Starting PG: PJ Thompson over Johnny Hill?

[BoileringUp]

I think most of us can agree that the presumptive starters for Purdue are as follows: Hill, Davis, Edwards, Swanigan, and Hammons. However, I cannot help but think that a better lineup would include PJ Thompson as the starting point guard and having Hill come off the bench. Here are my reasons...

The strength of this Purdue team will be its front court. Hammons (and Haas), Swanigan, and Edwards will be as good as any front court in the country. Anyone who watched Purdue last season (especially the tournament game against Cinci) knows that outside shooting was a major weakness. We can expect *some* improvement in outside shooting from Davis and Edwards, but little to none will come from Hammons or Swanigan. For Hammons, Swanigan, and Edwards to be most effective, we need to be able to space the floor and create a legitimate outside shooting threat. Hill's career statistics show that he is not an outside shooter: 30%, 29%, and 25%, and his attempts from 3 are very low as well. It's pretty clear that an outside shot has never been a strength. Additionally, I attended the first scrimmage... Hill was 0-3 from outside, all were open looks, and none looked like they were going in. Thompson, by contrast, was 4-8 from three in two scrimmages and looked confident shooting the ball in the scrimmage I attended.

Due to the advantage our starters will have in the post, solid ball handling and an outside threat are the two most important things our starting PG can offer. It is my belief that Thompson provides a legitimate 3PT threat that Hill simply does not. Consequently, he can provide spacing and keep the defense honest in a way that Hill won't be able to do. Even if it turns out Hill is a better all-around player (more athletic, better defender, better ball handler, etc.), the starting lineup on the whole would be better with Thompson. Moreover, bringing Hill off the bench would allow him to play with lineups with more shooters on the floor (e.g. Stephens and Mathias) and it would add size to the lineup when Swanigan is out and Edwards (or someone else) is playing the 4 spot.

Thoughts?

 

[proudopete]

I think most of us can agree that the presumptive starters for Purdue are as follows: Hill, Davis, Edwards, Swanigan, and Hammons. However, I cannot help but think that a better lineup would include PJ Thompson as the starting point guard and having Hill come off the bench. Here are my reasons...

The strength of this Purdue team will be its front court. Hammons (and Haas), Swanigan, and Edwards will be as good as any front court in the country. Anyone who watched Purdue last season (especially the tournament game against Cinci) knows that outside shooting was a major weakness. We can expect *some* improvement in outside shooting from Davis and Edwards, but little to none will come from Hammons or Swanigan. For Hammons, Swanigan, and Edwards to be most effective, we need to be able to space the floor and create a legitimate outside shooting threat. Hill's career statistics show that he is not an outside shooter: 30%, 29%, and 25%, and his attempts from 3 are very low as well. It's pretty clear that an outside shot has never been a strength. Additionally, I attended the first scrimmage... Hill was 0-3 from outside, all were open looks, and none looked like they were going in. Thompson, by contrast, was 4-8 from three in two scrimmages and looked confident shooting the ball in the scrimmage I attended.

Due to the advantage our starters will have in the post, solid ball handling and an outside threat are the two most important things our starting PG can offer. It is my belief that Thompson provides a legitimate 3PT threat that Hill simply does not. Consequently, he can provide spacing and keep the defense honest in a way that Hill won't be able to do. Even if it turns out Hill is a better all-around player (more athletic, better defender, better ball handler, etc.), the starting lineup on the whole would be better with Thompson. Moreover, bringing Hill off the bench would allow him to play with lineups with more shooters on the floor (e.g. Stephens and Mathias) and it would add size to the lineup when Swanigan is out and Edwards (or someone else) is playing the 4 spot.

Thoughts?

Hard to say without seeing them in games. I know it makes sense to have more shooters with how teams will try to clog the lane on us. But I think Hill is a driver and could possibly draw a defender away from AJ and Swanigan for easy dump offs for dunks.

I also think Hill is considered the better defender, at least from what I have read, and with his size, could help us stop scoring from the other team as much as PJ adds offensively.

But until I see them both play against decent competition it's hard to make a call.

Realistically I can see a lot of both options early as Painter allows the cream to rise to the top.

Who knows? Maybe by B1G season they both may be coming off the bench.

