Rivals 150 out

[nat100]

I think Stephens has a legit shot if he improves. He was injured one way or another most of last season. He also has come quite a ways on defense since he arrived. He has two more seasons and if he gets his confidence back and improves on being able to make his own shot, Penn State Game, he could find himself having a chance to prove himself on a team with a need. I did say possibility and I don't think that is a huge stretch knowing his skillset thusfar.

Edwards is well on his way. Anyone who doesn't see that is just being a homer.

A few things
1) At this point, he is a 6th man with below average handling and suspect passing ability. Also struggles on D. He does one thing really well for a college player. Lets not overhype him.
2) His defense has improved, but his lateral quickness is an issue.
3) I think your idea of what being a homer mean is backward.

 

[lbodel]

No. Only people with limited basketball knowledge would assume Painter is more comfortable working with less talent. Is it really a coincidence that Painter rose to prominence with the number 5 rated class then fell from grace when he took recruiting off for a few years?The only top 50 kids Painter has ever landed(JJ and Etwaun) now have their jerseys hanging from the rafter and rob was still a top 70. Recruit ranking aren't en exact science but they're pretty damn reliable.

Don't go questioning people's basketball knowledge then say very misleading things.

-The "Number 5 rated class" was heavily due to the size of it. It had 5 players in it. To compare that to a class of 2 is silly. Also, that number 5 rated class included Scott Martin, a 4 star rated the same nationally as Hummel. We all know he didn't contribute much as a freshman, then transferred.

-He didn't "take recruiting off". He was actually heavily involved in some high profile guys. However, because of having such a large/"top heavy" class, you had 3 guys who were essentially four year starters, all at different positions and playing heavy minutes. That's not an easy sell.

Whether you want to admit it or not, Purdue's a deep team that has good talent. Purdue's "2nd string" team could probably finish ahead of a Big Ten first string or 2. Are there guys that could come in and start? Sure, but the notion that every class needs to be full of incoming starters is just absurd.

There are very few teams with the depth that Purdue has - and our two 2015 recruits are replacing a 5th year transfer and a walk-on who earned a scholarship. Cline + Weatherford is an upgrade in terms of talent over our graduating 2.

Wisconsin is filling the holes of their senior laden team with three 3 star recruits and one four star recruit. If Painter did that, everyone would lose their shit.

Purdue is starting to get to the point where classes are rather evened out, something I am happy to see and a huge thing when it comes to recruiting and having more consistent success.

 

[lbodel]

Except for the fact that all of Matt's really good teams had 2 or 3 top 60 players on them.

You act like he's been a coach for 25 years. My God! Great sample size you have.

 

[lbodel]

The Rivals 150 is out. On that list currently 23 players are headed to the B1G. Every school but Iowa I believe lists a top 150 recruit coming, some have two or even three listed beginning with MD @ #6, before you find Purdue's guy Cline down @ #141.

Happy we are getting Cline, but to be nationally competitive Painter needs to do better next year getting 1 or even 2 in the top 100. I sure Painter would agree with that.

Not every recruit is going to be amazing starter quality! Look at what we lost in the last class. A 5th year transfer and a walk-on that earned a scholarship. Cline + Weatherford is an upgrade in talent.

Also, ESPN has Cline rated as high as Wisconsin's highest recruit. And Wisconsin sure as heck is losing a TON more talent than we are.

Calm the f down.

 

[Jack_Ripper]

hahaha That's right, put me on ignore. It's better than embarrassing yourself and your complete lack of basketball knowledge. Mental midgets like you are easy to prove wrong. What's really funny is that you seem to fancy yourself as some sort of expert when in reality my toilet seat has more insight about purdue bball then you. Oh by the way I thought you were going to stop replying a couple comments ago?

And your posts have been so full of substance...which troll are you again ? That you Wiz ?

 

[rjmpu82]

Steph Curry was a 3 star recruit in 2006 by Rivals. Rankings are just one of MANY factors that need to be considered before offering a scholarship. After the first 15-20 guys, it can be a crap shoot. Get guys that buy into your program, develop them and let your upperclassmen lead. It doesn't really matter what Cline is ranked right now, he is coming to Purdue. What matters is how he performs for us next season.

 

[BBG]

And your posts have been so full of substance...which troll are you again ? That you Wiz ?

