Tone

[Ben Shadeland]

Just a thought, but I'm hoping at least one Painter critic will think about this...

We all like to be right. It's human nature. No one likes to lose an argument. Every person sees the world through his/her own lens, which means just about every person starts out believing he/she is right, no matter the issue.

But here's the thing. What gets annoying on this board is when "being right" about Painter being an average/substandard coach seems more important to you than Purdue winning games.

I'm talking about tone. Tone can often reveal far more than one's actual words. When Purdue is playing poorly, as in the first half yesterday, a rather unpleasant tone surfaces on this board. I'd call it righteous vindication or strident condemnation. A tone that says, "See?! THIS is what I'm talking about! Painter sucks, and Purdue will never succeed with him in charge! All you Painter lovers need to wake up!"

When I checked the board yesterday at halftime, it looked like the message board for a team that was 2-and-8 rather than 8-and-2 (or a team that had gone 8-and-27 last year rather than 27-and-8).

You don't like Coach Painter. Fine. We get it.

But the quickness and jubilance with which you go there suggests you're more concerned with being right than you are with Purdue winning, regardless of who the coach is.

The tone when we win is even more revealing than the tone when we lose. You don't sound genuinely happy. You sound grudgingly conciliatory. As if your team lost and you're barely avoiding blaming the refs: "I'll give Painter credit this time. He finally made an adjustment, though this doesn't excuse his seven hundred unforgivable coaching sins."

Honestly, you sound disappointed when we succeed. Which shows you'd rather Purdue take a nosedive so Painter will get fired than have Purdue succeed with Coach Painter in the lead.

I find this unfortunate. But then again, those of you who dislike Painter are probably frustrated by those who support him.

Full disclosure: I sometimes get frustrated with his decisions too. How could I not? In any basketball game, there are literally hundreds of decisions a coach has to make. It's a mathematical impossibility that I'll agree with every one. Yesterday, I wanted him to sub once for Biggie in the last ten minutes (just for thirty seconds or so) to keep him fresh. I also wanted him to have Carsen out there instead of one of the other guards between the two- and one-minute mark so we'd have someone in there who could get his own shot.

That doesn't mean I was right--I probably wasn't--nor does it mean I was wrong (I probably was). It just means I have opinions that don't always dovetail with Painter's. But when he's right, and I'm wrong, I'm absolutely delighted we won (and, by extension, I'm delighted I was wrong). And when his decisions don't work out, I'm not happy or celebratory about it. Because Purdue freakin' lost. That's what matters.

I hope you all have a happy and safe Sunday.

 

[Do Dah Day]

I'm talking about tone. Tone can often reveal far more than one's actual words. When Purdue is playing poorly, as in the first half yesterday, a rather unpleasant tone surfaces on this board. I'd call it righteous vindication or strident condemnation. A tone that says, "See?! THIS is what I'm talking about! Painter sucks, and Purdue will never succeed with him in charge! All you Painter lovers need to wake up!"

I'm off to create a few new accounts --- so I can like this more than once.

 

[Ben Shadeland]

I'm off to create a few new accounts --- so I can like this more than once.

Thanks, Do Dah Day. I really appreciate that. I'm sure some will hate the post and find it condescending. It wasn't intended that way. I just think the tenor of the board isn't in line with the state of the program. We're really good, we were quite good last year, and it looks like we'll be really strong for the foreseeable future. Let's enjoy it!

 

[Do Dah Day]

Thanks, Do Dah Day. I really appreciate that. I'm sure some will hate the post and find it condescending. It wasn't intended that way. I just think the tenor of the board isn't in line with the state of the program. We're really good, we were quite good last year, and it looks like we'll be really strong for the foreseeable future. Let's enjoy it!

Bingo. We create the lives we live ... some choose to create unneeded crappy lives ...

 

[Mandeville LA]

Just a thought, but I'm hoping at least one Painter critic will think about this...

We all like to be right. It's human nature. No one likes to lose an argument. Every person sees the world through his/her own lens, which means just about every person starts out believing he/she is right, no matter the issue.