 

[BoilerToTheFullest]

Stop thinking so hard it all play out just fine for Purdue

 

[tigerchump]

I think most of us can agree that the presumptive starters for Purdue are as follows: Hill, Davis, Edwards, Swanigan, and Hammons. However, I cannot help but think that a better lineup would include PJ Thompson as the starting point guard and having Hill come off the bench. Here are my reasons...

The strength of this Purdue team will be its front court. Hammons (and Haas), Swanigan, and Edwards will be as good as any front court in the country. Anyone who watched Purdue last season (especially the tournament game against Cinci) knows that outside shooting was a major weakness. We can expect *some* improvement in outside shooting from Davis and Edwards, but little to none will come from Hammons or Swanigan. For Hammons, Swanigan, and Edwards to be most effective, we need to be able to space the floor and create a legitimate outside shooting threat. Hill's career statistics show that he is not an outside shooter: 30%, 29%, and 25%, and his attempts from 3 are very low as well. It's pretty clear that an outside shot has never been a strength. Additionally, I attended the first scrimmage... Hill was 0-3 from outside, all were open looks, and none looked like they were going in. Thompson, by contrast, was 4-8 from three in two scrimmages and looked confident shooting the ball in the scrimmage I attended.

Due to the advantage our starters will have in the post, solid ball handling and an outside threat are the two most important things our starting PG can offer. It is my belief that Thompson provides a legitimate 3PT threat that Hill simply does not. Consequently, he can provide spacing and keep the defense honest in a way that Hill won't be able to do. Even if it turns out Hill is a better all-around player (more athletic, better defender, better ball handler, etc.), the starting lineup on the whole would be better with Thompson. Moreover, bringing Hill off the bench would allow him to play with lineups with more shooters on the floor (e.g. Stephens and Mathias) and it would add size to the lineup when Swanigan is out and Edwards (or someone else) is playing the 4 spot.

Thoughts?

I think as a starter or back up,Pajamas Thompson will do great things this year.

 

[Cevol03]

From a rotation standpoint, it makes sense to play Hill with the better shooters coming off the bench (Dakota and Kendall) and PJ to play with the starters who may not shoot as well because PJ is a better shooter. Will provide a more balanced rotation that way.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

I think most of us can agree that the presumptive starters for Purdue are as follows: Hill, Davis, Edwards, Swanigan, and Hammons. However, I cannot help but think that a better lineup would include PJ Thompson as the starting point guard and having Hill come off the bench. Here are my reasons...

The strength of this Purdue team will be its front court. Hammons (and Haas), Swanigan, and Edwards will be as good as any front court in the country. Anyone who watched Purdue last season (especially the tournament game against Cinci) knows that outside shooting was a major weakness. We can expect *some* improvement in outside shooting from Davis and Edwards, but little to none will come from Hammons or Swanigan. For Hammons, Swanigan, and Edwards to be most effective, we need to be able to space the floor and create a legitimate outside shooting threat. Hill's career statistics show that he is not an outside shooter: 30%, 29%, and 25%, and his attempts from 3 are very low as well. It's pretty clear that an outside shot has never been a strength. Additionally, I attended the first scrimmage... Hill was 0-3 from outside, all were open looks, and none looked like they were going in. Thompson, by contrast, was 4-8 from three in two scrimmages and looked confident shooting the ball in the scrimmage I attended.

Due to the advantage our starters will have in the post, solid ball handling and an outside threat are the two most important things our starting PG can offer. It is my belief that Thompson provides a legitimate 3PT threat that Hill simply does not. Consequently, he can provide spacing and keep the defense honest in a way that Hill won't be able to do. Even if it turns out Hill is a better all-around player (more athletic, better defender, better ball handler, etc.), the starting lineup on the whole would be better with Thompson. Moreover, bringing Hill off the bench would allow him to play with lineups with more shooters on the floor (e.g. Stephens and Mathias) and it would add size to the lineup when Swanigan is out and Edwards (or someone else) is playing the 4 spot.

Thoughts?

It all makes sense, but until I see Johnny Hill play I won't really have an opinion.

 

[feulner]

I think most of us can agree that the presumptive starters for Purdue are as follows: Hill, Davis, Edwards, Swanigan, and Hammons. However, I cannot help but think that a better lineup would include PJ Thompson as the starting point guard and having Hill come off the bench. Here are my reasons...

