So than why is he afraid to recruit over Smith at PG? He turned the ball over in critical games and times when we needed him (IU game and Tournament)
The Facts
- Thread starter collegehoopsfan123
- Start date
Because he is a trusted bucketmaker either by scoring or assists.
Bottom line, many Power 5 basketball schools give a newly hired basketball
coach 5 - 7 years (10 years max.) to make a Final Four (improve the program).
Having not been to a Final Four in 43 years (after having done it in '69 and '80)
is why some Purdue fans would like a coaching change. Its that simple.
It is still a business at the end of the day. That's all I got. Go Boilers!
coach 5 - 7 years (10 years max.) to make a Final Four (improve the program).
Having not been to a Final Four in 43 years (after having done it in '69 and '80)
is why some Purdue fans would like a coaching change. Its that simple.
It is still a business at the end of the day. That's all I got. Go Boilers!
Last edited:
A coach should always be looking to improve his roster. We always hear Painter doesn’t make promises, so therefore, Smith should expect Painter to bring someone in to play starters minutes.
The fact that there are still people here that believe Painter is the best possible coach Purdue could ever get, blows my mind.
I believe that Purdue uses the balls the days before the tourney. I don't know that #1 is wild speculation, but think the same situation may have occured last year as well. Many things could be suggested if the shots were a bit rushed and such or a lot of shots take place by people that shouldn't shoot them. Matt cuts down on practce time as the season goes on and so you don't want to think fatigue is in play. On the physical side you hope that the team is getting a lot of shooting in game like conditions with spot ups and some movement around the arc "after some fatigue" as well as a few pull ups with one and two dribbles.
Mentally, you wonder "if" the Big through coaches knowing each other and players as well through tape and scouting created the conditions where Purdue looked to Zach a bit more than earlier in the year and then when taken away somewhat...the players struggled a bit in confidence in which the monkey on Purdue's back has turned into an ape.
There are posters in both forums that believe Purdue needs players that can create their own shot. I get that. However, the premise behind that is that open shots are not there and that players have to hit contested shots and create for themselves or they just like what they see on TV. That was the scenario when Haas went down against Texas TEch, but Zach didn't and Zach was probably the best shot creator in the USA and Braden was very good as well. Mentally, it is also entirely possible that the players in many cases have too much time to think do I take this shot or throw it back in? The mental part of questioning is always in play for Braden, but shouldn't be as much for Fletcher, Brandon and Mason for example. Anyway, getting wide open shots are the desire of every coach and shooting them effectively "should" result in more makes than contested shots. Whatever the percent of 3 balls are reasonable...shouldn't Purdue shoot them a bit higher than most the country with the looks they had?
My sense is that Painter wasn’t holding his three point shooters back this season. He was telling them to shoot, particularly Smith and Loyer. He talked often about how he loved Loyer’s willingness to take the big shot and he also said several times that he wants Smith to shoot more. He was also very positive about Jenkins and Gillis stepping up and hitting big shots on different occasions and he continued to believe in Morton when almost nobody else did.
It doesn’t seem like Painter coached the players into playing scared to shoot. To me it seemed more like the players struggled with the high expectations that come with rising to #1 two seasons in a row, especially this season when aside from Edey, they weren’t an overwhelmingly talented team.
It doesn’t seem like Painter coached the players into playing scared to shoot. To me it seemed more like the players struggled with the high expectations that come with rising to #1 two seasons in a row, especially this season when aside from Edey, they weren’t an overwhelmingly talented team.
No Matt was much more loosening of anyone shooting that I would have been for some 4s. I do think they are talented, but concerned with the development of that talent at the 4 spot. If you haven't seen the video I posted on Trey two years ago in high school I think you will be surprised with his versatility. I think more versatility needed developed in the 4s mainly. I have no good answer for Brandon @3 developing since it appears to me that he needs a lot more free flowing game absent some sets. Ethan has some physical limitations and a shooting pocket that is pretty low. He has more limitations physically than most on the team, but generally has a good mind for the game
How about this premise: We don't have good 3 point shooters.
You are what your stats say you are. Braden had the highest % at 37. Goes down from there. No elite shooters in the current roster. It's why I've been pushing the idea that CMP get the absolute best guard/guards he can get in the portal. Braden playing 30+ minutes is not good. If he can't land an elite guard, then the next best thing would be a wing that can hit the 3 at a high %. I know others on here are expecting a big jump from Smith and Loyer. I hope they are right because we need them to if we don't get help from the portal.
Good 3 point shooters don't miss the wide open 3's that we had. There are players out there shooting tough 3's and hitting a higher % than we did. Imagine if they were given the looks our guys had this year.
