Recruiting improvements?

[Poprudy]

Purdue lands big time shooter in Newman
ByBrian Snow Sep 19, 8:21 PM

The Purdue Boilermakers worked hard, and on Wednesday night, they landed the commitment of four-star shooting guard Brandon Newman. Newman, who is one of the best shooters in the country picked the Boilermakers over Xavier in the end.

At 6-foot-5, Newman had a tremendous spring and summer running with Meanstreets in the Nike EYBL. Newman shot 39 percent from three point range and averaged an impressive 17.3 points per game.

In the end Newman focused on Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State and Xavier, but after thinking things over and visits being moved around, it was Purdue that came out on top.

Purdue brought in Newman for an official visit at the beginning of September, and worked hard the entire time to get his commitment. Now the Boilermakers have added a third in-state product to what is shaping up to be a very solid recruiting class.

People will claim they know more than CMP. This post might bring them all out. As for now, not me and not one single person has had the coaching level as CMP. So, we are like recruiting sites. We can only suspect what or how a player will turn out.

 

[Poprudy]

Purdue lands big time shooter in Newman
ByBrian Snow Sep 19, 8:21 PM

The Purdue Boilermakers worked hard, and on Wednesday night, they landed the commitment of four-star shooting guard Brandon Newman. Newman, who is one of the best shooters in the country picked the Boilermakers over Xavier in the end.

At 6-foot-5, Newman had a tremendous spring and summer running with Meanstreets in the Nike EYBL. Newman shot 39 percent from three point range and averaged an impressive 17.3 points per game.

In the end Newman focused on Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State and Xavier, but after thinking things over and visits being moved around, it was Purdue that came out on top.

Purdue brought in Newman for an official visit at the beginning of September, and worked hard the entire time to get his commitment. Now the Boilermakers have added a third in-state product to what is shaping up to be a very solid recruiting class.

I like the pick up though...

 

[PU pit bull]

People will claim they know more than CMP. This post might bring them all out. As for now, not me and not one single person has had the coaching level as CMP. So, we are like recruiting sites. We can only suspect what or how a player will turn out.

Very true. But I think enough people, who make a living watching these kids, have had positive things to say about him. To say he will have no impact, or to call him a total bust is a bit foolish IMO. But like you said who knows.

 

[DAG10]

Purdue lands big time shooter in Newman
ByBrian Snow Sep 19, 8:21 PM

The Purdue Boilermakers worked hard, and on Wednesday night, they landed the commitment of four-star shooting guard Brandon Newman. Newman, who is one of the best shooters in the country picked the Boilermakers over Xavier in the end.

At 6-foot-5, Newman had a tremendous spring and summer running with Meanstreets in the Nike EYBL. Newman shot 39 percent from three point range and averaged an impressive 17.3 points per game.

In the end Newman focused on Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State and Xavier, but after thinking things over and visits being moved around, it was Purdue that came out on top.

Purdue brought in Newman for an official visit at the beginning of September, and worked hard the entire time to get his commitment. Now the Boilermakers have added a third in-state product to what is shaping up to be a very solid recruiting class.

First time I saw him, just chalked it up to a tough night as he could not hit a jump shot...after seeing him again yesterday, when it was even a tougher night if that is the case...have to wonder, as, he was at best about the 4th best shooter on the floor.

He had at least three air-balls and missed multiple shots, the vast majority of which were uncontested.

In the two games I have been to, it is evident that his strength is literally his strength, and, as a result, scoring in transition or in the lane/at the basket.

 

[DAG10]

Very true. But I think enough people, who make a living watching these kids, have had positive things to say about him. To say he will have no impact, or to call him a total bust is a bit foolish IMO. But like you said who knows.

I did not say that he is a total bust...he absolutely was one yesterday, as, other than sheer size and pure athleticism, he could not have been less impressive. Like say, maybe just a REALLY bad day, but, on the heels of a less than impressive performance the other time I had watched him, I tend to question a lot of what has been said is all with respect to who many want to compare him to and what many have suggested in him being "the answer" to Purdue's woes a year from now, as, I just don't see it being the case based on what I have seen.

He clearly was the most gifted player on the floor, but, to think that the guy(s) that guarded him are not even playing in college a year from now and were able to contain him is crazy in light of that...and, Thompson, while lacking the physical size and strength, was the far more polished player.

As far as "others that have seen him"...AAU basketball is night-and-day different from HS basketball. It is with and against better players certainly, so, in some ways it is more representative...but, there also is virtually no coaching in many cases, and, to be fair, it is not as if the AAU style that these guys excel in and are accustomed to translates to what style is played at the next level (especially so in the case of Purdue).

