PG Justin Coleman

[bonefish1]

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.

I agree with you on both RJ and Scott. They both were more of the type of PG most of us would like to see as far as ballhandling and creating, but, both are gone. Why? Did they not adjust to the system or did Painter not adjust to their strengths Did MP not maximize their talents or Did he limit what they were able to do and do well? Did they feel like they were being underutilized? We don't know because we don't know what went on behind closed doors in the conversations that led to the transfer. We can speculate though.
And, for top tier PGs looking at programs, do you think a 4-5* PG is going to look at Painter and say "that guy can help me get to the NBA".

 

[boilerzz]

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.

Absolutely. I've seen some pretty distinct differences in the offense that we ran with:

• Landry and Teague when they were healthy
• Smooge and JJ as upperclassmen
• Hammons/Haas

Those differences were driven by leveraging the strengths of those players. If Painter can lure a dynamic PG (or if Edwards fulfills that role), we'll see some changes again. Painter isn't stupid (contrary to what some believe).

 

[bonefish1]

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'm not saying he doesn't go after then. We've probably finished a close 2nd a number of times for some really good PGs.
But, I think Painter's developing a reputation as running a PG unfriendly system. We saw it on social media with RJ and Walker.
Now, how does he turn that perception around? Not sure. I guess he just has to find a guy that will have faith in what Painter is selling him on.

 

[boilerzz]

I agree with you on both RJ and Scott. They both were more of the type of PG most of us would like to see as far as ballhandling and creating, but, both are gone. Why? Did they not adjust to the system or did Painter not adjust to their strengths Did MP not maximize their talents or Did he limit what they were able to do and do well? Did they feel like they were being underutilized? We don't know because we don't know what went on behind closed doors in the conversations that led to the transfer. We can speculate though.
And, for top tier PGs looking at programs, do you think a 4-5* PG is going to look at Painter and say "that guy can help me get to the NBA".

They are both gone for different reasons.

RJ had his dad in his ear telling him to get his at the expense of the team and Painter isn't a guy that will tolerate that. Therefore, the writing was on the wall.

Scott was a poor fit and not nearly as good as his rating. He was really a 6'2 two guard with no outside shot. He may have evolved into a player that could be successful in the Big Ten but he took the easy way out and transferred (which he has publicly stated he regrets).

 

[Dakota Girl]

I'm not saying he doesn't go after then. We've probably finished a close 2nd a number of times for some really good PGs.
But, I think Painter's developing a reputation as running a PG unfriendly system. We saw it on social media with RJ and Walker.
Now, how does he turn that perception around? Not sure. I guess he just has to find a guy that will have faith in what Painter is selling him on.

Im hoping that Carsen is that player. If he can shoot like he did in high the school he will get driving opportunities. What happens from there, can he finish/distribute, will be the key. When do those abilities develop enough to help, this year, next year? I'm if it happens for him he could be the one that opens the door to recruit that position more effectively.

 

[mathboy]

I'm not saying he doesn't go after then. We've probably finished a close 2nd a number of times for some really good PGs.
But, I think Painter's developing a reputation as running a PG unfriendly system. We saw it on social media with RJ and Walker.
Now, how does he turn that perception around? Not sure. I guess he just has to find a guy that will have faith in what Painter is selling him on.

Let me pose an alternative perspective. I happen to think a PG must understand the game deeper and more thoroughly than any other player on the court. That is the true development of a PG - understanding the game, knowing the defense, knowing who is open when, knowing when to shoot and when to pass, etc. Of course the kid has to have the rerequisite skills like good handles and a good shot. Those are individually developed skills. What a coach can do for a PG is to teach him the GAME.

If you look at PG development in that light, then you can recognize that the motion offense taught by Painter allows maximum flexibility for players, but forces them to learn the game. That is why a player like Moore, who had good handles and a good shot, can move into an NBA starting role as a PG. He learned the game from his time at Purdue.

I find more credibility in Moore's actual development as a PG than in some pine-riding kid's post on the social media. That is especially true when you consider that this kid still hasn't learned the game. He still thinks it is all about "sause" or some other nonsense. That was Sccott's problem too.

 

[bonefish1]

Let me pose an alternative perspective. I happen to think a PG must understand the game deeper and more thoroughly than any other player on the court. That is the true development of a PG - understanding the game, knowing the defense, knowing who is open when, knowing when to shoot and when to pass, etc. Of course the kid has to have the rerequisite skills like good handles and a good shot. Those are individually developed skills. What a coach can do for a PG is to teach him the GAME.