So note to people, the ignore feature of this site is rather good now. That said, you very well might be right, I can't see his posts even when quoted, but I assume you're talking about johnnyhoosier. I mean who registers on peegs and then makes a name like that and try to pass themselves off as a Boiler? Well, the Wiz would.

Oh hey Ripper, your name lives in infamy, when you go through the main site to the forums, your name still shows as the last poster for the basketball link. Forever shall your name be remembered!

 

[BBG]

Not every recruit is going to be amazing starter quality! Look at what we lost in the last class. A 5th year transfer and a walk-on that earned a scholarship. Cline + Weatherford is an upgrade in talent.

Also, ESPN has Cline rated as high as Wisconsin's highest recruit. And Wisconsin sure as heck is losing a TON more talent than we are.

Calm the f down.

People get wrapped around ranking/stars entirely too much sometimes. Sure it can be a decent benchmark for a player, but it seems rather often you have players that exceed those stars/rankings (Like Vince Edwards IMO) and some are a bust.

Cline is one of those I think that is underrated and that is fine by me. I've watched the kid play a few times and he can flat out shoot. I just hope it transfers to the college game. We will all see soon enough.

 

[SNU0821]

A few things
1) At this point, he is a 6th man with below average handling and suspect passing ability. Also struggles on D. He does one thing really well for a college player. Lets not overhype him.
2) His defense has improved, but his lateral quickness is an issue.
3) I think your idea of what being a homer mean is backward.

Yup. This. I think you need to look into what being a homer means...

 

[cprh9u]

Not every recruit is going to be amazing starter quality! Look at what we lost in the last class. A 5th year transfer and a walk-on that earned a scholarship. Cline + Weatherford is an upgrade in talent.

Also, ESPN has Cline rated as high as Wisconsin's highest recruit. And Wisconsin sure as heck is losing a TON more talent than we are.

Calm the f down.

Disagree. If we are just talking about 1 year and considering that our biggest need by far is PG, I would much rather have Octeus for another year than a freshman Cline and Weatherford. We have not upgraded so far but still have time to land a talented transfer or juco player.

By the way, typing on here is terrible. Unless you only key 10 wpm, you get going so fast and then have to go back for typos, etc.

 

[cprh9u]

You act like he's been a coach for 25 years. My God! Great sample size you have.

We have 10 years, which is not a bad sample size. It's not like he had 2 years with top talent and 2 without. It's been basically 5 and 5 (including Robbie's 5th year) and their is a pretty big difference. Without looking it up, I believe he has 2 NCAA appearances and 1 NCAA win without someone from the 2007 class in 5 years vs. 5 years in the tourney and 7 total wins with that 2007 class? Landing top talent makes all the difference for the vast majority of coaches, Painter included.

Yes, there is the occassional Trey Burke or Frank Kaminsky or Stephen Curry who are 3 stars and big time talents, but it is the exception not the rule.

 

[BBG]

I would much rather have Octeus for another year than a freshman Cline

I'm sorry but what? You're willing to not take a shooter like cline (a need we have more than anything else) for a one year PG? Octeaus was great for us and all, but to pass on a shooter like cline that we'd have for 3 years over one more year of O isn't looking at the bigger picture.

Shooting is a much .. much .. bigger need IMO than PG is for this system. It cost us many a game last year (The Cincy game being the biggest IMO) and Cline is most certainly an upgrade in that respect as long as he can carry over that ability to the college game.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

You act like he's been a coach for 25 years. My God! Great sample size you have.

How do you figure? I was merely disputing the notion that Painter has been more successful with lower ranked recruits.

I am a Painter supporter, but this is an indisputable fact: Both of his sweet 16 teams had multiple top 60 players on them.

 

[lbodel]

Disagree. If we are just talking about 1 year and considering that our biggest need by far is PG, I would much rather have Octeus for another year than a freshman Cline and Weatherford. We have not upgraded so far but still have time to land a talented transfer or juco player.

By the way, typing on here is terrible. Unless you only key 10 wpm, you get going so fast and then have to go back for typos, etc.

That's not how recruiting works though. Cline and Weatherford were committed to Purdue before Octeus ever said the word Purdue. He wasn't recruiting these two to replace Octeus.

You are way oversimplifying things.

 

[lbodel]

How do you figure? I was merely disproving the statement that somehow paints


How do you figure? I was merely disputing the notion that Painter has been more successful with lower ranked recruits.