 

[Mandeville LA]

I did not say that he is a total bust...he absolutely was one yesterday, as, other than sheer size and pure athleticism, he could not have been less impressive. Like say, maybe just a REALLY bad day, but, on the heels of a less than impressive performance the other time I had watched him, I tend to question a lot of what has been said is all with respect to who many want to compare him to and what many have suggested in him being "the answer" to Purdue's woes a year from now, as, I just don't see it being the case based on what I have seen.

He clearly was the most gifted player on the floor, but, to think that the guy(s) that guarded him are not even playing in college a year from now and were able to contain him is crazy in light of that...and, Thompson, while lacking the physical size and strength, was the far more polished player.

As far as "others that have seen him"...AAU basketball is night-and-day different from HS basketball. It is with and against better players certainly, so, in some ways it is more representative...but, there also is virtually no coaching in many cases, and, to be fair, it is not as if the AAU style that these guys excel in and are accustomed to translates to what style is played at the next level (especially so in the case of Purdue).

How did IT shot the ball?

 

[DAG10]

How did IT shot the ball?

Much better than Newman...he is not what anyone would likely consider a "knockdown" guy from distance, but, he has a very nice shot and, like PJ, will more often than not hit the open shot. He was solid with the ball, made good decisions and was able to distribute nicely also (although, not in the sense of the pure PG that PJ was). His issue is that he will need to just get bigger/stronger, but, a very solid overall player much like his older brother.

 

[bonefish1]

Because star power has been rated by an eye test and fluctuates from multiple people. Do you ever notice on 247 how the picks fluctuate? That's a perfect example. They know about is much as us on this board. I still say recruit to your system and CMP was pretty good at that. If you coach you would know that players that many think have the star power and it doesn't necessarily reflect either the system or the coach. CMP just needs to recruit to his system or he most likely will fail because the masses are telling him to change. If this is the case he might want to find another profession.

So far, Painter’s system has got us some sweet 16 appearances in 14 years.

 

[ThreeTwaunMoore]

Yeah not really a fan of the 247 composite. It uses data points from other services that I find lacking. It’s a good idea in theory, but if you are including suspect data points it loses its value fast.

The two services I trust the most are Rivals and 247 (not the composite). And with that said, I think I’ve decided that Rivals is the best over the years at least with respect to Purdue players. As a recent example, I think Rivals nailed our 2014 class much better than 247:
Rivals: Haas=77, Edwards=124, Mathias=144
247Sports: Haas=144, Edwards=157, Mathias=210

Other examples:
2015: Swanigan, Rivals=19, 247Sports=32
Cline, Rivals=142, 247Sports=169
2016: C. Edwards, Rivals=91, 247Sports=139

I think in each case not only did Rivals get it more right based on actual college production (ok the Cline rating is debateable), but 247 showed a clear trend of under rating Purdue’s recruits. Based on that history I usually pay more attention to Rivals ratings.

Spot on. The 247 composite includes ESPN's rankings, which are absolutely awful. Always go with Rivals.

 

[tjreese]

Because star power has been rated by an eye test and fluctuates from multiple people. Do you ever notice on 247 how the picks fluctuate? That's a perfect example. They know about is much as us on this board. I still say recruit to your system and CMP was pretty good at that. If you coach you would know that players that many think have the star power and it doesn't necessarily reflect either the system or the coach. CMP just needs to recruit to his system or he most likely will fail because the masses are telling him to change. If this is the case he might want to find another profession.

I can accept eye test and coaches recruiting to their style and desires. My point is when we start discussing a 3 verus a 4 or a 5...where are the differences...what skills, what athleticism, what mental toughness. I never see anyone describe the attributes being ranked or the magnitudes of the attributes we don't know is being ranked. We know that star power is in a positive direction with effectiveness on the court...but that is it. How do we discuss specific needs based just on star power other than thinking that we understand the direction? Purdue could have a player ranked below another and actually be better for Purdue.

Now I'm not suggesting star power is not important because it does provide the right direction on effectiveness on the court, but outside of the general direction how do we know a 3 is worse than a 4 or a 4 is worse than a 5 for what you need...assuming you just can't stockpile players like some shoe companies

 

[bonefish1]

I can accept eye test and coaches recruiting to their style and desires. My point is when we start discussing a 3 verus a 4 or a 5...where are the differences...what skills, what athleticism, what mental toughness. I never see anyone describe the attributes being ranked or the magnitudes of the attributes we don't know is being ranked. We know that star power is in a positive direction with effectiveness on the court...but that is it. How do we discuss specific needs based just on star power other than thinking that we understand the direction? Purdue could have a player ranked below another and actually be better for Purdue.