If you look at PG development in that light, then you can recognize that the motion offense taught by Painter allows maximum flexibility for players, but forces them to learn the game. That is why a player like Moore, who had good handles and a good shot, can move into an NBA starting role as a PG. He learned the game from his time at Purdue.

I find more credibility in Moore's actual development as a PG than in some pine-riding kid's post on the social media. That is especially true when you consider that this kid still hasn't learned the game. He still thinks it is all about "sause" or some other nonsense. That was Sccott's problem too.

I think you're making it a little more cerebral than it actually is. What does 'understanding the game' mean anyways?
When I played ball, it wasn't like a chess match. You found what you did better than your opponent and you tried to exploit that while trying to limit them doing the same thing to you. It's the same whether you're playing at the Co-rec or in Mackey. It aint that tough.
It really comes down to talent. Sure, you can 'outcoach' your opponent now and again, but over the course of time, the more talent is going to end up winning.
As someone once said, "it's not about the X's and the O's, it's about the Jimmy's and the Joe's."

 

[lbodel]

I agree with you on both RJ and Scott. They both were more of the type of PG most of us would like to see as far as ballhandling and creating, but, both are gone. Why? Did they not adjust to the system or did Painter not adjust to their strengths Did MP not maximize their talents or Did he limit what they were able to do and do well? Did they feel like they were being underutilized? We don't know because we don't know what went on behind closed doors in the conversations that led to the transfer. We can speculate though.
And, for top tier PGs looking at programs, do you think a 4-5* PG is going to look at Painter and say "that guy can help me get to the NBA".

Is it really a mystery at this point in time why RJ and Bryson left?

RJ "left" because he was a self-centered ballhog.

Bryson has explicitly said he wished he didn't transfer, but did so because at the time he thought he deserved more PT (which his play on the court wasn't deserving of at the time).

None of this is a mystery.

 

[mathboy]

I think you're making it a little more cerebral than it actually is. What does 'understanding the game' mean anyways?
When I played ball, it wasn't like a chess match. You found what you did better than your opponent and you tried to exploit that while trying to limit them doing the same thing to you. It's the same whether you're playing at the Co-rec or in Mackey. It aint that tough.
It really comes down to talent. Sure, you can 'outcoach' your opponent now and again, but over the course of time, the more talent is going to end up winning.
As someone once said, "it's not about the X's and the O's, it's about the Jimmy's and the Joe's."

So, you are dismissing the impact of the coach? I thought your perspective was that Painter's offense was "unfriendly" to PG's? Now it is all about talent and not coaching? Humm???

I still think the PG is a cerebral position, but that;s just my take.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

I agree with you on both RJ and Scott. They both were more of the type of PG most of us would like to see as far as ballhandling and creating, but, both are gone. Why? Did they not adjust to the system or did Painter not adjust to their strengths Did MP not maximize their talents or Did he limit what they were able to do and do well? Did they feel like they were being underutilized? We don't know because we don't know what went on behind closed doors in the conversations that led to the transfer. We can speculate though.
And, for top tier PGs looking at programs, do you think a 4-5* PG is going to look at Painter and say "that guy can help me get to the NBA".

The interesting thing about RJ is that he trashed Painter for his system, both publicly and to other point guard prospects, but then went down to play for Kelvin Sampson at Houston and had no more success than he had as Purdue. He could have been a very good player, but he wasn't coachable, especially when his father got in his ear.

Scott was just a disappointment. When he committed to Purdue early he was a top 50 player, but he gradually slid in the rankings in high school and then at Purdue he struggled on both ends of the court. Why it never clicked with him, I can't really explain.

 

[tjreese]

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.

not too many coaches prevent a player from doing what that player is good at doing. Why would they?

 

[Dakota Girl]

I think you're making it a little more cerebral than it actually is. What does 'understanding the game' mean anyways?
When I played ball, it wasn't like a chess match. You found what you did better than your opponent and you tried to exploit that while trying to limit them doing the same thing to you. It's the same whether you're playing at the Co-rec or in Mackey. It aint that tough.
It really comes down to talent. Sure, you can 'outcoach' your opponent now and again, but over the course of time, the more talent is going to end up winning.
As someone once said, "it's not about the X's and the O's, it's about the Jimmy's and the Joe's."

