PG position....

[rwenger]

I know it's spilt milk, but if we had B. MacIntosh of NW, all conversation about PG would cease. In fact, if there were 1 player in Big 10 I'd like to have, it would be Bryant. Perfect complement to this team.

 

[Casey and his Brother]

It should also be noted that with Purdue's motion offense, PG is not as critical. That being said, it's still a position on the court out of 5 that we have a player at, so it can't be meaningless.

I think both guys have struggled at times to find their way. That's ok. As others have mentioned, I think PJ's issue is more decision making. When we have been winding down on the shot clock and the ball is in PJ's hands, we haven't had a lot of success (he has made some last second passes to a guy that's not in the greatest position - a game of hot potato basically). And as others have mentioned as well, Hill has had the right mentality of trying to create offense. Hill actually is shooting 70% on the season - on not a ton of shots - but that's still solid. His issue has more so been turnovers. But it makes sense - all but 1 of his shots are within the arc and 26/39 of PJ's shots have been 3s.

The good news is both of these issues are fixable. PJ needs to become more decisive and Hill needs to realize when its a good situation for him to drive into traffic and when it isn't (I think with him playing against better competition, he has a learning curve).

That being said, we have a lot of guards who are great at distributing the ball. I'd be much more concerned about this if we didn't have these guys. However, it still means that PJ and Hill have to be assets for the team when they are out there. They both have done well with assists. PJ has done much better keeping turnovers down, but to the point above, I think PJ is taking fewer "risks" than Hill.

One thing to keep in mind is defense. Hill has done pretty well defensively and leads the team in steals. PJ and Hill are also 2 solid free throw shooters (78 and 80% respectively).

I think the notion is we should have 4 scoring threats out on the court with a PG at all times. That's better than most teams. So as long as they are doing their duties, they will be ok.

If PG isn't that critical, then why haven't we been to a Final Four in the Keady/Painter era despite having AA's at every position except PG, and being highly seeded several of those seasons?

 

[bonefish1]

If PG isn't that critical, then why haven't we been to a Final Four in the Keady/Painter era despite having AA's at every position except PG, and being highly seeded several of those seasons?

Can't disagree with you there.
PG is the most important position on the floor, (IMHO). They're the QB.
I'm trying to think of FF teams that didn't have really good guards.......and I'm not talking about All-Americans, I'm talking about PGs who have a well rounded all-around game.
PJ is serviceable, but he's 2nd or 3rd tier talent for the B10.
For some reason, Painter and Keady have never focused on PG (at least, NBA talent level PGs) and that may be one of the common denominators for the lack of a Final Four in 35 years.
Did Keady or Painter have a single PG go to the NBA?
(and yes, you need at least 2 NBA players on your team to make the FF).

 

[boilerzz]

Did Keady or Painter have a single PG go to the NBA?

Everett Stephens spent some time in the NBA but I think that's it as far as NBA PG's in the Keady/Painter era.

That said, I think we've had some pretty darn good ones, like Ricky Hall, Mack Gadis, Tony Jones, Porter Roberts and LewJack. None of them played in the NBA but all were good enough to help Purdue win a Big Ten title (I think) and be a Final Four caliber team.

 

[bonefish1]

Everett Stephens spent some time in the NBA but I think that's it as far as NBA PG's in the Keady/Painter era.

That said, I think we've had some pretty darn good ones, like Ricky Hall, Mack Gadis, Tony Jones, Porter Roberts and LewJack. None of them played in the NBA but all were good enough to help Purdue win a Big Ten title (I think) and be a Final Four caliber team.

I can't remember if Jones had a jumper or not, but Roberts and Lewjack did not.
Both those guys were really good defenders/ball hawks, and LJ could break down a D and get to the rim, but every coach in the country would be willing to leave LJ or Roberts open from outside all day long.
Therefore, I wouldn't say they were complete PGs.
Did Willie Deane have a jumper, I can't remember? But I seem to recall him being able to shoot, get to the rim, etc.

 

[boilerzz]

Tony Jones was a better shooter than you give him credit for. He's a career 37% three point shooter and led the team in made threes in 1989.

Willie is 11th on the all time 3 pointers made list (in only 3 seasons) so he definitely had a jumper.

If you are talking complete, of course that strips some guys from the equation. But I just don't think PG is nearly as important in a motion offense then you evidently do.

 

[punaj]

Willie was fun to watch. He might have led the B1G in scoring his last year. Would be a great addition to this years team.

 

[lbodel]

If PG isn't that critical, then why haven't we been to a Final Four in the Keady/Painter era despite having AA's at every position except PG, and being highly seeded several of those seasons?

That's selective reasoning. If we haven't had an adequate PG, then how do you win so many Big Ten titles? How do you beat so many good teams? If you can beat good teams on a consistent basis, you can make a Final Four. But only 4 teams make a Final Four every year - it's easier said than done. There are a ton of factors that go into making a Final Four.