I am a Painter supporter, but this is an indisputable fact: Both of his sweet 16 teams had multiple top 60 players on them.

But again, you're looking at a sample size of around 10 years. Those "top 60" players were there 4 of the 10. Also, when did the cutoff turn to top 60? We have multiple players on our team right now ranked right where Robbie Hummel was as a recruit (in the 70s). I liked JaJuan, but I don't think his talent is what is not making a team great right now. If you could choose JaJuan Johnson or AJ Hammons to be on that team, you'd probably pick AJ. Also, when did the cut-off become Sweet 16? Is one round difference really that huge? Those "top 60" players didn't make it to the Sweet 16 their senior year either.

As I've said over and over, it's about having the right players. The best part of that class was that it was 3 players at 3 different positions. Where you get in trouble is when you only have 1 or 2 good players. And also, it's not a good thing when your 3 best players are all in the same class. Right now, we have talent spread across multiple classes and we have depth.

I don't think a recruit ranked 10 spots higher than our current players that were top 70s recruits at the magical "top 60" mark is going to make some massive difference.

People are really looking hard for things to complain about right now.

 

[cprh9u]

I'm sorry but what? You're willing to not take a shooter like cline (a need we have more than anything else) for a one year PG? Octeaus was great for us and all, but to pass on a shooter like cline that we'd have for 3 years over one more year of O isn't looking at the bigger picture.

Shooting is a much .. much .. bigger need IMO than PG is for this system. It cost us many a game last year (The Cincy game being the biggest IMO) and Cline is most certainly an upgrade in that respect as long as he can carry over that ability to the college game.

Read in context BBG, re-read what I said "Disagree. If we are just talking about 1 year and considering that our biggest need by far is PG, I would much rather have Octeus for another year than a freshman Cline and Weatherford."

The original statment was we are getting a talent upgrade this year with Cline and Weatherford over Octeus. I am willing to wager that what Octeus brough to the table last year would be MUCH more valuable than what Cline and Weatherford will bring this NEXT year. Many agree without Octeus, we would have been an NIT team, and he was the difference in 4-5 games. You think Cline will help us to win an extra 4-5 games next year? No way. Over 3-4 years? Sure, I would hope so, but just next year alone, we did not get better talent wise when considering what we lost and what we gain.

 

[cprh9u]

That's not how recruiting works though. Cline and Weatherford were committed to Purdue before Octeus ever said the word Purdue. He wasn't recruiting these two to replace Octeus.

You are way oversimplifying things.

Good gracious people can't read. Who said Painter was recruiting Cline and Watherford specifically to replace Octeus? The original statement is that we are getting a talent upgrade with Cline/Weatherford over Octeus and a walk on. I disagreed saying that the level Octeus played at last year > than the level that Cline/Weatherford will play at their freshman year. In other words, I would rather have Octeus back for one more year than the 2 freshmen for 1 year... he would help this team more in 2015-2016. It's not a difficult concept, or at least it shouldn't be.

 

[BBG]

Read in context BBG, re-read what I said "Disagree. If we are just talking about 1 year and considering that our biggest need by far is PG, I would much rather have Octeus for another year than a freshman Cline and Weatherford."

The original statment was we are getting a talent upgrade this year with Cline and Weatherford over Octeus. I am willing to wager that what Octeus brough to the table last year would be MUCH more valuable than what Cline and Weatherford will bring this NEXT year. Many agree without Octeus, we would have been an NIT team, and he was the difference in 4-5 games. You think Cline will help us to win an extra 4-5 games next year? No way. Over 3-4 years? Sure, I would hope so, but just next year alone, we did not get better talent wise when considering what we lost and what we gain.

I got your context I still disagree. Based off of the shooting woes, I still think that is a bigger need than PG. However, we can't assume anything one way or another until Cline plays his first season. If he is an instant impact (which mind you I am not saying he will be) then this argument is moot.

 

[cprh9u]

But again, you're looking at a sample size of around 10 years. Those "top 60" players were there 4 of the 10. Also, when did the cutoff turn to top 60? We have multiple players on our team right now ranked right where Robbie Hummel was as a recruit (in the 70s). I liked JaJuan, but I don't think his talent is what is not making a team great right now. If you could choose JaJuan Johnson or AJ Hammons to be on that team, you'd probably pick AJ. Also, when did the cut-off become Sweet 16? Is one round difference really that huge? Those "top 60" players didn't make it to the Sweet 16 their senior year either.

