me who know recruiting needs to be watched carefully as it is 80% of the program, and comment on that negatively when he lets Boiler Nation down in this area.

 

[BBG]

Originally posted by BoilerFan#35:
I understand that you are frustrated that he hasn't landed the top recruits but he has had five NBA players and none of them left college early when they certainly could of been drafted. Doesn't that show that they really enjoy college and playing under Painter? I think it will just be a matter of time before he lands some big recruits. I think we have some chances in 2016.

This post was edited on 4/19 8:13 AM by BoilerFan#35

Great point. And let's be honest, the "haters' on here account for maybe just a handful of posters. And most of those posters would rather continue on their uninformed tantrums than just admit they were wrong about Painter. More to your point, no way AJH comes back if he didn't like his coach.

For me, Painter has until his contract is up to produce more results and to show the program is heading in the right direction and I have little doubt he will get us there.

 

[Boiler Buck]

Speaking of 2016 recruiting, one of the guys Painter was recruiting, Rapolas Ivanauskas, just committed to NW.

 

[BBG]

Originally posted by Boiler Buck:
Speaking of 2016 recruiting, one of the guys Painter was recruiting, Rapolas Ivanauskas, just committed to NW.

Good. Some people have a hard enough time with AJH's last name, could you imagine the carnage that would go on with a name like Ivanasukas?

Plus he is just a 3 star I think so according to the haters, it's 5 stars or nothing!

 

[PU pit bull]

Originally posted by Boiler Buck:
I think 2016/17 are some key opportunities for Painter. Between the recruits and schollies available he has a chance to capitalize on what should be nice momentum of his team's record the last two years. But that is assuming he can win a conference title next year.

As far as "Painter hate" I think that kind of title in an OP is bad PR for readers who might be recruits or their circle and should be changed.

There are several supporters of Painter like me who know recruiting needs to be watched carefully as it is 80% of the program, and comment on that negatively when he lets Boiler Nation down in this area.

I don't necessarily have a problem with this.........as long as the failure does rest solely upon his shoulders. Assistants leaving, lack of funds, etc. have marred past recruiting, and that is a fact. Obviously being an openly honest coach doesn't help the situation any in a society riddled with "coddled" athletes. Should he change his character and beliefs and "adapt"? Maybe, but how does one go about doing that.......and still be able to look at oneself in the mirror at the end of the day? Don't get me wrong, I want top notch recruits also, but if it means getting a bit shady in the process then count me out. I have said it before and I will say it again.......I would never want to become a NC or Kentucky or Kansas, where players are served on silver platters. Not my style. I used to want the program to model that of MSU's........but that has changed for me. I have to wonder what Izzo sees in the mirror at night. Just my opinions of course. Boiler Up!

 

[BBG]

Originally posted by Boiler Buck:

As far as "Painter hate" I think that kind of title in an OP is bad PR for readers who might be recruits or their circle and should be changed.

It's no worse than the "fire painter" thread that cropped up nearly immediately after our NCAA exit. In fact, I would say that thread did worse things to any "PR" than a thread like this ever could.

This post was edited on 4/19 10:18 AM by BBG

 

[boilersallthewaynow]

Thanks #35 !

Maybe you are right.

Painter's first 10 seasons were just greatness in the making.

This next year is THE year that Painter is really going to

 

[PaBoiler78]

prefer Rakocevic.

 

[PU pit bull]

Originally posted by boilersallthewaynow:
Thanks #35 !

Maybe you are right.

Painter's first 10 seasons were just greatness in the making.

This next year is THE year that Painter is really going to

It is good to know that the basketball program has your support!!!!

 

[Chuchumutha]

Originally posted by Boiler Buck:
I think 2016/17 are some key opportunities for Painter. Between the recruits and schollies available he has a chance to capitalize on what should be nice momentum of his team's record the last two years. But that is assuming he can win a conference title next year.