Now I'm not suggesting star power is not important because it does provide the right direction on effectiveness on the court, but outside of the general direction how do we know a 3 is worse than a 4 or a 4 is worse than a 5 for what you need...assuming you just can't stockpile players like some shoe companies

It’s pretty simple really.
A team of 4 stars is going to beat a team of 3 stars 8 out of 10 times. Same with 5 stars vs 4.
The fact that Painter has landed only a single 5 star and has never gotten past the S16 is correlated. Because the deeper you go in a tourney, you’re generally going to be playing teams with more highly rated player. It’s no mistake.

 

[tjreese]

It’s pretty simple really.
A team of 4 stars is going to beat a team of 3 stars 8 out of 10 times. Same with 5 stars vs 4.
The fact that Painter has landed only a single 5 star and has never gotten past the S16 is correlated. Because the deeper you go in a tourney, you’re generally going to be playing teams with more highly rated player. It’s no mistake.

I don't think you understand what I said . I said the direction was legit...more stars and typically they are better. I stated that. what I also said was that people were discussing this and that and they don't really know why one is ranked better...and if that is important to this team in question over the lesser player that provided what was needed. People talking star power are talking a "general better recruit"... that day in a day out may be better...but again we don't know why? We might as well say Purdue needs better players because that is even more accurate than star power which generally means better players, but not always.

Saying Purdue needs better players is much more accurate if that is the conversation. However that doesn't prevent someone from comparing players as easy as someone else already rolling the dice for fans. There are maybe 10 or so players every year that can't miss and then it starts to get jumbled if this player is better than another for the next blurry line of separation. Matt has had two teams good enough to make it to the last weekend and both had injuries and so yeah....Purdue would do better with better players.

You do see "generally better ranked players "going farther in the tourney. Do we also see generally better ranked players getting beat by lower ranked players some percentage close to 50%. We have a handful of shoe company teams that always load up with talent and those teams are good day in and day out and maybe it is due to having a LOT of star power in a few teams that the accumulation of talent (star power) rather than a 5 star here and there on a team. My whole context is we just don't know why a player is ranked as he is and doing so gets murky after the can't miss players which fall into the better players rather than star power since there are some equally ranked that don't play the final weekend. Can Purdue get enough talent or 5 star players to get there or is a better model to grab enough 4 star...4 year players that has three seniors evey year with more blanced classes? Talking star power is fan talk, not really basketball talk..but since most of us don't see teh players being recruited...it is what fans point towards.

 

[bonefish1]

I don't think you understand what I said . I said the direction was legit...more stars and typically they are better. I stated that. what I also said was that people were discussing this and that and they don't really know why one is ranked better...and if that is important to this team in question over the lesser player that provided what was needed. People talking star power are talking a "general better recruit"... that day in a day out may be better...but again we don't know why? We might as well say Purdue needs better players because that is even more accurate than star power which generally means better players, but not always.

Saying Purdue needs better players is much more accurate if that is the conversation. However that doesn't prevent someone from comparing players as easy as someone else already rolling the dice for fans. There are maybe 10 or so players every year that can't miss and then it starts to get jumbled if this player is better than another for the next blurry line of separation. Matt has had two teams good enough to make it to the last weekend and both had injuries and so yeah....Purdue would do better with better players.

You do see "generally better ranked players "going farther in the tourney. Do we also see generally better ranked players getting beat by lower ranked players some percentage close to 50%. We have a handful of shoe company teams that always load up with talent and those teams are good day in and day out and maybe it is due to having a LOT of star power in a few teams that the accumulation of talent (star power) rather than a 5 star here and there on a team. My whole context is we just don't know why a player is ranked as he is and doing so gets murky after the can't miss players which fall into the better players rather than star power since there are some equally ranked that don't play the final weekend. Can Purdue get enough talent or 5 star players to get there or is a better model to grab enough 4 star...4 year players that has three seniors evey year with more blanced classes? Talking star power is fan talk, not really basketball talk..but since most of us don't see teh players being recruited...it is what fans point towards.

So, please make a long story short: are you saying stars don’t matter? Are you saying Purdue can be just as successful with 3 stars than 4 and 5 stars?
Are you defending Painter as a good recruiter?