You are what your stats say you are. Braden had the highest % at 37. Goes down from there. No elite shooters in the current roster. It's why I've been pushing the idea that CMP get the absolute best guard/guards he can get in the portal. Braden playing 30+ minutes is not good. If he can't land an elite guard, then the next best thing would be a wing that can hit the 3 at a high %. I know others on here are expecting a big jump from Smith and Loyer. I hope they are right because we need them to if we don't get help from the portal.
Good 3 point shooters don't miss the wide open 3's that we had. There are players out there shooting tough 3's and hitting a higher % than we did. Imagine if they were given the looks our guys had this year.
I'm just not convinced that Purdue shooters couldn't have shot better even though the past data doesn't reflect that. No matter what happens next year...Purdue needs to hit a higher percent if the looks are the same.
There is the same evidence for most programs, until there isn't. Outside of the Blue bloods most teams don't have piles of final fours and championships. Baylor for instance was coached by the same coach for 17 years before they broke through, and had much worse performances than Painter leading up to that point. Same could be said about Virginia.
Without the name of a Blue Blood getting a "hall of fame" coach isn't very easy. Usually you can get someone who can recruit, someone who can coach X/O, someone who can develop players, or someone who is just clutch at coaching down the stretch. Very rarely do you get someone that can do it all, and if you do one of the top name programs will steal them pretty quickly.
Painter is elite at X/O, great at player development, good at recruiting, and bad at clutch coaching down the stretch. He has shown he can improve, contrary to this board's opinion, as is seen in his improvement in his recruiting.
Best way to overcome his clutchness issues is to keep going into the tourney as a top seed. Eventually we will break through......
Well then start a GoFundMe for his $16 million buyout.
It happens occasionally, & I wouldn't put much stock in what's happened to Purdue if CMP had Izzo's resume... but he doesn't.
Caitlin Clark is a better shooter than anyone on Purdue’s roster.
Being a “blue blood” has nothing to do with it. UVA isn’t a BB, Baylor isn’t a BB., Gonzaga? There are only a handful of programs that would be considered BBs where the name itself helps in recruiting. But there are a lot more talented players than roster spots on BB teams.
Purdue’s problems start and end with the head coach, just like any program does. One could argue that based on the last 3 years, Painter is actually getting worse at coaching in the tourney (proven by evidence, not opinion).
Why would I do that? Purdue has plenty of money.
Are you one of the “we can never do better than Painter!”
If everyone in Purdue’s alumni base agrees with you, should be no problem coming up with the $16 million, right ?
Again, not my job. That’s MBobs job.
If MBob got $16m from an alumnus, would he pull the trigger on Painter?
No one said they were. Just that Painter hasn’t recruited a bunch of violent thugs like Izzo has.
You must not care too much about who our coach is, if you’re not willing to do that.
If the vast majority of Purdue alums want Painter fired, as @bonefish1 claims, then should be a piece of cake to raise the buyout money, especially for someone who is so fixated on the issue.
Again, answer the question: if I gave MBob $16m, would he replace Painter?
Has MBob stated that the $16m is the reason Painter isn’t being replaced? You seem to think that’s all that stands between Purdue and a new coach?
I'll answer. No he wouldn't. Why? Because it's a business and by most business measures, Painter is extremely successful. If the business turns south, then you can expect the AD to make a change.
Oh please how many " violent criminals" has Izzo recruited since 1997? Did he know they were violent? Did every one of his 8 final four teams have "violent criminals"? How about the many elite 8 and sweet 16 teams? I get the hatred of Izzo since he has been so much more success than Purdue, but this is a stretch. I assume that FAU, FDU, and San Diego State all have "thugs" on their teams since they outperformed expectations and outperformed Purdue.
Last edited:
I presume FAU, FDU, and SDSU all used major NIL money this year too? I've been told that's Painter's big problem.
You missed my point entirely. The BB advantage I was referring to was in the ability to hire a coach better than Painter. Embarrassing losses aside, there are a handful of active coaches that have been to a S16 or better more than Painter in the last decade. The ones that have had better success aren't really possible hires as they are already at a BB, or are firmly in place at their existing school (Ganzaga/Few).
So that leaves the only option for an upgrade being a Hail Mary attempt on an up and comer. See where that has gotten IU.....
My point with UVA and Baylor is that they were basically Purdue before they broke through and won a champ game. Look at their results leading up to those titles. Lots and lots of consistently good but not great seasons.
Replace him with who? Big name coaches are making 2.5x what Painter does, usually at programs that are easier to recruit from. What makes you so certain that replacing Painter would automatically lead to better results?
Why would an athletic director comment publicly on his defending B1G champion coach’s buyout?
In other words the
In other words you won’t answer. Of the 300 or so players it’s a couple players.
In other words you won’t answer. Of the 300 or so players it’s a couple players.
Ok tell me 1/3? That would be 100, 1/4 that would be about 75, 10% ,that would be about 30. Tell me the names . Start with 30.
Similar threads