As far as "Painter hate" I think that kind of title in an OP is bad PR for readers who might be recruits or their circle and should be changed.

There are several supporters of Painter like me who know recruiting needs to be watched carefully as it is 80% of the program, and comment on that negatively when he lets Boiler Nation down in this area.

Agreed. I think these next two classes will define Painter's future at Purdue. I like the direction of the program currently but forget about recruiting from 08 thru 11. I think Matt learned a lot during that time and I am hopeful that will be reflected in his recruiting the next few years (as it did in 2014). So I am cautiously optimistic that he will continue to stack classes.

 

[koopmeister]

I think many players have enjoyed both playing at Purdue and under coach Painter...but I also think you are way off with the thought that they all purposely stayed for that reason. If any would have been lottery picks you would have a much better point. Most of these kids weigh their options...like Glenn Robinson did...and make the best decision for themselves and their future.

 

[cprh9u]

Originally posted by koopmeister:
I think many players have enjoyed both playing at Purdue and under coach Painter...but I also think you are way off with the thought that they all purposely stayed for that reason. If any would have been lottery picks you would have a much better point. Most of these kids weigh their options...like Glenn Robinson did...and make the best decision for themselves and their future.

This. I don't think any underclassmen under Painter was ever projected to be a 1st rounder. JJ would have been the closest thing but the best thing for HIM was to come back and develop into a consensus AA which he did. I don't doubt most or all of them liked CMP, but this original idea is not well thought out.

 

[purdue4sure]

Originally posted by boilersallthewaynow:
Thanks #35 !

Maybe you are right.

Painter's first 10 seasons were just greatness in the making.

This next year is THE year that Painter is really going to

... Look! A squirrel!

 

[BoilerStutz]

Purdue should have strong basketball programs, both men's and women's, in this basketball rich state. We were behind in facilities for a number of years, but the Mackey and the practice facilities are more than competitive now. So recruiting should pick up and it seems to have done so for both programs.

There is an undeniable trend of Painter getting very deep with top recruits and losing out at the end to top programs. That certainly is better than not making it to the end with strong recruits, but he does need to land a few stars. Keady was able to do it, and Matt should be able to do so as well.

 

[cprh9u]

Originally posted by BoilerStutz:
Purdue should have strong basketball programs, both men's and women's, in this basketball rich state. We were behind in facilities for a number of years, but the Mackey and the practice facilities are more than competitive now. So recruiting should pick up and it seems to have done so for both programs.

There is an undeniable trend of Painter getting very deep with top recruits and losing out at the end to top programs. That certainly is better than not making it to the end with strong recruits, but he does need to land a few stars. Keady was able to do it, and Matt should be able to do so as well.

Recruiting was good in 2014, but below average overall in 12, 13 and 15 combined based on what we have seen and on paper. I wouldn't say it has picked up yet, but it is certainly better than 08-11.

Painter does get named with good recruits and lose out at the end. I guess that's better than not being it it at all but at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. Like you said, you have to win some of those stars. Painter is able to recruit and land a solid nucleus, but unless he can land star power he will have trouble winning anything of meaning.

 

[boilerzz]

Originally posted by cprh9u:

Recruiting was good in 2014, but below average overall in 12, 13 and 15 combined based on what we have seen and on paper. I wouldn't say it has picked up yet, but it is certainly better than 08-11.

Painter does get named with good recruits and lose out at the end. I guess that's better than not being it it at all but at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. Like you said, you have to win some of those stars. Painter is able to recruit and land a solid nucleus, but unless he can land star power he will have trouble winning anything of meaning.

Rivals ranked Purdue's 2012 class 20th and the 2013 class 15th. I really don't know how that could be classified as below average.

If you want to talk about production, and not recruiting, the 2012 class featured one guy who didn't work out, one who had a career ending medical condition and the two best defensive players in the B1G last season. The 2013 class had one guy who has not worked out and two that are just now becoming upperclassmen so their full story is not yet written.