As I've said over and over, it's about having the right players. The best part of that class was that it was 3 players at 3 different positions. Where you get in trouble is when you only have 1 or 2 good players. And also, it's not a good thing when your 3 best players are all in the same class. Right now, we have talent spread across multiple classes and we have depth.

I don't think a recruit ranked 10 spots higher than our current players that were top 70s recruits at the magical "top 60" mark is going to make some massive difference.


People are really looking hard for things to complain about right now.

2 things:

1. It's not just having guys in that 70 range like Hummel and AJH. You need several of those for a nucleus along with stars like Moore and JJ who were in the 30-40 range. They don't HAVE to be ranked that high, but that is where difference makers are usually found.
2. Nobody in their right mind would take AJH over JJ for any Purdue team. AJH is a nice player but JJ was far superior as a sophomore, junior and senior.

 

[cprh9u]

I got your context I still disagree. Based off of the shooting woes, I still think that is a bigger need than PG. However, we can't assume anything one way or another until Cline plays his first season. If he is an instant impact (which mind you I am not saying he will be) then this argument is moot.

You said "to pass on a shooter like cline that we'd have for 3 years over one more year of O isn't looking at the bigger picture." So...

I would take Cline for 4 years over 1 year of JO as well, but to say Cline is a talent upgrade for 1 year over JO considering that JO helped us win several games last year is a point I fully disagree with. That was my original reply.

 

[BBG]

You said "to pass on a shooter like cline that we'd have for 3 years over one more year of O isn't looking at the bigger picture." So...

I would take Cline for 4 years over 1 year of JO as well, but to say Cline is a talent upgrade for 1 year over JO considering that JO helped us win several games last year is a point I fully disagree with. That was my original reply.

Fair enough then we are discussing two different things as your original comment can be taken a few different ways (especially when reading on a phone).

 

[mathboy]

Disagree. If we are just talking about 1 year and considering that our biggest need by far is PG, I would much rather have Octeus for another year than a freshman Cline and Weatherford. We have not upgraded so far but still have time to land a talented transfer or juco player.

By the way, typing on here is terrible. Unless you only key 10 wpm, you get going so fast and then have to go back for typos, etc.

I agree with your analysis. 5th year Senior Octeus > Weatherford + Cline. That said, a new PG transfer changes that equation around. Weatherford + Cline + New PG > Octeus.

I also agree the typing is very slow. It does catch up, but if you watch the screen, you can really get f'd-up. So far, typing speed and the ability to follow a thread are my only gripes.

 

[SNU0821]

I agree with your analysis. 5th year Senior Octeus > Weatherford + Cline. That said, a new PG transfer changes that equation around. Weatherford + Cline + New PG > Octeus.

Octeus was very good for you guys. Your statement above would only be true if you got a stud 5th year transfer PG. Cline and Weatherford won't provide much of what you need next year, IMO, and I've seen both of them play. It's gonna take time for both. Cline looks like he's gonna be a good one, though. He's gonna be a very good 4 year player.

 

[iubb1984]

I'm sorry, not trying to trash up a rival board. But Stephens in the NBA?!?! GTFO

Yeah, the NBA is bereft of 6'5"-6'7" players who can play defense and hit from long range. What was I thinking? You IU fans act as if our players who have 2-3 years left can't continue to progress. The skill set is there. Improvement will give both legit shots at a roster if they can stay healthy.[/QUOTE]

Since when can Stephens "play defense"?

 

[BBG]

Yeah, the NBA is bereft of 6'5"-6'7" players who can play defense and hit from long range. What was I thinking? You IU fans act as if our players who have 2-3 years left can't continue to progress. The skill set is there. Improvement will give both legit shots at a roster if they can stay healthy.

Since when can Stephens "play defense"?[/QUOTE]
Since when can IU play defense? Get that squared away before you jump on a rival's forum to spout crap like that.

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

Disagree. If we are just talking about 1 year and considering that our biggest need by far is PG, I would much rather have Octeus for another year than a freshman Cline and Weatherford. We have not upgraded so far but still have time to land a talented transfer or juco player.

By the way, typing on here is terrible. Unless you only key 10 wpm, you get going so fast and then have to go back for typos, etc.