Bone, I see systems which are set play driven and the game is called by the coach that require little cerebral capability from the point. Just enough to know the steps of the play. There are dribble drive and kick systems that require even less mental aptitude. Then there are the motion offenses which require the point (and others) to understand a set of rules for each position and what each position will do based on what the defense does at any given moment. It is a chess match and a low basketball IQ point guard will not succeed in it.
As for co-rec to Mackey being mentally equivalent, well I see what your getting at, basketball is basketball, but I don't completely agree. Each level of play demands more and more be grasped by the players and the physical capability increase complicates it even more. This just how I see it.

 

[bonefish1]

not too many coaches prevent a player from doing what that player is good at doing. Why would they?

That's the point I'm trying to make!
Particularly with Scott, but with RJ to an extent. I read things on here about a player being 'uncoachable' or not buying into the system or something 'not clicking'.

For example, take Scott. Painter isn't going to bring in Scott and ask him to be a spot up shooter, that's not his strength. We know his strength is pushing the ball, penetrating, yes, even playing a little out of control and just trying to make things happen.
But when Painter says "I want you to stop doing that, and do this"
Scott probably said, "But Coach, 'that' is what I'm good at. That's where I can beat the other team. That's my strength".

With a young player like there, the coach has to be willing to take the good with the bad. For every great move, you have to be willing to accept a turnover or whatever as part of the learning process for that player.

See where I'm going with this? Now, obviously I'm speculating, we all are. But that's how my guess is that the situation played out. The player had one idea of how to play, the coach had another and the two couldn't come to terms on that.

I'm not saying just let a player do whatever he wants (I'm sure Haas would love to come down and start jacking up 3's), but let a player use his talent, don't try to make a player fit the system if the system doesn't play to his strengths, especially a PG.

 

[TC4THREE]

That's the point I'm trying to make!
Particularly with Scott, but with RJ to an extent. I read things on here about a player being 'uncoachable' or not buying into the system or something 'not clicking'.

For example, take Scott. Painter isn't going to bring in Scott and ask him to be a spot up shooter, that's not his strength. We know his strength is pushing the ball, penetrating, yes, even playing a little out of control and just trying to make things happen.
But when Painter says "I want you to stop doing that, and do this"
Scott probably said, "But Coach, 'that' is what I'm good at. That's where I can beat the other team. That's my strength".

With a young player like there, the coach has to be willing to take the good with the bad. For every great move, you have to be willing to accept a turnover or whatever as part of the learning process for that player.

See where I'm going with this? Now, obviously I'm speculating, we all are. But that's how my guess is that the situation played out. The player had one idea of how to play, the coach had another and the two couldn't come to terms on that.

I'm not saying just let a player do whatever he wants (I'm sure Haas would love to come down and start jacking up 3's), but let a player use his talent, don't try to make a player fit the system if the system doesn't play to his strengths, especially a PG.

Were you one of the people that were upset with Painter for telling Stephens to quit taking bad shots?

 

[mathboy]

That's the point I'm trying to make!
Particularly with Scott, but with RJ to an extent. I read things on here about a player being 'uncoachable' or not buying into the system or something 'not clicking'.

For example, take Scott. Painter isn't going to bring in Scott and ask him to be a spot up shooter, that's not his strength. We know his strength is pushing the ball, penetrating, yes, even playing a little out of control and just trying to make things happen.
But when Painter says "I want you to stop doing that, and do this"
Scott probably said, "But Coach, 'that' is what I'm good at. That's where I can beat the other team. That's my strength".

With a young player like there, the coach has to be willing to take the good with the bad. For every great move, you have to be willing to accept a turnover or whatever as part of the learning process for that player.

See where I'm going with this? Now, obviously I'm speculating, we all are. But that's how my guess is that the situation played out. The player had one idea of how to play, the coach had another and the two couldn't come to terms on that.

I'm not saying just let a player do whatever he wants (I'm sure Haas would love to come down and start jacking up 3's), but let a player use his talent, don't try to make a player fit the system if the system doesn't play to his strengths, especially a PG.

"Coach, you should let me drive to the hoop everytime, 'cause that's what I'm good at!"

Not going to happen on ANY college team. No high school kid is going to come in and tell the coach how he (the player) is going to play. This is the "cerebral" aspect I was talking about. No matter how good a players is at some aspect of the game, you can't win games playing that way. See RJ's years at Purdue as a perfect example of playing only to a kid's strenghts.

The kid has to understand when to do different plays. That is what RJ, Scott, and to some degree, Stevens struggles with. It's not the how or what. It is the when. That is why some might say these kids struggle with being coached. They don't exercise good judgement. They don't understand the cerebral aspect of the game.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

That's the point I'm trying to make!
Particularly with Scott, but with RJ to an extent. I read things on here about a player being 'uncoachable' or not buying into the system or something 'not clicking'.