 

[Kesselschmiede]

Rivals ranked Purdue's 2012 class 20th and the 2013 class 15th. I really don't know how that could be classified as below average.

If you want to talk about production, and not recruiting, the 2012 class featured one guy who didn't work out, one who had a career ending medical condition and the two best defensive players in the B1G last season. The 2013 class had one guy who has not worked out and two that are just now becoming upperclassmen so their full story is not yet written.

Excellent post but I fear that all that logic is lost on the queen hater in cp30. These things have been explained to her countless times yet she simply chooses to ignore actual facts just to push her agenda. My guess is Painter turned her down in college and now she is back to exact her revenge against him with all this hate.

 

[cprh9u]

Rivals ranked Purdue's 2012 class 20th and the 2013 class 15th. I really don't know how that could be classified as below average.

If you want to talk about production, and not recruiting, the 2012 class featured one guy who didn't work out, one who had a career ending medical condition and the two best defensive players in the B1G last season. The 2013 class had one guy who has not worked out and two that are just now becoming upperclassmen so their full story is not yet written.

They were ranked, but as we all know, production is what maters. I'd still say below average in 12, 13 and 15 combined. 12 gave us a problematic PG who many blame our last place finish on in 2013, a guy who never contributed due to medical reasons, and 2 above average players who are good team players. Above average seems fair when considering all 4 recruits. 13 gave us a transfer after 2 years and 2 guys who are coming off the bench, one of whom has been below expectations so far. I'd call that below average. 15 has 2 guys who had no high major offers between them (besides us of course), and could become 2 superstars but history tells us that's not likely. Below average on paper IMHO. Certainly time for that to change as you pointed out, just basing it on what we know today.

 

[mathboy]

They were ranked, but as we all know, production is what maters. I'd still say below average in 12, 13 and 15 combined. 12 gave us a problematic PG who many blame our last place finish on in 2013, a guy who never contributed due to medical reasons, and 2 above average players who are good team players. Above average seems fair when considering all 4 recruits. 13 gave us a transfer after 2 years and 2 guys who are coming off the bench, one of whom has been below expectations so far. I'd call that below average. 15 has 2 guys who had no high major offers between them (besides us of course), and could become 2 superstars but history tells us that's not likely. Below average on paper IMHO. Certainly time for that to change as you pointed out, just basing it on what we know today.

I find it interesting that you call the BIG defensive player of the year, and a center who will break several school career records this coming year "Above average". I find it interesting that you think Vince Edwards "Above average". Have you really looked at his stats compared to all other freshmen in the country? I just can't agree with your assessment of "above average" when you talk about these kids.

Remember, when you talk about kids that fall by the wayside, or come off the bench, you have 13 scholarships, but start only 5 and have maybe 4 the are regulars off the bench. That means every class will have some fall out. You seem to think that is a bad thing in your analysis. I think you are blinded by too narrow a focus on Purdue and too little of a broader perspective across other teams. They have the same dynamics as Purdue, with regard to these happenings. They just don't finish tied with a FF team for 3rd in the BIG.

I'd say "production " has exceeded the expectations of each class in the 2012-2014 period. Classes from 2008-2011 were poor. Funny how you can see the same dip in recruting in Football and WBB also. Wonder what those dates correspond with in our school administration?

 

[cprh9u]

I find it interesting that you call the BIG defensive player of the year, and a center who will break several school career records this coming year "Above average". I find it interesting that you think Vince Edwards "Above average". Have you really looked at his stats compared to all other freshmen in the country? I just can't agree with your assessment of "above average" when you talk about these kids.

Remember, when you talk about kids that fall by the wayside, or come off the bench, you have 13 scholarships, but start only 5 and have maybe 4 the are regulars off the bench. That means every class will have some fall out. You seem to think that is a bad thing in your analysis. I think you are blinded by too narrow a focus on Purdue and too little of a broader perspective across other teams. They have the same dynamics as Purdue, with regard to these happenings. They just don't finish tied with a FF team for 3rd in the BIG.