Of course but unless JO some how gets another year of eligibility, it isn't going to happen. Why not trust what Coach Painter has in mind with possible JUCO's or 5th year transfers and if that doesn't work out, I have all the confidence in him as a coach and his staff to mold players like PJ and Grant Weatherford in to PG's that run the offense and play tough defense. JO was needed this year because of young guys like PJ, Mathias, Haas, and Edwards and the inconsistency that comes with being freshman. A PG like JO may not be truly needed next season because of that seasoning for those players to become more consistent.

Have confidence in the coach who has taken responsibility to the downfall of the program and has clearly shown the ability to turn the program around to the point that others are talking about Purdue as having the ability to make an Elite 8 run next season because of the return of AJ Hammons and the positive locker room environment. For all you recruiting naysayers...you don't think having a wing and a big leaving that are both potential first team all big performers and taking up starting spots isn't attractive to some top level talent to come in and make an impact on a team like Purdue? And when those same players see the locker room environment that is clearly shown over the past year, don't be surprised if Coach Painter lands his first 'big fish,' even next year.

 

[SNU0821]

Since when can IU play defense? Get that squared away before you jump on a rival's forum to spout crap like that.

Not last year. That's for damn sure. It was the worst defensive team I've ever seen...

 

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

2 things:

1. It's not just having guys in that 70 range like Hummel and AJH. You need several of those for a nucleus along with stars like Moore and JJ who were in the 30-40 range. They don't HAVE to be ranked that high, but that is where difference makers are usually found.
2. Nobody in their right mind would take AJH over JJ for any Purdue team. AJH is a nice player but JJ was far superior as a sophomore, junior and senior.

Let me start with the fact that what you are stating in number 1 is probably reserved for the very best and elite programs in the country right now. You are talking UK, Louisville, MSU, UCLA, Duke, UNC, Kansas, etc. that are able to have guys in that 50-100 range back up players in that 1-50 range...simply put it just doesn't happen all that often and those that are able to are clearly the programs that are going to make deep runs in the tourney every year save a major upset. That frame of mind should have IU being a top program...they've had one real quality year with that idea.

Your second point is kind of silly, to be honest. AJH has been expected to be the defensive and offensive leader for the program since the mid part of his freshman year. JJ was able to work his way in to that role behind top players like Robbie and Moore ALONG with having the best pg in the program in the last 15 years in Lew Jack. That fact that AJH was able to thrive and continue to be effective and grow the past three seasons shows his tremendous upside, and one I think he can finally begin to reach through the coaching of Branden Brantley and Coach Painter. JJ was a tremendous off the block post player and could legitimately catch, turn, and shoot out to 20 feet if need be. AJH is a more traditional low post player who can cause havoc in the interior on both sides of the ball.

Similar but not the same...do you want to compare Stephen Curry and Jason Kidd as PG's because they play the same position? Curry is a high volume scorer where as Kidd was the consummate PG that looked to involve and setup his teammates.

NOW, I'm not saying you are wrong but that is my opinion that I don't agree with yours. Don't get all up in arms because some one doesn't agree with you.

 

[BoilerDeac]

Let me start with the fact that what you are stating in number 1 is probably reserved for the very best and elite programs in the country right now. You are talking UK, Louisville, MSU, UCLA, Duke, UNC, Kansas, etc. that are able to have guys in that 50-100 range back up players in that 1-50 range...simply put it just doesn't happen all that often and those that are able to are clearly the programs that are going to make deep runs in the tourney every year save a major upset. That frame of mind should have IU being a top program...they've had one real quality year with that idea.

Your second point is kind of silly, to be honest. AJH has been expected to be the defensive and offensive leader for the program since the mid part of his freshman year. JJ was able to work his way in to that role behind top players like Robbie and Moore ALONG with having the best pg in the program in the last 15 years in Lew Jack. That fact that AJH was able to thrive and continue to be effective and grow the past three seasons shows his tremendous upside, and one I think he can finally begin to reach through the coaching of Branden Brantley and Coach Painter. JJ was a tremendous off the block post player and could legitimately catch, turn, and shoot out to 20 feet if need be. AJH is a more traditional low post player who can cause havoc in the interior on both sides of the ball.

Similar but not the same...do you want to compare Stephen Curry and Jason Kidd as PG's because they play the same position? Curry is a high volume scorer where as Kidd was the consummate PG that looked to involve and setup his teammates.

