Who cares about the past PGs just hope Carsen Edwards isn't. He seems like the PG that would just feast on a defense in transition but he isn't going to get any of those opportunities at Purdue.
PG Justin Coleman
- Thread starter PaBoiler78
- Start date
What are you talking about? There's nobody being "held back" that SHOULD NOT be held back.
Bryson Scott made some of the dumbest moves I've ever seen trying to push things in transition. In his two years, he had as many turnovers as assists and shot 37% from the field (and that's with hardly any 3s). That's why he was "held back"...
Ronnie Johnson...I don't even need to go there.
Who's being "held back"?
I'm just saying Carsen is a PG who would be great in transition and we all know that he won't get many opportunities in transition. That's not really being held back just the system isn't meant to play in transition.
This simply isn't true. If we have a guard, or anyone for that matter, that can push the pace and not turn the ball over, he would/will be allowed to do it. There is nothing about CMP that would suggest he wouldn't let a player push the pace. Lewjack did it a lot.
Lew Jack didn't play with Haas. The old teams didn't focus on feeding the post so much.
I'm not suggesting that when we get into the half court our offense won't emphasize the post play. What I am saying is that if CE shows he can be effective pushing the ball off of steals/defensive rebounds, CMP will let him do so.
There is nothing inherent about the system that prevents running. The Baby Boilers were excellent in transition. Purdue didn't really have great personel to run this past year, but that might change somewhat, especially if Smotherman gets into the rotation.
Many of the players in the past had a green light if "the transition was there" and will in the future. However, they won't have the green light if it is not there more often than not. Matt has never slowed down a player going with odds in his favor unless the clock was much more critical. Now I do think it is safe to say that Matt is cautious about shooting the three in transition as a function of his and the other team's personnel. The 2007 Boilers were very loose with shooting the ball...and to a degree it was that way when Purdue had to play small ball the next few years. It only started to change when AJ became a valuable piece and with Haas that will continue when he is on the floor. Every coach wants to steal some easy points...
Painter will run if he has the players. Remember when we played Baylor in the tourney and everyone thought they would run us off the floor. Well, Painter played transition ball with them and we blew them out.
Even in this years tourney game, he was trying to run but we don't have the PG to run transition and set up guys like Dakota or Cline for the transition 3. Plus, we would wear down our own bigs.
That is a function of recruiting, rather than how point guards are used at Purdue. Purdue hasn't had a college point guard in the system with NBA potential during that time period.
I agree with you but you could also argue chicken/egg with this. But, I don't think Keady or Painter put their PGs in a position to showcase the skills the NBA is looking for either.
This is probably a deficiency in their coaching/recruiting considering it's the most important position on the floor.
There's not that many 1 or 2 dimensional PGs in the NBA, most can dribble, pass, penetrate and shoot. They have the complete package.
Keady/Painter either haven't tried or haven't succeeded (again, probably based on how the position is used in their offense) in landing those complete package PGs.
I think Keady would have been able to put Willie Deane at the 1 his junior and senior seasons, but went with Austin Parkinson and Brandon McKnight instead. He could have tweaked the offense towards its personnel instead of believing that Deane HAD to play the 2 because he was a more aggressive scoring threat. The same goes for Painter with E'Twaun Moore in his final two seasons instead of always going with Lewis Jackson (hurt doing most of Moore's junior season), Keaton Grant (he was actually a scoring PG his sophomore season: kudos to Painter on that lineup), or Kelsey Barlow. I just believe that having the offense operate in a fixed way often times (not always, but more often than not) holds backs the scoring abilities of the backcourt players (particularly when there's multiple playmakers on any given Purdue roster that can play the 1 or 2).
Everette Stephens, Willie Deane, E'Twaun Moore: or do you not believe that any of them were "true" point guards?
Stephens wasn't in the past 20 years. Neither Deane nor Moore played point guard at Purdue. I specifically stated college point guards. Moore developed point guard skills playing the two at Purdue, however.
I was talking about Painter, so I'll leave Deane out of this.