I'd say "production " has exceeded the expectations of each class in the 2012-2014 period. Classes from 2008-2011 were poor. Funny how you can see the same dip in recruting in Football and WBB also. Wonder what those dates correspond with in our school administration?

I didn't call VE above average. I said 12, 13 and 15 combined were below average. 12 on its own is above (considering we hit on 2 and missed on 2) and I think 14 on it's own is good now with a chance to get better. I excluded 14 from the discussion because they stand out to me as a pretty good class.

Overall recruiting has been pretty decent over the last few years, but I still maintain we need some star power (whether they develop from 3 star guys like Trey Burke or Kaminsky or the more likely route of high 4 star guys) to go along with the solid team players we have.

 

[BBG]

Overall recruiting has been pretty decent over the last few years, but I still maintain we need some star power (whether they develop from 3 star guys like Trey Burke or Kaminsky or the more likely route of high 4 star guys) to go along with the solid team players we have.

VE I think will cover that need and potentially Cline. VE is going to be a stud considering what he did just as a frosh. Even Haas I think has that potential because others are going to open things up for him as well.

 

[cprh9u]

VE I think will cover that need and potentially Cline. VE is going to be a stud considering what he did just as a frosh. Even Haas I think has that potential because others are going to open things up for him as well.

I am very excited about VE and Haas. Great at what they do and they have some potentially very good shooters around them. I'd love to see a stud PG added to the mix in 16 (ideally 15 but that would be unlikely) to see this team really blossom.

 

[since1980]

Regardless of what people think of Painter, I think this upcoming season will be telling for us if he is the right guy for the job or not. Yes, it would have been nice to have Swanigan, but Taylor isn't a stiff assuming he stays healthy and Hammons was a more important get than Swanigan. It is Painters time to prove what kind of coach he is and there should be no excuses for him or from him. He can't use the excuse of being a young, inexperienced, immature team anymore and we have quality experience and talent at every position, especially if he brings in a 5th year PG. There are no attitude problems on this roster and everybody should be pulling in the same direction. We are the biggest team in the BIG10, we have the defensive player of the year returning as a senior, we have the shooters to space the floor and the depth to grind out 40 minutes night in and night out regardless of foul trouble. I'm not a big fan of bringing in 5th year transfers if the team isn't poised to be very good, but since this team is, bringing in a playmaker could really make this team legit.

The argument between Painter haters and Painter supporters should be over after this coming season. Either he gets it done or he doesn't.

 

[boilernuke]

Regardless of what people think of Painter, I think this upcoming season will be telling for us if he is the right guy for the job or not. Yes, it would have been nice to have Swanigan, but Taylor isn't a stiff assuming he stays healthy and Hammons was a more important get than Swanigan. It is Painters time to prove what kind of coach he is and there should be no excuses for him or from him. He can't use the excuse of being a young, inexperienced, immature team anymore and we have quality experience and talent at every position, especially if he brings in a 5th year PG. There are no attitude problems on this roster and everybody should be pulling in the same direction. We are the biggest team in the BIG10, we have the defensive player of the year returning as a senior, we have the shooters to space the floor and the depth to grind out 40 minutes night in and night out regardless of foul trouble. I'm not a big fan of bringing in 5th year transfers if the team isn't poised to be very good, but since this team is, bringing in a playmaker could really make this team legit.

The argument between Painter haters and Painter supporters should be over after this coming season. Either he gets it done or he doesn't.

So what would be getting it done? What kind of B1G finish and how far in the NCAAs?

 

[88btfu92]

I understand that you are frustrated that he hasn't landed the top recruits but he has had five NBA players and none of them left college early when they certainly could of been drafted. Doesn't that show that they really enjoy college and playing under Painter? I think it will just be a matter of time before he lands some big recruits. I think we have some chances in 2016.