For example, take Scott. Painter isn't going to bring in Scott and ask him to be a spot up shooter, that's not his strength. We know his strength is pushing the ball, penetrating, yes, even playing a little out of control and just trying to make things happen.
But when Painter says "I want you to stop doing that, and do this"
Scott probably said, "But Coach, 'that' is what I'm good at. That's where I can beat the other team. That's my strength".

With a young player like there, the coach has to be willing to take the good with the bad. For every great move, you have to be willing to accept a turnover or whatever as part of the learning process for that player.

See where I'm going with this? Now, obviously I'm speculating, we all are. But that's how my guess is that the situation played out. The player had one idea of how to play, the coach had another and the two couldn't come to terms on that.

I'm not saying just let a player do whatever he wants (I'm sure Haas would love to come down and start jacking up 3's), but let a player use his talent, don't try to make a player fit the system if the system doesn't play to his strengths, especially a PG.

It sounds like you are advocating putting the players on the court and letting them do whatever they want without ever receiving correction. I know that's not what you are really saying, but it reads that way.

Take RJ, for example. Most fans thought that Painter gave RJ too much freedom. RJ made a lot of mental mistakes, but he was never benched and he led the team in minutes while at Purdue. RJ regularly forced plays that weren't there, but Painter was very patient with him. Still, RJ could not handle the correction that he did receive, which is why I call him uncoachable. If his issues were caused by Painter over-coaching him, I think that he would have done better at Houston.

In Scott's case, he was a huge liability on the court. When a team is trying to play cohesive defense, but one guy is on a completely different page than any of his teammates, the whole scheme breaks down. Painter owed it to his players to play guys like Octeus who could be trusted to be where he is supposed to be. I don't think that this is demanding too much. Izzo, Calipari, Coach K, or any other coach would have the same basic expectations.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

"Coach, you should let me drive to the hoop everytime, 'cause that's what I'm good at!"

Not going to happen on ANY college team. No high school kid is going to come in and tell the coach how he (the player) is going to play. This is the "cerebral" aspect I was talking about. No matter how good at some aspect of the game some kid is, you can't win games playing that way. See RJ's years at Purdue.

The kid has to understand when to do different plays. That is what RJ, Scott and to some degree, Stevens struggles with. It's not the how or what. It is the when. That is why some might say these kids struggle with being coached. They don't exercise good judgement - the cerebral part of the game.

I mostly disagree on Stephens, particularly down the stretch this year. He was obviously very concerned about doing what he was supposed to be doing and I thought that his decision making was solid. He clearly was struggling, but I think that his biggest issue was that he was doubting himself.

 

[mathboy]

I mostly disagree on Stephens, particularly down the stretch this year. He was obviously very concerned about doing what he was supposed to be doing and I thought that his decision making was solid. He clearly was struggling, but I think that his biggest issue was that he was doubting himself.

I agree with your assessment on Stevens. He was trying hard to follow the direction Matt was giving him. I think he will be successful in the Purdue system, but only if he can get his shooting 'mojo' back. That will take some time and lots of game time to do. He might have trouble getting the court time.

IMHO, Mathias is a better passer and maybe as good a shooter. Cline is a better shooter with a much quicker release. That puts Stevens as third, based on his physical skills. I don't know if he will tolerate that. Now, because he is a senior, Painter might start him in some of the pre-season games, so that might be enough for him to win or lose a starting position.

 

[tjreese]

That's the point I'm trying to make!
Particularly with Scott, but with RJ to an extent. I read things on here about a player being 'uncoachable' or not buying into the system or something 'not clicking'.

For example, take Scott. Painter isn't going to bring in Scott and ask him to be a spot up shooter, that's not his strength. We know his strength is pushing the ball, penetrating, yes, even playing a little out of control and just trying to make things happen.
But when Painter says "I want you to stop doing that, and do this"
Scott probably said, "But Coach, 'that' is what I'm good at. That's where I can beat the other team. That's my strength".

With a young player like there, the coach has to be willing to take the good with the bad. For every great move, you have to be willing to accept a turnover or whatever as part of the learning process for that player.

See where I'm going with this? Now, obviously I'm speculating, we all are. But that's how my guess is that the situation played out. The player had one idea of how to play, the coach had another and the two couldn't come to terms on that.