The strength of this Purdue team will be its front court. Hammons (and Haas), Swanigan, and Edwards will be as good as any front court in the country. Anyone who watched Purdue last season (especially the tournament game against Cinci) knows that outside shooting was a major weakness. We can expect *some* improvement in outside shooting from Davis and Edwards, but little to none will come from Hammons or Swanigan. For Hammons, Swanigan, and Edwards to be most effective, we need to be able to space the floor and create a legitimate outside shooting threat. Hill's career statistics show that he is not an outside shooter: 30%, 29%, and 25%, and his attempts from 3 are very low as well. It's pretty clear that an outside shot has never been a strength. Additionally, I attended the first scrimmage... Hill was 0-3 from outside, all were open looks, and none looked like they were going in. Thompson, by contrast, was 4-8 from three in two scrimmages and looked confident shooting the ball in the scrimmage I attended.

Due to the advantage our starters will have in the post, solid ball handling and an outside threat are the two most important things our starting PG can offer. It is my belief that Thompson provides a legitimate 3PT threat that Hill simply does not. Consequently, he can provide spacing and keep the defense honest in a way that Hill won't be able to do. Even if it turns out Hill is a better all-around player (more athletic, better defender, better ball handler, etc.), the starting lineup on the whole would be better with Thompson. Moreover, bringing Hill off the bench would allow him to play with lineups with more shooters on the floor (e.g. Stephens and Mathias) and it would add size to the lineup when Swanigan is out and Edwards (or someone else) is playing the 4 spot.

Thoughts?

I think Hill starts for length on defense to be a tone setter. Davis and Edwards should provide enough shooting threat to space the floor. If that doesn't happen, then you might start to see a line-up change one way or another.

 

[PU52Chevy]

It is not who starts but who finishes the game....

Hill I think is a better foul shooter...which he needs to be because his game is going to the hoop when the offense breaks down or it is there for him to take it.

His job is to pass, rebound and drive to the basket.....

PJ is more of a shooter and needs to work on getting in position better to rebound because of his size.

I think at the end of the year PJ and Hill are split 50/50 in minutes.

Both add value in different areas and both need to learn to play defense without fouling and rebound the ball.

On Offense they are a push and are about the same but score differently....but should add the same value as far as points per game from the PG spot...8+.

Boiler Up!

 

[gd4now]

It will be interesting to see just what does happen regarding the point. I am not sure those 2 are the only ones that play into this.

 

[BoileringUp]

Thanks for the responses. Glad to see at least a few people agree that the lineups may make more sense with Thompson starting (specifically that he be on the floor when Swanigan is on the floor with one of our centers). I want to respond to a couple of you guys' thoughts.

First, I do not believe it is realistic (barring injury) that someone other than Hill or Thompson will start at PG. Weatherford is not going to get serious minutes. And interviews with Hill, Thompson, and others clearly indicate that they aren't competing with Davis, Mathias, or anyone else for major PG minutes; it's seems to be between Hill and Thompson. I can see Mathias getting a few minutes at PG, but not as a starter.

Hill is not a better free throw shooter. Stats from his most recent season put him at 69%. That is *bad* for a PG as far as I am concerned.

A couple people have mentioned that Hill might be better getting to the rim than Thompson. Maybe true, but that is largely irrelevant outside of the fast break context. On this team, no matter who is the point guard, he will be the last option to score on offense. Frankly, I do not want our PG driving into the lane when he could be getting the ball to someone with a better ability to score (which is going to be anyone and everyone else on the court). In my mind, when our starting front court is in the game, floor spacing and the 3PT threat is much more important than a threat to drive. PU52Chevy suggested these guys are a "push" offensively. Maybe that could be true in terms of points scored by the PG's individually. It isn't true for the *team*. I'd reiterate that with our starting lineup, floor spacing provided by a PG with a 3PT threat is going to have a much greater positive impact than an PG who can't shoot but can drive the ball. It's the difference between playing one-on-one or against double teams in the post.

Someone mentioned Hill as a necessity where there are "breakdowns" or late clock situations... But I have to think that the ball will be in Davis or Edwards's hands in those cases, not Hill's. Maybe some people think that they'd prefer Hill have the ball over those guys though?