This post was edited on 4/19 8:13 AM by BoilerFan#35

I remember a couple years ago when 2015 was looked at as a big year for recruiting..now it's 2016? Next year it will be 2017...see the pattern. The bad news for Mr. Painter is that if his 2016 and 2017 classes rank like 2015, he won't be around for 2018.

 

[BBG]

I remember a couple years ago when 2015 was looked at as a big year for recruiting..now it's 2016? Next year it will be 2017...see the pattern. The bad news for Mr. Painter is that if his 2016 and 2017 classes rank like 2015, he won't be around for 2018.

Regardless of what people think, Painter will be here until his contract is up unless he tanks the next two seasons IMO. And by tank I mean a repeat of the bottom we saw for two years straight.

 

[nat100]

Regardless of what people think, Painter will be here until his contract is up unless he tanks the next two seasons IMO..

Disagree. You cant leave him a lame duck with 2 or 3 years of term. It will hurt his recruiting. A decision to extend or cut bait will be made earlier. If he has a first round exit again, expect a 1 year token extension and decrease in buyout.

 

[Chuchumutha]

I didn't call VE above average. I said 12, 13 and 15 combined were below average. 12 on its own is above (considering we hit on 2 and missed on 2) and I think 14 on it's own is good now with a chance to get better. I excluded 14 from the discussion because they stand out to me as a pretty good class.

Overall recruiting has been pretty decent over the last few years, but I still maintain we need some star power (whether they develop from 3 star guys like Trey Burke or Kaminsky or the more likely route of high 4 star guys) to go along with the solid team players we have.

So the 13 class is below average because of production (even though they were ranked top 20) and the 15 class is below average, I have to assume because of rankings (since they haven't stepped foot on Mackey yet). I have no problem if you want to provide constructive criticism on Painter's recruiting, but you have to pick a lane on how you're evaluating.

 

[since1980]

So what would be getting it done? What kind of B1G finish and how far in the NCAAs?

It is all about making a run in the tournament. Painter has proven he can win BIG10 games with the defense first formula, much like Gene Keady did which will keep him at Purdue for as long as our conservative athletic department is in business. The majority of our fan base has shown to be patient as long as we are relevant in the BIG10. But recruits want to play for teams that go deep in the tournament.

From a fan base point of view, I think getting back to a sweet 16 silences most critics with the talent we have returning.
From a national recruiting perspective and program perception, Purdue will never take the next step until we reach a Final Four. I think it will be imperative for this team to try to get a top 3 seed this year so we have a chance of making a run and a good draw in the tournament.

For Purdue fans, it is a matter of many people being content being relevant in the BIG10 and making the NCAA.
For other Purdue fans, success is making a deep run in the NCAA tournament.

For me personally, Painter has been at Purdue long enough that it is time he proves he can make a deep run in the tournament. If not now, then when?

 

[cprh9u]

So the 13 class is below average because of production (even though they were ranked top 20) and the 15 class is below average, I have to assume because of rankings (since they haven't stepped foot on Mackey yet). I have no problem if you want to provide constructive criticism on Painter's recruiting, but you have to pick a lane on how you're evaluating.

Think about what you just said. I would "Grade" a class by what they have done when they are already here, such as the 13 class. Of course. And how else can we "Grade" the 15 class except to look at their rankings and how they might fit here? Rankings and evaluations are relevant and correct more often than not (as in top 25 players usually have more of an impact than the 26-50 range and 51-75 usually more than 76-100, etc.).

 

[cprh9u]

Disagree. You cant leave him a lame duck with 2 or 3 years of term. It will hurt his recruiting. A decision to extend or cut bait will be made earlier. If he has a first round exit again, expect a 1 year token extension and decrease in buyout.

Do you really think Burke will move in that direction if they are 1 and done or worse, don't make it to the NCAA tournament this year? It's hard for me to see Painter agreeing to a lower buyout or Burke making that offer, although I would certainly support it.