I'm not saying just let a player do whatever he wants (I'm sure Haas would love to come down and start jacking up 3's), but let a player use his talent, don't try to make a player fit the system if the system doesn't play to his strengths, especially a PG.

I understand exactly what you are saying...and the coach must put the best team out on the floor...and that could be different roles and expectations for each person. However each person is confined or encouraged to do more must be in consideration as to what produces the best team. I think Matt saw a Big body, quick lateral feet and an ability to slash. I suspect he thought he could and would want to use those physical traits to become a PG where he was primarily a 2 in high school and definitely had a 2 mindset. Who knows what went wrong? I know this...it wasn't the physical attributes that kept him off the floor.

 

[bonefish1]

Well, the bottom line to all this is why hasn't MP been able to land PGs who were good enough to play in the NBA? NBA level PG talent is going to lead to FF and national championships. Is that an absolute, no, but we haven't been to a FF in 30 years and not put more than 1 PG in the NBA in that same timeframe. So, I'm sticking to that there being a string correlation.
Is is the system?
Is it Painter?
Is it the D first mentality?

 

[proudopete]

How many BIgten teams have put point guards in the NBA in the last 30 years?

I don't recall many from B1G teams. Even Etwaun was a 2 or 3 at Purdue.

 

[boilerzz]

How many BIgten teams have put point guards in the NBA in the last 30 years?

I don't recall many from B1G teams. Even Etwaun was a 2 or 3 at Purdue.

MSU, OSU, Illinois and Michigan for sure off the top of my head.

 

[Purdue Grad in Texas]

How many BIgten teams have put point guards in the NBA in the last 30 years?

I don't recall many from B1G teams. Even Etwaun was a 2 or 3 at Purdue.

Illinois - Deron Williams

Michigan - Trey Burke

were first two off the top of my head.....

 

[BoilerDaddy]

MSU, OSU, Illinois and Michigan for sure off the top of my head.

Connelly, Williams, and Burke were good ones, but only one of the three is in the past 9 seasons.

As far as MSU, it's been 16 years since Cleaves went to the NBA and he had a marginal career at that. Izzo must be doing something wrong. (I don't believe that by the way. Izzo is great, but NBA point guards are few and far between.)

 

[purdue4sure]

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.

This.

What were these same people saying about RJ, TJ, and Scott driving into the lane? MP obviously wasn't coaching them not to do it.

 

[purdue4sure]

The interesting thing about RJ is that he trashed Painter for his system, both publicly and to other point guard prospects, but then went down to play for Kelvin Sampson at Houston and had no more success than he had as Purdue.

Based on the stats that he cared most about, he had LESS success in Houston.

 

[BoilerFan#35]

This.

What were these same people saying about RJ, TJ, and Scott driving into the lane? MP obviously wasn't coaching them not to do it.

You must not of watched Terone his Sophomore year. He played extremely well when he had shooters to open the lanes for him. His last two years though his teams sucked from outside shooting and that's why he wasn't that effective. I will never get why people bash TJ on here. He was a 100% Boiler so don't punish him because his brother transfered.

 

[nagemj02]

How many BIgten teams have put point guards in the NBA in the last 30 years?

I don't recall many from B1G teams. Even Etwaun was a 2 or 3 at Purdue.

Going into the '15-'16 season, off the top of my head:

Illinois: Stephen Bardo, Kendall Gill, Kiwane Garris, Frank Williams, Deron Williams, Dee Brown (he and DW shared the 1)
Indiana: Steve Alford, A.J. Guyton, Eric Gordon, Jordan Crawford (played one season there before transferring)
Iowa: B.J. Armstrong
Maryland: Steve Francis, Steve Blake
Michigan: Gary Grant, Rumeal Robinson, Jalen Rose, Manny Harris, Darius Morris, Trey Burke
Michigan State: Scott Skiles, Steve Smith, Eric Snow, Mateen Cleaves, Draymond Green, Gary Harris
Minnesota: Melvin Newbern, Bobby Jackson
Nebraska: Erick Strickland, Tyronn Lue
Northwestern: can't think of any
Ohio State: Mike Conley, Jr., Evan Turner
Penn State: Tim Frazier
Purdue: Everette Stephens, E'Twaun Moore
Rutgers: Quincy Douby
Wisconsin: Kirk Penney, Devin Harris

Some of them are more 2's (or 3's and 4's) than 1's, but they all played as the 1 at some point for their college programs and they were all on an NBA roster for, at the least, one full season.