 

[Poprudy]

Sounds like it's all based on a system that a coach has in place. Brad was successful at Butler because he had a system that worked, Holtmann is keeping that same system at OSU and has shown promise. If you have a certain system that works than, I do think it can work. CMP has a system and it has been successful but that success has been limited. Each successful coach can win with less talent because their system has proven it. Unfortunately, we believe overall better talent equates to a successful season. I think CMP's system is very limited on success and I think that is where the fan base feels a change needs to take place. IMO

 

[mathboy]

Sounds like it's all based on a system that a coach has in place. Brad was successful at Butler because he had a system that worked, Holtmann is keeping that same system at OSU and has shown promise. If you have a certain system that works than, I do think it can work. CMP has a system and it has been successful but that success has been limited. Each successful coach can win with less talent because their system has proven it. Unfortunately, we believe overall better talent equates to a successful season. I think CMP's system is very limited on success and I think that is where the fan base feels a change needs to take place. IMO

I would liked to have seen "Painter's System" sans key injuries. The achievements might have been much more significant without the Hummel/Haas/V. Edwards injuries occurring at the perfectly awful times they did.

 

[Poprudy]

I would liked to have seen "Painter's System" sans key injuries. The achievements might have been much more significant without the Hummel/Haas/V. Edwards injuries occurring at the perfectly awful times they did.

I agree and that is why I don't believe necessarily that you need 5* talent but instead have multiple capable players in each position. We have lacked that under CMP and if we lose that player. Seems, we don't have a capable players to back that player up.

 

[ChoiceBeef]

I would liked to have seen "Painter's System" sans key injuries. The achievements might have been much more significant without the Hummel/Haas/V. Edwards injuries occurring at the perfectly awful times they did.

Agree and we all love living in the “what could have been”.

multiple capable players in each position

Bingo. This is my issue with Painter. You should be recruiting to restock every year not just to have projects.

 

[tjreese]

So, please make a long story short: are you saying stars don’t matter? Are you saying Purdue can be just as successful with 3 stars than 4 and 5 stars?
Are you defending Painter as a good recruiter?

3,3,3,4,4 can beat 3,3,4,4 5 and so forth. Most likely 3 3,3,3,3 will not beat five 5s with today's shot clock. Purdue needs better players. I believe Matt's effect is less than 50 %

 

[Boilermaker]

3,3,3,4,4 can beat 3,3,4,4 5 and so forth. Most likely 3 3,3,3,3 will not beat five 5s with today's shot clock. Purdue needs better players. I believe Matt's effect is less than 50 %

You mean Matt’s staff, practices, game planning, and in game coaching are less than 50%? Matt is also the primary reason (academics and/or ties to PU are a couple of other significant but less common reasons) that players come to PU to play (i.e. recruiting) so he is more than 50% the effect right?

 

[bonefish1]

You mean Matt’s staff, practices, game planning, and in game coaching are less than 50%? Matt is also the primary reason (academics and/or ties to PU are a couple of other significant but less common reasons) that players come to PU to play (i.e. recruiting) so he is more than 50% the effect right?

Recruiting is about 90% the head coach.
If Painter and Izzo traded places, which would become the perennial FF program? Would Izzo suddenly lose his ability to recruit top 10 classes?

 

[PU pit bull]

Recruiting is about 90% the head coach.
If Painter and Izzo traded places, which would become the perennial FF program? Would Izzo suddenly lose his ability to recruit top 10 classes?

Depends...…….would Izzo cheat at PU also?

 

[BoilerAndy]

Recruiting is about 90% the head coach.
If Painter and Izzo traded places, which would become the perennial FF program? Would Izzo suddenly lose his ability to recruit top 10 classes?

You consider MSU a "perennial FF program"?

 

[Schnelk]

So Steve Alford is having some trouble out in UCLA and there has been talks about him being on the hot seat. Dude has had riches of talent yet on court results have left a lot to be desired.

If he is fired, should Painter try and get him on his staff?

No.

He is an Indiana kid and has recruited kids assay from the state.

 

[DAG10]

Depends...…….would Izzo cheat at PU also?

Right, it is only because Matt does not cheat that he can't land top talent. Is Holtmann cheating? Beilein? Fran?

Nationally...Mark Few? Rick Barnes? Jay Wright?

Plenty of guys not cheating that are able to still land elite talent...consistently.

Pretty confident his counterpart for the football program is not cheating and yet he is bringing elite talent in...managed to do it when he had nothing more to sell than himself and his vision, then, proved that he knew what he was doing and was able to have even greater success.

 

[PU pit bull]

Right, it is only because Matt does not cheat that he can't land top talent. Is Holtmann cheating? Beilein? Fran?

Nationally...Mark Few? Rick Barnes? Jay Wright?

Plenty of guys not cheating that are able to still land elite talent...consistently.