And defense? Hopefully Thompson will hold his own. But keep in mind that my desire to start Thompson is to provide the best, balanced lineups. The minutes between Hill and Thompson would still probably breakdown around 50/50, so we aren't losing out on Hill's superior defense. I guess I'm expecting Swanigan to only play about 25 minutes/game? Could be wrong about Swanigan's minutes

Like a few of you said, we won't know for sure until we see them play. I totally agree. And my opinion would change if I see Hill consistently shoot 35% from three (and he doesn't turn the ball over).

 

[proudopete]

Thanks for the responses. Glad to see at least a few people agree that the lineups may make more sense with Thompson starting (specifically that he be on the floor when Swanigan is on the floor with one of our centers). I want to respond to a couple of you guys' thoughts.

First, I do not believe it is realistic (barring injury) that someone other than Hill or Thompson will start at PG. Weatherford is not going to get serious minutes. And interviews with Hill, Thompson, and others clearly indicate that they aren't competing with Davis, Mathias, or anyone else for major PG minutes; it's seems to be between Hill and Thompson. I can see Mathias getting a few minutes at PG, but not as a starter.

Hill is not a better free throw shooter. Stats from his most recent season put him at 69%. That is *bad* for a PG as far as I am concerned.

A couple people have mentioned that Hill might be better getting to the rim than Thompson. Maybe true, but that is largely irrelevant outside of the fast break context. On this team, no matter who is the point guard, he will be the last option to score on offense. Frankly, I do not want our PG driving into the lane when he could be getting the ball to someone with a better ability to score (which is going to be anyone and everyone else on the court). In my mind, when our starting front court is in the game, floor spacing and the 3PT threat is much more important than a threat to drive. PU52Chevy suggested these guys are a "push" offensively. Maybe that could be true in terms of points scored by the PG's individually. It isn't true for the *team*. I'd reiterate that with our starting lineup, floor spacing provided by a PG with a 3PT threat is going to have a much greater positive impact than an PG who can't shoot but can drive the ball. It's the difference between playing one-on-one or against double teams in the post.

Someone mentioned Hill as a necessity where there are "breakdowns" or late clock situations... But I have to think that the ball will be in Davis or Edwards's hands in those cases, not Hill's. Maybe some people think that they'd prefer Hill have the ball over those guys though?

And defense? Hopefully Thompson will hold his own. But keep in mind that my desire to start Thompson is to provide the best, balanced lineups. The minutes between Hill and Thompson would still probably breakdown around 50/50, so we aren't losing out on Hill's superior defense. I guess I'm expecting Swanigan to only play about 25 minutes/game? Could be wrong about Swanigan's minutes

Like a few of you said, we won't know for sure until we see them play. I totally agree. And my opinion would change if I see Hill consistently shoot 35% from three (and he doesn't turn the ball over).

The good thing is we have both and they provide options.
I still think Hill can drive and create not points for himself, but for others.
Imagine Biggie setting a screen on the perimeter and a switch occurs. The big has to then guard Hill and Hill gets by him easily. That leaves the guy guarding Hammons to come in and protect the rim and stop Hil from getting an easy layup. At the same time we have Biggie rolling to the basket. How will teams stop that once the bigs get switched to smaller players? We have both Biggie and Hammons to dump to. Of course we have Edwards and Ray waiting for a long rebound and rotating to protect against a breakaway.

So many options and we stil have our two best shooters and Haas on the bench.

Man, I just got goosebumps.

But I also agree we need to keep teams out of the lane and PJ will be more of a deep threat. He will of course have to be batter then last year at hitting them for that to work.

I think everyone is hoping Ray and Edwards have improved in that area enough, along with their ability to drive, to provide the balance you are looking for.

I don't think anyone expects Ray or Mathias or in my case Edwards to start at the point. I do expect to see one or all three to be the one who brings the ball up and start the offense. The only question is who it will be and how much they do it?

 

[BoilerNGold013]

Hill needs to come off the bench at all times and spell RayDay. From what I hear, Hill is an excellent on ball guy but has NO shot. I was against either Hill or PJ starting but as the scrimmages have gone on, I am willing to give PJ a shot since he actually has a 3-point shot now thanks to his work in the off season. I am really sick and tried of Purdue being focused entirely on defense. That is why Hill and Davis NEVER should be on the floor at the same time. Ideally, if Mathias is healthy, he and RayDay need to share ball handling job with Vince as far as bringing it up the court. However, I will give Thompson the benefit of the doubt that he can be a double threat this year to score so I wouldn't mind him starting.