NOW, I'm not saying you are wrong but that is my opinion that I don't agree with yours. Don't get all up in arms because some one doesn't agree with you.

I think you're in the minority if you say you'd take AJ over JaJuan, but I also see where you're coming from.

 

[nagemj02]

Thank you Nag. KId is not just a "nice college player". He has NBA aspirations and I see no reason to think he can't get there, especially after such a good freshman campaign. He is about as versatile as you can be. Hell, didn't he become one of a few select freshmen to have the stats he had in a NCAA tourney game?

Yes, that's true. Vince Edwards scored 14 points, grabbed 8 rebounds, and dished out 7 assists vs. Cincinnati. There have only been four other NCAA Tournament games ever where a freshman totaled the same or a greater amount of points, rebounds, and assists:

-Derrick Rose (Memphis) vs. Mississippi State in a Round of 32 game in 2008

-Jameer Nelson (St. Joseph's) vs. Stanford in a Round of 32 game in 2001

-Kenny Anderson (Georgia Tech) vs. UNLV in a National Semi-Final game in 1990

-Gene Banks (Duke) vs. Villanova in a Regional Final game in 1978

 

[cprh9u]

Let me start with the fact that what you are stating in number 1 is probably reserved for the very best and elite programs in the country right now. You are talking UK, Louisville, MSU, UCLA, Duke, UNC, Kansas, etc. that are able to have guys in that 50-100 range back up players in that 1-50 range...simply put it just doesn't happen all that often and those that are able to are clearly the programs that are going to make deep runs in the tourney every year save a major upset. That frame of mind should have IU being a top program...they've had one real quality year with that idea.

Your second point is kind of silly, to be honest. AJH has been expected to be the defensive and offensive leader for the program since the mid part of his freshman year. JJ was able to work his way in to that role behind top players like Robbie and Moore ALONG with having the best pg in the program in the last 15 years in Lew Jack. That fact that AJH was able to thrive and continue to be effective and grow the past three seasons shows his tremendous upside, and one I think he can finally begin to reach through the coaching of Branden Brantley and Coach Painter. JJ was a tremendous off the block post player and could legitimately catch, turn, and shoot out to 20 feet if need be. AJH is a more traditional low post player who can cause havoc in the interior on both sides of the ball.

Similar but not the same...do you want to compare Stephen Curry and Jason Kidd as PG's because they play the same position? Curry is a high volume scorer where as Kidd was the consummate PG that looked to involve and setup his teammates.

NOW, I'm not saying you are wrong but that is my opinion that I don't agree with yours. Don't get all up in arms because some one doesn't agree with you.

Lot's of programs land or develop top 50 kids with regularity (at least 5 every decade). I would bet we could research and find at least 20 programs with 5 top 50 kids in the last decade, probably more. Also consider that I said they don't have to be ranked that high. There are the Burke's or Kaminsky's or Hummels that were not top 50 but while in school, were easily top 50 in talent in the country. So it doesn't even have to be 5 top 50 kids. Purdue should be a top 20 program getting those types of players with some consistency and adding a nucleus of guys like RD, AJH, KS, DM, etc.

No one said AJH and JJ are the same player with the same style. Kidd and Curry? What are you talking about? Responding to the OP who said "people would pick AJ over JJ for that team", I said nobody in their right mind would take AJH over JJ. I'm not talking about style, I'm just saying JJ was the superior player and nobody in their right mind would take AJH over JJ for a team. AJH is a nice player, but JJ is a Purdue all time great.

 

[cprh9u]

Yes, that's true. Vince Edwards scored 14 points, grabbed 8 rebounds, and dished out 7 assists vs. Cincinnati. There have only been four other NCAA Tournament games ever where a freshman totaled the same or a greater amount of points, rebounds, and assists:

-Derrick Rose (Memphis) vs. Mississippi State in a Round of 32 game in 2008

-Jameer Nelson (St. Joseph's) vs. Stanford in a Round of 32 game in 2001

-Kenny Anderson (Georgia Tech) vs. UNLV in a National Semi-Final game in 1990

-Gene Banks (Duke) vs. Villanova in a Regional Final game in 1978

Nice numbers. Really like VE and look forward to seeing him develop along with Haas and DM. Nice trio Painter landed in 2014. If Taylor can play it makes it all the better.