If you are saying that E'Twaun Moore was held back by Painter, I have to disagree. He scored 2000 points in his Purdue career and developed point guard skills that are now serving him well in the NBA.
Not when I watched. They had a really quick point guard. Moore's handle needed a lot of work when he arrived at Purdue.
I'm saying the Purdue offense might have been more efficient (I'll use the '09-'10 season as an example) if you use the three guard lineup a different way by having Moore as the 1, Grant as the 2, and Kramer as the 3 by default. Then they would have the ball in the best scorer's hands more than anyone else's instead of sharing it as much with Grant, Kramer, Jackson (when he was healthy), and so on. So, I do think the Keady/Painter style of motion offense holds back the personnel in certain years moreso than others.
My recollection of E'Twaun was that he was much better when he didn't try to force his offense. (A good example of him forcing his offense would be in the 2010 Big Ten Tournament game against Minnesota after Robbie went down.) I really think that a big part of the reason that E'Twaun has had success in the NBA is that he learned how to let the game come to him as he plays off of his teammates.
1. Why go back 20 years if we are really focused on Painter's motion offense. It is not the same offense Keady used, so I don't think there is much continuity involved.
2. Why doesn't Moore count? Seems like he learned enough in Painter's offense to be an effective NBA Starting Point Guard. Humm? I guess it just doesn't fit the agenda very well.
How about Grant and Kramer, both of them played PG at times, and both went to semi-pros as PG's. LewJack was simply too short to play professional ball in the NBA.
I might add - edit - the motion offense requires smart players. In general, players that come out of this program have a solid knowledge of how basketball is played. They tend to be able to take that knowledge to the next level, if they have the physical skills. That is why you see freshmen often struggle in Painter's offense, and then suddenly accerate as they begin to understand the play on the court. From many aspects, Painter's motion offense is ideal for future NBA players. I know this might be the opposite of your theory.
Last edited:
Moore was not a PG at PU. He was a 2 guard. Period. I think if you asked Painter if Moore was a PG at PU, he'd disagree.1. Why go back 20 years if we are really focused on Painter's motion offense. It is not the same offense Keady used, so I don't think there is much continuity involved.
2. Why doesn't Moore count? Seems like he learned enough in Painter's offense to be an effective NBA Starting Point Guard. Humm? I guess it just doesn't fit the agenda very well.
How about Grant and Kramer, both of them played PG at times, and both went to semi-pros as PG's. LewJack was simply too short to play professional ball in the NBA.
I might add - edit - the motion offense requires smart players. In general, players that come out of this program have a solid knowledge of how basketball is played. They tend to be able to take that knowledge to the next level, if they have the physical skills. That is why you see freshmen often struggle in Painter's offense, and then suddenly accerate as they begin to understand the play on the court. From many aspects, Painter's motion offense is ideal for future NBA players. I know this might be the opposite of your theory.
As for Kramer and Grant, playing D league, Europe or 'semi-pro', whatever that is, is not the NBA.
Neither of them were NBA caliber, not even close. Don't kid yourself. Hard workers, good college players...no doubt, but not close to NBA talent.
Face it. No PU pg has made it to the NBA in 25 years. Coincidently, PU hasn't been in a Final four in over 30 years? Does that tell you anything?
not to debate you on PG importance but to expand on something most people miss. You implied causal relationships with , "No PU pg has made it to the NBA in 25 years. Coincidently, PU hasn't been in a Final four in over 30 years? Does that tell you anything?" but "correlated" events are not necessarily causal. I can correlate the DUIs in Bloomington with the pizza eaten in West Lafayette, but one doesn't necessarily cause the other.
What are you getting out of this?
1 out of 5 NBA players never played college basketball.
Purdue has 2 current NBA players.
Washington has 8 current NBA players - what the hell have they done? They haven't been past the Sweet 16 since 1953.
There are plenty of very good college players that do not make the NBA, period. It's a tough league to make it in. Picking some arbitrary benchmark for whether you've had a good player at a position is not really worth anyone's time.
Bingo. Love the guy, but I think Davis set a record for number of lay-ups missed in a college career.
