Painter will never get Purdue to the FF.
- Thread starter bonefish1
- Start date
But, but....I keep hearing from a few posters how Purdue can't "afford" to buy players in the portal.
Sure doesn't seem to be the case with Edey.
Proven players will get paid after they earn it at Purdue.
But Edey was getting close to a million last year, before he had proven it. This year, he's getting close to double that.
But it you want to pay guys who have earned it first, fine, go into the portal and pay some Jr and Sr players who have already proven it at the college level.
Edey proved plenty his first 2 years if you were paying attention to the data.
The trick is you need elite players. If you can get elite guards and wings or elite mobile bigs then I agree, that’s the direction to go. Trading an elite traditional center for non-elite players just because they’re more versatile or mobile just makes you worse.
Yeah, but you don't explain the basis for your disagreement. Agree with your earlier statement that everyone is entitled to an opinion, but hard to take an opinion seriously if you can't / don't articulate the rationale. In fact it's pretty boring / irritating to read someone posting the same thing over and over without being willing or able to articulate the basis for their view.
What are the examples where teams are winning at the highest level with average players, just because those players are versatile? I don't know with certainty that I'm right, but I don't know of teams doing it without standout players.
Last edited:
Great example, thanks for sharing, that helps me understand your thinking. The guys on that team are what I mean when I say you need really good to great players to make the approach you're describing work.
Cleaves was a three time all american and two time big ten player of the year. MoPete was and AA and actually beat Cleaves out for big ten POY their senior year. These guys were absolute studs.
I'll be honest, I had to look up the other guys because I didn't remember them but Bell played in the NBA. Hutson was drafted in the second round in the NBA and had a long career overseas. Granger was the one guy that I'd classify as just a 'role player'.
If your argument is that Painter would win more games if he had more 6'9" future NBA players on the roster I completely agree. If you're saying that he'd have more tournament success featuring guys like Cleaves and MoPeet versus Edey and two freshman guards, I'm on board. That is in no way the same as saying that Purdue 'just needs more versatile players'. If they can get versatile players that are also just studs I'm all in, but Painter has not been able to consistently land that type of player.
I’m don’t think you fundamentally understand how NIL works. Especially here at Purdue.
How can people say coach will never win a national championship last thing I checked its a lot of coaches who hasn't win a national championship coach painter is finally understanding that it's guards who win national championship s myles Colvin heide kanon catchings fletcher Brandon come on people get real
"If they can get versatile players that are also just studs I'm all in, but Painter has not been able to consistently land that type of player."
I just want CMP to consistently land athletic guards and small forewards.
You want him to land better players. So do I, I’m sure he does too. Athletic guards and wings who aren’t skilled don’t do any good. Everyone wants skilled, athletic guards and wings. He’s starting to land more of them. Hope that becomes a trend.
How do we know all of the NIL comes from Purdue supporters? I mean wouldn't he be just as likely to get a shoe deal or work with some Canadian business since he has name recognition there (and here, for that matter)?
yeh, it doesn't matter where the money comes from, as long as a player's happy and the Purdue NIL is helping facilitate it (since he can't hire an agent.. But, can a player hire a "financial advisor" to work essentially in the same capacity as an agent?).
Colvin, yes. Not sure Loyer and Smith fit that mold of athletic guards and wings. Smith was definitely better than advertised but I'm not sure he's the player a lot of us are describing.
Ivey, Colvin, Catchings and hopefully Heide. I think that Smith and Loyer will be very good but I see them as (hopefully) better versions of the type of guys that MP has been able to get in the past.
Loyer is the same ole same ole type of 3 point specialist painter consistently lands with a limited skill set and athletic ability. Never really do much in march, other than cline. I agree smith was better than advertised. Will be interesting to see how much he is able to improve in his time here. Loyer I’ve seen a hundred times before. He will be a good player for us, but his lack of speed and athleticism will always be a hindrance in the tournament.
Please give a list of ten or so examples of power five schools who are not traditional blue bloods who fired coaches who made it to the NCAAT over 80% of the time and frequently won conference championships. Should be easy given that 'most other schools would have found another coach'?
What gives is that you are repeating yourself over and over and you are entitled to your opinion, but just go away. Go root for IU.
Loyer will have his uniform in rafters when done playing, he will do just fine for us. Will go down with Mount as best shooters to play here.
I have no idea (and neither do you), but that wasn't the question.
How is that list coming of power five schools who are not traditional blue bloods who fired coaches who made it to the NCAAT over 80% of the time and frequently won conference championships?
You want to be treated respectfully and I get that, but either back up your claims or quit saying stupid shit like 'most other schools would have found another coach', which is blatantly untrue.
Agree with that. I like Loyer a lot. I think has has a chance to be a significant upgrade over Mathias, Cline, etc. but AA is a high bar.