It'd be one thing if we were Northwestern and couldn't make an NCAA Tournament for decades. But to say that we haven't made a Final Four because of a PG is a bit of a stretch. And quite frankly, none of Painter's teams were favorites to make a Final Four because of various circumstances.

Sure, would having an All-American PG be wonderful? Absolutely. But with this team currently, having a guard who can create their own shot would be a difference-maker, not necessarily just at the PG position.

 

[Dryfly88]

That's selective reasoning. If we haven't had an adequate PG, then how do you win so many Big Ten titles? How do you beat so many good teams? If you can beat good teams on a consistent basis, you can make a Final Four. But only 4 teams make a Final Four every year - it's easier said than done. There are a ton of factors that go into making a Final Four.

It'd be one thing if we were Northwestern and couldn't make an NCAA Tournament for decades. But to say that we haven't made a Final Four because of a PG is a bit of a stretch. And quite frankly, none of Painter's teams were favorites to make a Final Four because of various circumstances.

Sure, would having an All-American PG be wonderful? Absolutely. But with this team currently, having a guard who can create their own shot would be a difference-maker, not necessarily just at the PG position.

+1
What this team really lacks is a player that can get a shot any time it's needed. I keep hoping that VE will become that guy but he hasn't so far.

 

[bonefish1]

That's selective reasoning. If we haven't had an adequate PG, then how do you win so many Big Ten titles? How do you beat so many good teams? If you can beat good teams on a consistent basis, you can make a Final Four. But only 4 teams make a Final Four every year - it's easier said than done. There are a ton of factors that go into making a Final Four.

It'd be one thing if we were Northwestern and couldn't make an NCAA Tournament for decades. But to say that we haven't made a Final Four because of a PG is a bit of a stretch. And quite frankly, none of Painter's teams were favorites to make a Final Four because of various circumstances.

Sure, would having an All-American PG be wonderful? Absolutely. But with this team currently, having a guard who can create their own shot would be a difference-maker, not necessarily just at the PG position.

I think Keady won a lot of games because he knew the Big10 really well, knew how to attack those teams, and the refs gave his teams the benefit of being physical.
The problem was, when he got into the NCAAs and played teams he didn't know, I don't think he was good at making adjustments or going away from his bread n butter.
For whatever reason (bad luck, bad seed, bad matchup, bad coaching/recruiting, etc), 30+ years is way, way too long for a school like Purdue not to have made a FF.

 

[BoilerBulldog]

+1
What this team really lacks is a player that can get a shot any time it's needed. I keep hoping that VE will become that guy but he hasn't so far.

This. I think Biggie may become that guy this year but agree VE has the potential to get there someday.

 

[mathboy]

If PG isn't that critical, then why haven't we been to a Final Four in the Keady/Painter era despite having AA's at every position except PG, and being highly seeded several of those seasons?

Well, I'm not sure I can agree with your reasoning. It is along the lines of "all dogs have tails. This rat has a tail, therefore it must be a dog". What is missing in your argument is the cause and effect. You are relating two observations and saying one causes the other. I will bet that you can find plenty of NCAA championship teams that did not have a high school all American at PG.

Such things as playing the eventual champion in the low rounds seems to be important in how far you go. We did that several times IIRC.

 

[BBG]

That's selective reasoning. If we haven't had an adequate PG, then how do you win so many Big Ten titles? How do you beat so many good teams? If you can beat good teams on a consistent basis, you can make a Final Four. But only 4 teams make a Final Four every year - it's easier said than done. There are a ton of factors that go into making a Final Four.

It'd be one thing if we were Northwestern and couldn't make an NCAA Tournament for decades. But to say that we haven't made a Final Four because of a PG is a bit of a stretch. And quite frankly, none of Painter's teams were favorites to make a Final Four because of various circumstances.

Sure, would having an All-American PG be wonderful? Absolutely. But with this team currently, having a guard who can create their own shot would be a difference-maker, not necessarily just at the PG position.

Actually IIRC, before Robbie went down I think that team was a favorite to make it to the final four. But ultimately moot point...

And quite honestly, I think next year (if biggie stays) we might actually better suited to make a deep run over this season. Of course i take a lot of things for granted with that statement, like continued player development, but I can see that happening.

Of course it could happen this year too. It would also depend on a few things. But that is why they play the games.

 

[bonefish1]

Actually IIRC, before Robbie went down I think that team was a favorite to make it to the final four. But ultimately moot point...

And quite honestly, I think next year (if biggie stays) we might actually better suited to make a deep run over this season. Of course i take a lot of things for granted with that statement, like continued player development, but I can see that happening.

Of course it could happen this year too. It would also depend on a few things. But that is why they play the games.

Yup, we were ranked #2 at that point when Hummel went down in Minny. The team was rolling and a lot of the talking heads were talking FF and NC possibilities.
I was at the game in the Barn that night and when Hummel came down awkwardly on the that jump stop in the lane, my heart was in my throat.
Then, when he's being helped off the floor and comes back out on crutches, you could see the FF hopes evaporate into the cold Minnesota night.