But again for the love of offense, DONT start Hill and Davis together....Defense wins championships but offense cannot be ignored. I think the fateful Hummel ACL year, the Boiler were like top 20 in offensive efficiency in the nation, which is why that team was great. Past Purdue teams were great defensive teams but that '09 team had the offense to back it up and should have played Duke on Monday night in Indy for the title.

 

[proudopete]

Hill needs to come off the bench at all times and spell RayDay. From what I hear, Hill is an excellent on ball guy but has NO shot. I was against either Hill or PJ starting but as the scrimmages have gone on, I am willing to give PJ a shot since he actually has a 3-point shot now thanks to his work in the off season. I am really sick and tried of Purdue being focused entirely on defense. That is why Hill and Davis NEVER should be on the floor at the same time. Ideally, if Mathias is healthy, he and RayDay need to share ball handling job with Vince as far as bringing it up the court. However, I will give Thompson the benefit of the doubt that he can be a double threat this year to score so I wouldn't mind him starting.

But again for the love of offense, DONT start Hill and Davis together....Defense wins championships but offense cannot be ignored. I think the fateful Hummel ACL year, the Boiler were like top 20 in offensive efficiency in the nation, which is why that team was great. Past Purdue teams were great defensive teams but that '09 team had the offense to back it up and should have played Duke on Monday night in Indy for the title.

Actually we finished 53 on O and 5 on D that year.
But the O probably dropped off a bit when Rob went down.

I believe we will finish higher this year then we have ever since Kenpom began.

I agree that if Hill can't provide any offense, then he will see limited minutes. I never bought into the fact that he would be the starter when we signed him. He has huge shoes to fill on a better team then Octeus played on. He will have to bring his A+ game to win a starting spot.

But I will hold off on my judgement until I see how he looks in real games.

 

[BoilerNGold013]

Actually we finished 53 on O and 5 on D that year.
But the O probably dropped off a bit when Rob went down.

I believe we will finish higher this year then we have ever since Kenpom began.

I agree that if Hill can't provide any offense, then he will see limited minutes. I never bought into the fact that he would be the starter when we signed him. He has huge shoes to fill on a better team then Octeus played on. He will have to bring his A+ game to win a starting spot.

But I will hold off on my judgement until I see how he looks in real games.

I specifically remember reading an ESPN article that year about the team around the time that we really got rolling in the BIG and was shocked to see how high they were in offensive efficiency. ESPN's point was that Purdue is obviously known for its defense but this year the team is in the top 20 in offensive efficiency. Obviously they fell after the Hummel injury.

The high offensive ranking really stuck out in my mind and hammered home the point to me that Purdue's cultural will always be defense first but any truly special team, a team that is capable of challenging for a national title will require offense around the same level as the defense. The 09 team had both in spades.

We have to kill people from inside and out this year if we want to accomplish the ultimate goal.

 

[West James]

I think most of us can agree that the presumptive starters for Purdue are as follows: Hill, Davis, Edwards, Swanigan, and Hammons. However, I cannot help but think that a better lineup would include PJ Thompson as the starting point guard and having Hill come off the bench. Here are my reasons...

The strength of this Purdue team will be its front court. Hammons (and Haas), Swanigan, and Edwards will be as good as any front court in the country. Anyone who watched Purdue last season (especially the tournament game against Cinci) knows that outside shooting was a major weakness. We can expect *some* improvement in outside shooting from Davis and Edwards, but little to none will come from Hammons or Swanigan. For Hammons, Swanigan, and Edwards to be most effective, we need to be able to space the floor and create a legitimate outside shooting threat. Hill's career statistics show that he is not an outside shooter: 30%, 29%, and 25%, and his attempts from 3 are very low as well. It's pretty clear that an outside shot has never been a strength. Additionally, I attended the first scrimmage... Hill was 0-3 from outside, all were open looks, and none looked like they were going in. Thompson, by contrast, was 4-8 from three in two scrimmages and looked confident shooting the ball in the scrimmage I attended.