 

[Dryfly88]

Going into the '15-'16 season, off the top of my head:

Illinois: Stephen Bardo, Kendall Gill, Kiwane Garris, Frank Williams, Deron Williams, Dee Brown (he and DW shared the 1)
Indiana: Steve Alford, A.J. Guyton, Eric Gordon, Jordan Crawford (played one season there before transferring)
Iowa: B.J. Armstrong
Maryland: Steve Francis, Steve Blake
Michigan: Gary Grant, Rumeal Robinson, Jalen Rose, Manny Harris, Darius Morris, Trey Burke
Michigan State: Scott Skiles, Steve Smith, Eric Snow, Mateen Cleaves, Draymond Green, Gary Harris
Minnesota: Melvin Newbern, Bobby Jackson
Nebraska: Erick Strickland, Tyronn Lue
Northwestern: can't think of any
Ohio State: Mike Conley, Jr., Evan Turner
Penn State: Tim Frazier
Purdue: Everette Stephens, E'Twaun Moore
Rutgers: Quincy Douby
Wisconsin: Kirk Penney, Devin Harris

Some of them are more 2's (or 3's and 4's) than 1's, but they all played as the 1 at some point for their college programs and they were all on an NBA roster for, at the least, one full season.

If that is truly "off the top of your head", you have the best basketball memory of anyone I know.

Some of those names bring back some nightmares!

 

[BoilerDaddy]

Going into the '15-'16 season, off the top of my head:

Illinois: Stephen Bardo, Kendall Gill, Kiwane Garris, Frank Williams, Deron Williams, Dee Brown (he and DW shared the 1)
Indiana: Steve Alford, A.J. Guyton, Eric Gordon, Jordan Crawford (played one season there before transferring)
Iowa: B.J. Armstrong
Maryland: Steve Francis, Steve Blake
Michigan: Gary Grant, Rumeal Robinson, Jalen Rose, Manny Harris, Darius Morris, Trey Burke
Michigan State: Scott Skiles, Steve Smith, Eric Snow, Mateen Cleaves, Draymond Green, Gary Harris
Minnesota: Melvin Newbern, Bobby Jackson
Nebraska: Erick Strickland, Tyronn Lue
Northwestern: can't think of any
Ohio State: Mike Conley, Jr., Evan Turner
Penn State: Tim Frazier
Purdue: Everette Stephens, E'Twaun Moore
Rutgers: Quincy Douby
Wisconsin: Kirk Penney, Devin Harris

Some of them are more 2's (or 3's and 4's) than 1's, but they all played as the 1 at some point for their college programs and they were all on an NBA roster for, at the least, one full season.

Nicely done. One name that is obviously missing is DeAngelo Russell, but good list overall. So, if the list were trimmed down to players who entered college on or after 06, Painter's first year, and played point guard in the NBA, I think the list would look something like this (ranked by approximately how good they have been in the NBA):

Conley,Jr
Russell
Burke
Moore
Frazier
Morris

Who am I missing?

 

[gelesen]

Everyone is always upset about these "great" players transferring and how CMP wasted their talent, etc. It that is true it would then seem to logically follow that when they transfer other programs would be knocking down their door to get them to sign with them. But that hasn't been the case. I think almost always these cases are totally on the player and their inability to be a true team player and buy into the big picture.

 

[nagemj02]

Nicely done. One name that is obviously missing is DeAngelo Russell, but good list overall. So, if the list were trimmed down to players who entered college on or after 06, Painter's first year, and played point guard in the NBA, I think the list would look something like this (ranked by approximately how good they have been in the NBA):

Conley,Jr
Russell
Burke
Moore
Frazier
Morris

Who am I missing?

That's right, I forgot Russell, the most recent example.

Dryfly, I might have double-checked on some of those guys to make sure whether or not they ever played in the NBA, haha. One past B1G PG I was surprised never played in the NBA was Andre Woolridge, who played his freshman season at Nebraska ('92-'93) and his final three at Iowa. I just remember he was really good his senior season.

 

[purdue4sure]

You must not of watched Terone his Sophomore year. He played extremely well when he had shooters to open the lanes for him. His last two years though his teams sucked from outside shooting and that's why he wasn't that effective. I will never get why people bash TJ on here. He was a 100% Boiler so don't punish him because his brother transfered.

Wasn't bashing TJ. I liked both TJ and Scott. If you look at what I was responding to, you'll see that I was questioning those who are complaining that MP hasn't recruited players who drive the lane. All three of the players I mentioned did just that. And yes, people bashed them for it.