 

[lbodel]

Good gracious people can't read. Who said Painter was recruiting Cline and Watherford specifically to replace Octeus? The original statement is that we are getting a talent upgrade with Cline/Weatherford over Octeus and a walk on. I disagreed saying that the level Octeus played at last year > than the level that Cline/Weatherford will play at their freshman year. In other words, I would rather have Octeus back for one more year than the 2 freshmen for 1 year... he would help this team more in 2015-2016. It's not a difficult concept, or at least it shouldn't be.

Talent and experience are 2 very different things. This thread has largely been about talent and that was what I was referring to.

Octeus coming out of high school was not a better recruit than Cline, and quite frankly, Weatherford.

The other player we lost was a walk-on.

So in terms of TALENT, we have improved. You want to replace those you lose with people who are at the same talent level, or better, in order to keep your consistency. Haas was largely brought in to replace Hammons. Obviously it's not a "senior to freshman" transition as we didn't know if Hammons would be around. But it looks like when Hammons leaves, we will have an equally skilled guy ready to replace him.

Of course Cline/Weatherford were not brought in to replace Octeus. But you sat there and said we can't replace Octeus with Cline/Weatherford. But that implies that Painter brought them in for that reason.

 

[iubb1984]

Haha okay. Thanks for the huge deflection. IU couldn't play defense last year.

Stephens to the NBA because of his defensive prowess. Gotcha.

 

[proudopete]

Haha okay. Thanks for the huge deflection. IU couldn't play defense last year.

Stephens to the NBA because of his defensive prowess. Gotcha.

Nice spin. Nobody deflected. Stephens is a shooter with deep range. He has length and made a huge jump from last season defensively. You probably didn't notice as you probably don't understand defensive philosophy. If he continues to improve defensively the way he did in the last year. He will be very tough to score on.

But I do agree that IU has no clue how to play defense and would need 13 5 stars to be able to score enough to overcome that weaknesss.

 

[TwinDegrees2]

I'm sorry but what? You're willing to not take a shooter like cline (a need we have more than anything else) for a one year PG? Octeaus was great for us and all, but to pass on a shooter like cline that we'd have for 3 years over one more year of O isn't looking at the bigger picture.

Shooting is a much .. much .. bigger need IMO than PG is for this system. It cost us many a game last year (The Cincy game being the biggest IMO) and Cline is most certainly an upgrade in that respect as long as he can carry over that ability to the college game.

Totally agree with the need for a pure shooter. Much more important than a PG right now. JMHO

 

[cprh9u]

Totally agree with the need for a pure shooter. Much more important than a PG right now. JMHO

Mathias and Stephens are supposed to be pure shooters. Honestly, with them playing the 2/3 along with RD, I don't see a ton of PT for Cline next year. However, with only PJT and Weatherford at PG, I feel like we have a lot of PT available at the 1. Surprised to see this from anyone. Really didn't think there was a debate over what our biggest need by far is next year.

 

[Boiler Buck]

Mathias and Stephens are supposed to be pure shooters. Honestly, with them playing the 2/3 along with RD, I don't see a ton of PT for Cline next year. However, with only PJT and Weatherford at PG, I feel like we have a lot of PT available at the 1. Surprised to see this from anyone. Really didn't think there was a debate over what our biggest need by far is next year.

Some people think so much of Cline that he will bust by Mathias & Stephens. I know this because like you I posted earlier.....where is Cline going to play?.... as he is really Mathias 2.0, not to mention Stephens as an experienced shooter?....and a few posters here said Cline would not be kept off the floor.

 

[lbodel]

Some people think so much of Cline that he will bust by Mathias & Stephens. I know this because like you I posted earlier.....where is Cline going to play?.... as he is really Mathias 2.0, not to mention Stephens as an experienced shooter?....and a few posters here said Cline would not be kept off the floor.

I don't think I'd call Cline Mathias 2.0. He's more than a spot-up 3 point shooter.

I have seen some of Cline play and think he's certainly capable of breaking through as a freshman, but it'll remain to be seen. Obviously the million dollar question is where does he play.

 

[nat100]

I don't think I'd call Cline Mathias 2.0. He's more than a spot-up 3 point shooter.

I have seen some of Cline play and think he's certainly capable of breaking through as a freshman, but it'll remain to be seen. Obviously the million dollar question is where does he play.

Breaking through as what? playing time? Sure. Starter? I dont see it.