Due to the advantage our starters will have in the post, solid ball handling and an outside threat are the two most important things our starting PG can offer. It is my belief that Thompson provides a legitimate 3PT threat that Hill simply does not. Consequently, he can provide spacing and keep the defense honest in a way that Hill won't be able to do. Even if it turns out Hill is a better all-around player (more athletic, better defender, better ball handler, etc.), the starting lineup on the whole would be better with Thompson. Moreover, bringing Hill off the bench would allow him to play with lineups with more shooters on the floor (e.g. Stephens and Mathias) and it would add size to the lineup when Swanigan is out and Edwards (or someone else) is playing the 4 spot.

Thoughts?

I'd go with Hill, unless PJ can somehow, magically preform above & far beyond our expectations, when being constantly posted up, by his opposite, bigger, stronger, taller opponent, practically every time down. PJ would be advantageous in fast break situations, offensively for Purdue, but I just don't see this big [somewhat slower than average] team running that many fast breaks this season, unfortunately. It would be nice if it were to happen on a somewhat regular/above average basis.


"If it ain't broke, ..."



Go Boilers!!!

 

[West James]

I think most of us can agree that the presumptive starters for Purdue are as follows: Hill, Davis, Edwards, Swanigan, and Hammons. However, I cannot help but think that a better lineup would include PJ Thompson as the starting point guard and having Hill come off the bench. Here are my reasons...

The strength of this Purdue team will be its front court. Hammons (and Haas), Swanigan, and Edwards will be as good as any front court in the country. Anyone who watched Purdue last season (especially the tournament game against Cinci) knows that outside shooting was a major weakness. We can expect *some* improvement in outside shooting from Davis and Edwards, but little to none will come from Hammons or Swanigan. For Hammons, Swanigan, and Edwards to be most effective, we need to be able to space the floor and create a legitimate outside shooting threat. Hill's career statistics show that he is not an outside shooter: 30%, 29%, and 25%, and his attempts from 3 are very low as well. It's pretty clear that an outside shot has never been a strength. Additionally, I attended the first scrimmage... Hill was 0-3 from outside, all were open looks, and none looked like they were going in. Thompson, by contrast, was 4-8 from three in two scrimmages and looked confident shooting the ball in the scrimmage I attended.

Due to the advantage our starters will have in the post, solid ball handling and an outside threat are the two most important things our starting PG can offer. It is my belief that Thompson provides a legitimate 3PT threat that Hill simply does not. Consequently, he can provide spacing and keep the defense honest in a way that Hill won't be able to do. Even if it turns out Hill is a better all-around player (more athletic, better defender, better ball handler, etc.), the starting lineup on the whole would be better with Thompson. Moreover, bringing Hill off the bench would allow him to play with lineups with more shooters on the floor (e.g. Stephens and Mathias) and it would add size to the lineup when Swanigan is out and Edwards (or someone else) is playing the 4 spot.

Thoughts?

Point Guard is probably the one position, where we see the most variations [at least early in the season], different players, combinations & substitutions throughout the entire season. We shall see. It's also the single most important/responsibility oriented position, where a coach/team wants/needs the most stability/confidence & trust, in an individual/player, offense & defense, especially offense.



Go Boilers!!!

 

[QuadBoiler2014]

I think most of us can agree that the presumptive starters for Purdue are as follows: Hill, Davis, Edwards, Swanigan, and Hammons. However, I cannot help but think that a better lineup would include PJ Thompson as the starting point guard and having Hill come off the bench. Here are my reasons...

The strength of this Purdue team will be its front court. Hammons (and Haas), Swanigan, and Edwards will be as good as any front court in the country. Anyone who watched Purdue last season (especially the tournament game against Cinci) knows that outside shooting was a major weakness. We can expect *some* improvement in outside shooting from Davis and Edwards, but little to none will come from Hammons or Swanigan. For Hammons, Swanigan, and Edwards to be most effective, we need to be able to space the floor and create a legitimate outside shooting threat. Hill's career statistics show that he is not an outside shooter: 30%, 29%, and 25%, and his attempts from 3 are very low as well. It's pretty clear that an outside shot has never been a strength. Additionally, I attended the first scrimmage... Hill was 0-3 from outside, all were open looks, and none looked like they were going in. Thompson, by contrast, was 4-8 from three in two scrimmages and looked confident shooting the ball in the scrimmage I attended.

