I don't get the age criticism. 1st rounders get a 3 year deal, he will be 26 when that's up. And he's a center: he will be effective into his 30s.
Here's another way to look at it: Hammons is better RIGHT NOW than all the clown bigs that Golden State was trotting out after bogut got hurt.
I have been saying for months that Hammons is a better player than Poeltl, never mind a better prospect.
How was our offense a negative for AJ? It was as post centric as it could get it. He got as many touches as he wanted. That comment makes no sense when we're in the top 5 of our league on offensive efficiency year in & year out. Lame trope to try to fit into his article to make a point about Hammons. The guy obviously hasn't watched a lot of NCAA basketball IMO. We have shooters all over the floor & guys who fed the post constantly. That offense was made for AJ to succeed.
It is not clear to me the writer didn't think much of Purdue's offense. It appeared more to me that he thought the execution of the offense was the issue, rather than the offense. If someone read something different, please help me understand.
Brilliant and spot on post.It is not clear to me the writer didn't think much of Purdue's offense. It appeared more to me that he thought the execution of the offense was the issue, rather than the offense. If someone read something different, please help me understand.
I did pick up this "It’s also much harder for a big man to affect the game at the NCAA level, because so much of their success depends on the quality of their teammates. Not many college teams run a good offense or space the floor properly, and even fewer have competent point guard play. Without a floor general who can control tempo, enter the ball into the post, or consistently hit the roll man, life is difficult for a pivot, no matter how talented. Conversely, a big man who plays on a well-coached team with proper spacing and facilitation can post statistics that overstate his talent level.
Any player that depends on others to get him the ball faces to a degree all of the above items. A coach attempts to place the best team out on the floor to win as much as possible. The execution of that approach has a lot to do with the combination of the skill and athleticism of the players willing to go to the school, able to make it at that school, along with the coach thinking he can be successful. During Matt's time (same offense, just different tweets to take advantage of the skills) we have seen teams run up and down the floor, played small ball and were dominant in the low post in a half court set. There has been much full court offense, some full court offense and rarely any full court offense all a function of the cards he had. There is not a coach alive that doesn't wish for great spacing, but if the players don't have the threat to stretch the D, why would the defense allow that team spacing unless they thought more pressure was even more effective than not guarding them?
Did Matt's discipline towards AJ make him a better player or hurt the perception? I believe the bottom line was a better player, but a reasonable debate could commence. Does any of it matter? AJ will get drafted. He has the ability to negotiate a better future than whatever he starts out with if he performs. As always, it is about AJ and not being a victim like much of the country in something...
This is simply not true. There are years of things Painter did for AJ that no one has seen. There is far more to coaching than what happens on the court. It has been a long process of maturing. Other posters have mentioned who AJ was when he came to Purdue. Something, or someone, helped him become who is now. Still a work in progress, but so much more than he was. And yes, I have spent a lot of time in the halls of Mackey, Brees, and Mollenkopf.
Love the post TJ. This thread started as a knock on Painter but there was no substance to the criticism. This post gives logical reasoning for the statements you made. You should be banned.It is not clear to me the writer didn't think much of Purdue's offense. It appeared more to me that he thought the execution of the offense was the issue, rather than the offense. If someone read something different, please help me understand.
I did pick up this "It’s also much harder for a big man to affect the game at the NCAA level, because so much of their success depends on the quality of their teammates. Not many college teams run a good offense or space the floor properly, and even fewer have competent point guard play. Without a floor general who can control tempo, enter the ball into the post, or consistently hit the roll man, life is difficult for a pivot, no matter how talented. Conversely, a big man who plays on a well-coached team with proper spacing and facilitation can post statistics that overstate his talent level.
Any player that depends on others to get him the ball faces to a degree all of the above items. A coach attempts to place the best team out on the floor to win as much as possible. The execution of that approach has a lot to do with the combination of the skill and athleticism of the players willing to go to the school, able to make it at that school, along with the coach thinking he can be successful. During Matt's time (same offense, just different tweaks to take advantage of the skills) we have seen teams run up and down the floor, played small ball and were dominant in the low post in a half court set. There has been much full court offense, some full court offense and rarely any full court offense all a function of the cards he had. There is not a coach alive that doesn't wish for great spacing, but if the players don't have the threat to stretch the D, why would the defense allow that team spacing unless they thought more pressure was even more effective than not guarding them?
Did Matt's discipline towards AJ make him a better player or hurt the perception? I believe the bottom line was a better player, but a reasonable debate could commence. Does any of it matter? AJ will get drafted. He has the ability to negotiate a better future than whatever he starts out with if he performs. As always, it is about AJ and not being a victim like much of the country in something...
JJ lacked size. Look at the NBA today all guys JJs height and weight are shooting 40% from 3. AJ on the other hand has all the tools and size he should have a long career
This is old news, but besides the mention of AJ, the evaluation of Zimmerman brought back memories of some of the discussions on this board. In the past, we have had discussions about the impact of a "long neck" on a big man.
This is old news, but besides the mention of AJ, the evaluation of Zimmerman brought back memories of some of the discussions on this board. In the past, we have had discussions about the impact of a "long neck" on a big man.