The guys who can do it have the green light.
It tells me you are partially correct. Purdue has not had sufficient talent season after season to make it to the final four. There are years they failed due to bad luck and others due to point play. Some were lack of perimeter shooting while others could not rebound well or score on the block. It's not just one position.
But, for you math and statistics guy, if you were to build a graph indicating the number of players in the NBA and a schools consistent success in the tourney, I think you'd find a very strong correlation.
I think you'd also find the same thing with teams that consistently put PGs in the NBA. Now granted, you're going to have some blue blood programs (UK, Duke, etc) that put all position in the NBA but I'm talking specifically about the PG position.
But, the fact remains, PU hasn't been to the FF in 30 years. Is it all just bad luck?
So, you are saying Painter adaped his style of play to the players he has? Is that an issue or is that a positive? I just confused about all this "Painter is so stubborn" and "Painter won't adapt" talk.
First he can't recruit any bigs because we don't feed the post (3-4 years ago). Then it is he can't recruit guards 'cause he feeds the post alll the time (More recent). I wish we could make up our collective mind on what criticism we think works, since it's obvious (TIC) that Painter never changes.
Bulldog - those are great charts! Wonderful! It does point out how easy it is to make incorrect correlations.
However, I do think the lack of high-end talent guards has hampered Purdue in the past, so I do think there is some correlation. I argue with Bonefish sometimes, but he is sniffing around a reasonable correlation. I think his reasoning about why we don't have those guards is spurious.
Well if bad luck prevented Purdue from getting to the Final Four in even one of those 30 years, then I suppose you could say it is.
Again we need to differentiate between correlations that are causal and those that are not. A correlation closer to 0 suggests no relationship, but a high correlation such as .7 for some things may or may not be causal and if causal only explains half the response (x**1/2). Guards are important particularly in close games as they have the ball and do not need to receive the ball to make a play many times, but other players are important as and they could be correlated as well. I do think the rules the last two years do increase the importance of good guards...
ray shot 38% as a senior...taadaa. stats are fun when we make them say what we want.
My argument is that Keady, and now possibly Painter, recruit a certain type of PG. Of course, every college coach would like to have a 4 tool PG, but it seems like both of them put more value on a PG who can play D, and simply 'manage' the offense than someone who can create, penetrate, etc.
Of course, that also has to do with the personnel you have in the lane, and Painter also has to be willing to tolerate the learning curve of what a guy like Scott can do at the college level compared to what he was able to do at the high school level, ie; driving the lane without a plan B.
I think we saw MP become a lot more tolerant of talent when it came to Biggie this year. Not often did Biggie get yanked for an ill advised 3 or poor decision on offense. But, I think MP was very limited in the rope he was willing to give Scott.
I just don't see evidence that Painter hasn't wanted a point guard who can create. LewJack was recruited for his ability to penetrate and create. They might have failed to work out, but RJ and Scott were recruited for this reason as well. Painter has offered a number of point guards with tremendous ability to create, but they chose to go elsewhere. PJ wasn't offered until the Spring of his senior year because Painter recognized his limitations.
How do you reconcile the above statement with the fact that Matt Painter flew to Europe while recruiting Chasson Randle and pursued Jalen Brunson very hard as well.
You can argue that Matt Painter's scheme isn't friendly to these types of PG's, but you certainly can't say he doesn't recruit them. And given how many pick and rolls Matt Painter ran with Smooge and JJ, I'm not convinced he wouldn't make an elite PG a centerpiece of the offense either. He just needs to get that message across.
I think we are getting to a "Chicken and egg" discussion. Does Matt coach the PG to not drive into the lane, so driving PG's don't come to Purdue, or does the lack of skilled PG cause Matt to coach that way.
From what I have seen over the 11 years he has coached, Painter adapts to the personell he can talk into coming to Purdue. Like you, I think if he can get a good one, we will see plaenty of penetration and scoring inside by our PG.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Marshall at Purdue: MASTER DISCUSSION THREAD- Latest: Purdue Grad in Texas
-
-