Due to the advantage our starters will have in the post, solid ball handling and an outside threat are the two most important things our starting PG can offer. It is my belief that Thompson provides a legitimate 3PT threat that Hill simply does not. Consequently, he can provide spacing and keep the defense honest in a way that Hill won't be able to do. Even if it turns out Hill is a better all-around player (more athletic, better defender, better ball handler, etc.), the starting lineup on the whole would be better with Thompson. Moreover, bringing Hill off the bench would allow him to play with lineups with more shooters on the floor (e.g. Stephens and Mathias) and it would add size to the lineup when Swanigan is out and Edwards (or someone else) is playing the 4 spot.

Thoughts?

You make an excellent point. Here is what I think.

I agree that Hill has little to no outside shot at all. I agree that Thompson is the better of the two at shooting 3s. I'm not sure how much that will matter.

I think the starting job at point will be dependent on matchups. From all accounts it sounds like Hill and PJ are right there with eachother in terms of who earns a starting role and each one gives something the other does not.

If I had to pick one to start, it would be Hill. Hill is more athletic, quicker getting to the rim, stronger, longer, taller, a better rebounder, a better defender, and a better passer. I do not agree that a 3 pt shot it the most important thing for our PG. I think it is 1) Taking care of the ball 2) making good decisions 3) playing great defense.

A 3pt option at PG certainly is a good thing, but when Ray/Vince/Biggie are hitting 3s like they did in the scrimmages, it becomes much less important. Ray/Vince/Biggie were a combined 11-22 from 3 in the scrimmages. They certainly won't shoot that we'll every night, but even if they are just making a few shots from deep a night at 35+%, it makes a 3 option at PG much less important.

From everything I have seen, Hill is better than PJ at everything besides outside shooting and MAYBE taking care of the ball. If TOs prove to still be a problem for Hill, PJ will play no matter what his 3pt shooting is like, but if the scrimmages are any indication, I think Hill will do just fine (6 asst to 0 TOs).

If we are hitting on the offensive end, we need our best crew on the defensive end, and Hill, Davis, Edwards, Biggie and Hammons are our 5 best defenders. Terrorizing on offense and then suffocating on defense will win us the most games, and that lineup is the best suited to do that IMO.

Now if Davis/Vince/Biggie aren't hitting from 3, then get PJ in there to try to help out. That's why I said it will be situational. If we know that we need more 3 shooting a certain game, but PJ in the starting role. If we know that our 2-4 positions are usually hitting 3s well and we want to frustrate a team on defense, the put Hill in the starting role.

It's good that we have PG players that compliment eachother so well, gives is a lot of flexibility to do a lot of things when in a pinch.

Side Note: If we are being critical here, Hill made 8 3s last year in 21 games (0.38 per game) at 25%. PJ comparatively made 14 3s in 30 games (.47 per game) at 28%. Not a whole lot of difference there. Also, Hill did got 0-3 from 3 in the first scrimmage and PJ went 4-5, but the second scrimmage PJ went 0-3 and Hill didn't have the chance to play. Who is to say that Hill wouldn't have done the same as PJ did in the first scrimmage (I don't think he would have, just saying). PJ also only had 7 assists to 5 TOs in the 2 scrimnages. Not exactly a huge confidence builder (IMO, PJ just had an off day in the second scrimmage and if very capable to take care of the ball at a high level, just trying to be fair to the players).

A lot of questions have to be answered before now and December. I hope the staff can figure it out well in advance and not have a train-wreck like we did last non-conference.

 

[VulvHa]

Point Guard is probably the one position, where we see the most variations [at least early in the season], different players, combinations & substitutions throughout the entire season. We shall see. It's also the single most important/responsibility oriented position, where a coach/team wants/needs the most stability/confidence & trust, in an individual/player, offense & defense, especially offense.



Go Boilers!!!

Not in Painter's motion offense. PG isn't as important as other offenses.

 

[BoilerDaddy]

You make an excellent point. Here is what I think.

I agree that Hill has little to no outside shot at all. I agree that Thompson is the better of the two at shooting 3s. I'm not sure how much that will matter.

I think the starting job at point will be dependent on matchups. From all accounts it sounds like Hill and PJ are right there with eachother in terms of who earns a starting role and each one gives something the other does not.