This sounds like you are terribly desperate to support your point, so you revert to to this wildly inaccurate back-of-napkin collection of random events and statistics to somehow create the illusion we are going in a direction exactly opposite of where most real experts and most real fans think Purdue is going. How about you give up this soap box for a while and enjoy the off season? Your mental health will improve, I am sure.
How about I give this “trending” analysis a try? For the last ten years Purdue did not have a NPOY. Last year we did. The trend is upward, right? No doubt we will have two NPOY next year, right? Gee, I like this trending stuff 123 introduced.
Peterson, Bell, and Cleaves all played in the NBA.
They were all very high-level college players.
You apparently aren't very good at this trend thing, since you picked one data point and a meaningless one at that. I would say keep trying but I don't think you really tried this time, and you don't seem to understand the term.How about I give this “trending” analysis a try? For the last ten years Purdue did not have a NPOY. Last year we did. The trend is upward, right? No doubt we will have two NPOY next year, right? Gee, I like this trending stuff 123 introduced.
Agree with this. Seems naïve to say that there's no one that could have had more tournament success than Painter. The questions that come to mind for me are:
1) What are the odds of finding that small pool of coaches that could improve performance versus hiring someone who produces worse outcomes? Just as it's naive to say that no one could outperform Painter, it's obtuse to not recognize that there's a high likelihood that a change results in worse results.
2) What are the trade offs that you're willing to make to get to a final four? I would argue that Matt is not 'all in' for NCAAT success, i.e. it's as important for him to maintain a consistent culture, consistently compete for BT championships, etc. How many more losing seasons, missed NCAAT's, fewer BT championships are you willing to endure to take an approach that's less consistent but perhaps has more upside?
100% wrong.
Do you really believe Painter is the best coach Purdue could ever get?
What's your list of traditional blue blood schools?
Why can't Purdue have expectations for tourney success like those schools?
I would hire a new coach today. Give him 6 - 10 years to make the Final Four.
Big Ten regular season success would come along the way. But I would rather
have a coach that builds Purdue to win games in the NCAA Tournament each
year with his "style of play" if even that means winning fewer conference
championships. Besides, regular season conference champions don't even
count anymore because teams don't even play the same teams twice anymore.
Sort of OT, and Apples to Oranges, but imagine being a Boston Bruins fan this morning. Dominated the regular season while setting never reached win and point totals in the process. Start the playoffs as THE number one seed in the Eastern Conference.
The NHL playoffs (of which is my favorite sports tournament) being a best of 7, and not a win and advance 1 game chance. The better team has every chance to win a 7 game series. Boston plays the 8 seed Florida Panthers, and the Panthers push the series to a Game 7 in Boston. FLA takes a 2-0 lead, the Beans come back to take a 3-2 lead. Their house is rocking, but then, FLA ties it in the last minute of regulation and wins in in OT.
In that last 30mins-1 hour of real time, Boston’s 6+ month regular season’s accomplishments meant nothing to Florida. In a league of professional athletes, upsets happen in 7 game series’s.
Unfortunately, we will never know if Purdue would have beat FDU in a 7 game series, after getting woke up in Game 1. My take is Purdue would have won the next 4. But, there are no game 2’s in the NCAA tournament. Somehow, someway, the coaches and players need to find a way to get past this recent, in my mind, mental hurdle of being afraid to play to win and win handily vs underdogs in this tournament.
The NHL playoffs (of which is my favorite sports tournament) being a best of 7, and not a win and advance 1 game chance. The better team has every chance to win a 7 game series. Boston plays the 8 seed Florida Panthers, and the Panthers push the series to a Game 7 in Boston. FLA takes a 2-0 lead, the Beans come back to take a 3-2 lead. Their house is rocking, but then, FLA ties it in the last minute of regulation and wins in in OT.
In that last 30mins-1 hour of real time, Boston’s 6+ month regular season’s accomplishments meant nothing to Florida. In a league of professional athletes, upsets happen in 7 game series’s.
Unfortunately, we will never know if Purdue would have beat FDU in a 7 game series, after getting woke up in Game 1. My take is Purdue would have won the next 4. But, there are no game 2’s in the NCAA tournament. Somehow, someway, the coaches and players need to find a way to get past this recent, in my mind, mental hurdle of being afraid to play to win and win handily vs underdogs in this tournament.
Kansas, UNC, Duke and Kentucky. UCLA and IU are pretenders. UConn probably belongs on the list as well.
Purdue can have those expectations. So can OSU, Michigan, Illinois and the many other schools that every independent source says are easier places to win than Purdue. I've not seen that work out well for most programs.
If it takes us a 7 game series to advance against a 16 seed, then we didn't belong in the tournament.