Pretty confident his counterpart for the football program is not cheating and yet he is bringing elite talent in...managed to do it when he had nothing more to sell than himself and his vision, then, proved that he knew what he was doing and was able to have even greater success.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if any one of those coaches was cheating. Are you serious?
As far as Brohm……..sure he has done well......so far. Maybe he's getting his Baby Boilers now. Way too early to judge him IMO.

 

[bonefish1]

You consider MSU a "perennial FF program"?

MSU has been to the FF:
1979, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2015.
I’d say that’s getting there pretty often.
And considering PU has been there a total of 1 time.....

 

[mathboy]

Right, it is only because Matt does not cheat that he can't land top talent. Is Holtmann cheating? Beilein? Fran?

Nationally...Mark Few? Rick Barnes? Jay Wright?

Plenty of guys not cheating that are able to still land elite talent...consistently.

Pretty confident his counterpart for the football program is not cheating and yet he is bringing elite talent in...managed to do it when he had nothing more to sell than himself and his vision, then, proved that he knew what he was doing and was able to have even greater success.

I don’t necessarily disagree with your premise, but I think your hyperbole is a bit over the top. For example How many 5-stars has Brohm signed? His class is mostly 3-stars with a few four star players. Sounds like one of Painter’s classes to me.

 

[Poprudy]

I don’t necessarily disagree with your premise, but I think your hyperbole is a bit over the top. For example How many 5-stars has Brohm signed? His class is mostly 3-stars with a few four star players. Sounds like one of Painter’s classes to me.

Difference being Brohm beat up a team full of 5 stars.

 

[Poprudy]

Difference being Brohm beat up a team full of 5 stars.

And his system is drawing top receivers. Oh, also we just landed our best recruiting class ever and that's without Bell.

 

[TDisch]

MSU has been to the FF:
1979, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2015.
I’d say that’s getting there pretty often.
And considering PU has been there a total of 1 time.....

Actually PU has been there twice - 1969, 1980.

 

[BoilerAndy]

Difference being Brohm beat up a team full of 5 stars.

Painter has done the same to IU on a regular basis.

 

[Poprudy]

Painter has done the same to IU on a regular basis.

Somewhat....but it's more like beating a Duke team IMO.

 

[BoilerAndy]

And his system is drawing top receivers. Oh, also we just landed our best recruiting class ever and that's without Bell.

I love the class. It's a big improvement. But this is hyperbole. The top receivers would be 5-stars. As mathboy said, from the standpoint of the number of stars attached to a player's name, his recruiting class looks like Painter's classes.

 

[ChoiceBeef]

For example How many 5-stars has Brohm signed?

1 so he is tied with Painter and he has been the football coach for how long?

 

[tenwest]

I love the class. It's a big improvement. But this is hyperbole. The top receivers would be 5-stars. As mathboy said, from the standpoint of the number of stars attached to a player's name, his recruiting class looks like Painter's classes.

Hard to believe that some services had Rondale as a 3*. By the time the Northwestern game was over he was a consensus 5*. LOL

 

[Poprudy]

I love the class. It's a big improvement. But this is hyperbole. The top receivers would be 5-stars. As mathboy said, from the standpoint of the number of stars attached to a player's name, his recruiting class looks like Painter's classes.

No way, Brohm has been here how long? Our 2018 class was 48 and 2019 is 35 and CMP has or should be better established right??

 

[Poprudy]

I think this is why Brohm is such a great coach. His system can win big games. CMP, I like him as a coach but for some reason his system isn't being very productive in the tournament.

 

[Poprudy]

If Brohm is here 14 years from now and we don't make a bowl. I guess the same can be said for him. It just doesn't look good this year and things could change and I hope it does. I just want to see consistency from the program.

 

[BoilerIron]

I don’t necessarily disagree with your premise, but I think your hyperbole is a bit over the top. For example How many 5-stars has Brohm signed? His class is mostly 3-stars with a few four star players. Sounds like one of Painter’s classes to me.

Big difference in star ratings between football and basketball. Karlaftis and Moore are better than any two recruits Painter has ever had. Add in Bell, and it's not even close.

 

[tjreese]

Recruiting is about 90% the head coach.
If Painter and Izzo traded places, which would become the perennial FF program? Would Izzo suddenly lose his ability to recruit top 10 classes?

Today that would be true due to the rep created by the Flintstones that led the way to other classes. Had he started at Purdue with similar injuries...who knows the strength of the rep he would have TODAY? If you think that playing time, location, friends, family, shoes and all the variables outside of the coach are less than 10%...who am I to argue?