If I had to pick one to start, it would be Hill. Hill is more athletic, quicker getting to the rim, stronger, longer, taller, a better rebounder, a better defender, and a better passer. I do not agree that a 3 pt shot it the most important thing for our PG. I think it is 1) Taking care of the ball 2) making good decisions 3) playing great defense.

A 3pt option at PG certainly is a good thing, but when Ray/Vince/Biggie are hitting 3s like they did in the scrimmages, it becomes much less important. Ray/Vince/Biggie were a combined 11-22 from 3 in the scrimmages. They certainly won't shoot that we'll every night, but even if they are just making a few shots from deep a night at 35+%, it makes a 3 option at PG much less important.

From everything I have seen, Hill is better than PJ at everything besides outside shooting and MAYBE taking care of the ball. If TOs prove to still be a problem for Hill, PJ will play no matter what his 3pt shooting is like, but if the scrimmages are any indication, I think Hill will do just fine (6 asst to 0 TOs).

If we are hitting on the offensive end, we need our best crew on the defensive end, and Hill, Davis, Edwards, Biggie and Hammons are our 5 best defenders. Terrorizing on offense and then suffocating on defense will win us the most games, and that lineup is the best suited to do that IMO.

Now if Davis/Vince/Biggie aren't hitting from 3, then get PJ in there to try to help out. That's why I said it will be situational. If we know that we need more 3 shooting a certain game, but PJ in the starting role. If we know that our 2-4 positions are usually hitting 3s well and we want to frustrate a team on defense, the put Hill in the starting role.

It's good that we have PG players that compliment eachother so well, gives is a lot of flexibility to do a lot of things when in a pinch.

Side Note: If we are being critical here, Hill made 8 3s last year in 21 games (0.38 per game) at 25%. PJ comparatively made 14 3s in 30 games (.47 per game) at 28%. Not a whole lot of difference there. Also, Hill did got 0-3 from 3 in the first scrimmage and PJ went 4-5, but the second scrimmage PJ went 0-3 and Hill didn't have the chance to play. Who is to say that Hill wouldn't have done the same as PJ did in the first scrimmage (I don't think he would have, just saying). PJ also only had 7 assists to 5 TOs in the 2 scrimnages. Not exactly a huge confidence builder (IMO, PJ just had an off day in the second scrimmage and if very capable to take care of the ball at a high level, just trying to be fair to the players).

A lot of questions have to be answered before now and December. I hope the staff can figure it out well in advance and not have a train-wreck like we did last non-conference.

I think that PJ is a much better shooter than the 28% indicates. He's admitted to freshman jitters and its not unusual for freshmen to struggle from 3 when adjusting to Big Ten basketball, but I've seen enough from PJ in the past to believe that he is capable of shooting at least 35% from three.

If PJ be the college equivalent of what Derek Fisher used to be for the Lakers, I think he'll provide exactly what Purdue needs.

 

[QuadBoiler2014]

I think that PJ is a much better shooter than the 28% indicates. He's admitted to freshman jitters and its not unusual for freshmen to struggle from 3 when adjusting to Big Ten basketball, but I've seen enough from PJ in the past to believe that he is capable of shooting at least 35% from three.

If PJ be the college equivalent of what Derek Fisher used to be for the Lakers, I think he'll provide exactly what Purdue needs.

I don't believe PJ has ever shot above 36% from 3 for a season. It would take a lot of improvement for him to even shoot 35%. If he makes more than 30 3s at or above 33% this season I will be unbelievably surprised. Not saying he can't do it, but it would greatly surprise me

 

[CRBoiler]

PJ seems to have grown into a focused, mature player. I am sure he put in the work this offseason to improve his shot, and I believe he will be smart about shot selection, so it won't surprise me if he shoots 35+% at 3's.

 

[QuadBoiler2014]

PJ seems to have grown into a focused, mature player. I am sure he put in the work this offseason to improve his shot, and I believe he will be smart about shot selection, so it won't surprise me if he shoots 35+% at 3's.

Depends on how many he shoots IMO. He will get a lot of minutes I believe and he can't really drive that well, so I'm guessing most of the shots he takes this season will be 3s.

My prediction is if PJ takes 90 or more 3s in the regular season, he will not shoot over 33%. If he can do better than that in our 31 regular season games, both PJ and Purdue will look very VERY good