 

[Heller]

Disagree. You cant leave him a lame duck with 2 or 3 years of term. It will hurt his recruiting. A decision to extend or cut bait will be made earlier. If he has a first round exit again, expect a 1 year token extension and decrease in buyout.

I agree with Nat on this. Painter isn't out of the woods just because he made the dance and got bounced in the first round. He still has things to prove since he signed that 2 million dollar contract.

That said, I'm not sure that Burke wants to make another change so late in his career and it would hamper getting a coach we want to take the position knowing that an new AD generally wants their own people in place.

 

[nat100]

Do you really think Burke will move in that direction if they are 1 and done or worse, don't make it to the NCAA tournament this year? It's hard for me to see Painter agreeing to a lower buyout or Burke making that offer, although I would certainly support it.

Painter wont want to recruit without being able to say he will be there all 4 years for a player. He isnt in the bargaining position he was 4 years ago.

 

[cprh9u]

Painter wont want to recruit without being able to say he will be there all 4 years for a player. He isnt in the bargaining position he was 4 years ago.

Makes sense to me. I hope you are right.

 

[Chuchumutha]

Think about what you just said. I would "Grade" a class by what they have done when they are already here, such as the 13 class. Of course. And how else can we "Grade" the 15 class except to look at their rankings and how they might fit here? Rankings and evaluations are relevant and correct more often than not (as in top 25 players usually have more of an impact than the 26-50 range and 51-75 usually more than 76-100, etc.).

We're getting into semantics here but if you're going to judge classes based on what they have done when they are already here, don't describe it as sub par recruiting. Admittedly, there is an element of recruiting to it (bad fit culturally, bad scheme fit) but a top 20 recruiting class that doesn't perform to expectations probably has more to do with development.

 

[lbodel]

So what would be getting it done? What kind of B1G finish and how far in the NCAAs?

This is probably one of the dumbest threads I've seen.

You're asking for required finishes in the Big Ten and how far in the NCAA Tournament…and it's flipping April.

 

[BSpecial]

For me, Painter has until his contract is up to produce more results and to show the program is heading in the right direction and I have little doubt he will get us there.

I have more than a little doubt, but I think it's more likely than not that the program is headed in the right direction and better days are ahead. I'm certainly cheering on CMP, but I'd be more encouraged if we saw more consistency as far as recruiting and player development. No reason to hate the guy or his accomplishments.

 

[lbodel]

I have more than a little doubt, but I think it's more likely than not that the program is headed in the right direction and better days are ahead. I'm certainly cheering on CMP, but I'd be more encouraged if we saw more consistency as far as recruiting and player development. No reason to hate the guy or his accomplishments.

This is what drives me insane. More consistency in recruiting? I agree that for a bit there was an issue, although I don't really blame Painter. When you get heavy on one class, it's hard to recruit. With the "Baby Boilers", you had 3 guys at 3 different positions locked in as 4 year starters pretty much (and playing 35+ minutes a game as seniors). That's not easy to recruit in and you want to have a bit more balance.

Right now, I think we have great class balance.

Seniors: Hammons, Davis
Juniors: Stephens, Smotherman
Sophomores: Edwards, Haas, Mathias, Thompson
Freshmen: Cline, Weatherford

Our senior center will be replaced with a junior in Haas (good since centers take more time for development and Haas was also in place in case Hammons left this year). You lose Davis and gain Weatherford, a defensive minded, athletic, tall guard who isn't a pure shooter.

As for player development, I'd recommend looking back at Hammons as a freshman/sophomore. It's not pretty. He's developed so much. Same with Davis - that guy was not a great defensive player and struggled mightily with his offense early in his career. His development has been great.

We certainly need to not "take our feet off the gas pedal" with recruiting and have to keep it consistent. But it's not like Painter has had 1 decent class in the last 4 years. We have some good players in every class on our roster.