But here's the thing. What gets annoying on this board is when "being right" about Painter being an average/substandard coach seems more important to you than Purdue winning games.

I'm talking about tone. Tone can often reveal far more than one's actual words. When Purdue is playing poorly, as in the first half yesterday, a rather unpleasant tone surfaces on this board. I'd call it righteous vindication or strident condemnation. A tone that says, "See?! THIS is what I'm talking about! Painter sucks, and Purdue will never succeed with him in charge! All you Painter lovers need to wake up!"

When I checked the board yesterday at halftime, it looked like the message board for a team that was 2-and-8 rather than 8-and-2 (or a team that had gone 8-and-27 last year rather than 27-and-8).

You don't like Coach Painter. Fine. We get it.

But the quickness and jubilance with which you go there suggests you're more concerned with being right than you are with Purdue winning, regardless of who the coach is.

The tone when we win is even more revealing than the tone when we lose. You don't sound genuinely happy. You sound grudgingly conciliatory. As if your team lost and you're barely avoiding blaming the refs: "I'll give Painter credit this time. He finally made an adjustment, those this doesn't excuse his seven hundred unforgivable coaching sins."

Honestly, you sound disappointed when we succeed. Which shows you'd rather Purdue take a nosedive so Painter will get fired than have Purdue succeed with Coach Painter in the lead.

I find this unfortunate. But then again, those of you who dislike Painter are probably frustrated by those who support him.

Full disclosure: I sometimes get frustrated with his decisions too. How could I not? In any basketball game, there are literally hundreds of decisions a coach has to make. It's a mathematical impossibility that I'll agree with every one. Yesterday, I wanted him to sub once for Biggie in the last ten minutes (just for thirty seconds or so) to keep him fresh. I also wanted him to have Carsen out there instead of one of the other guards between the two- and one-minute mark so we'd have someone in there who could get his own shot.

That doesn't mean I was right--I probably wasn't--nor does it mean I was wrong (I probably was). It just means I have opinions that don't always dovetail with Painter's. But when he's right, and I'm wrong, I'm absolutely delighted we won (and, by extension, I'm delighted I was wrong). And when his decisions don't work out, I'm not happy or celebratory about it. Because Purdue freakin' lost. That's what matters.

I hope you all have a happy and safe Sunday.

I agree with your post. I just don't get it? I watch every game to the last second hoping we can hang on or pull of a last second win. After that I find myself with a few thoughts. Never once have I had the urge to get up and posting something negative about the team or the coach during the game. Maybe I am not deep enough of a person, but I just don't get it. I guess you find a lot of brave people hiding behind their computers these days.

 

[tjreese]

Just a thought, but I'm hoping at least one Painter critic will think about this...

We all like to be right. It's human nature. No one likes to lose an argument. Every person sees the world through his/her own lens, which means just about every person starts out believing he/she is right, no matter the issue.

But here's the thing. What gets annoying on this board is when "being right" about Painter being an average/substandard coach seems more important to you than Purdue winning games.

I'm talking about tone. Tone can often reveal far more than one's actual words. When Purdue is playing poorly, as in the first half yesterday, a rather unpleasant tone surfaces on this board. I'd call it righteous vindication or strident condemnation. A tone that says, "See?! THIS is what I'm talking about! Painter sucks, and Purdue will never succeed with him in charge! All you Painter lovers need to wake up!"

When I checked the board yesterday at halftime, it looked like the message board for a team that was 2-and-8 rather than 8-and-2 (or a team that had gone 8-and-27 last year rather than 27-and-8).

You don't like Coach Painter. Fine. We get it.

But the quickness and jubilance with which you go there suggests you're more concerned with being right than you are with Purdue winning, regardless of who the coach is.

The tone when we win is even more revealing than the tone when we lose. You don't sound genuinely happy. You sound grudgingly conciliatory. As if your team lost and you're barely avoiding blaming the refs: "I'll give Painter credit this time. He finally made an adjustment, though this doesn't excuse his seven hundred unforgivable coaching sins."

Honestly, you sound disappointed when we succeed. Which shows you'd rather Purdue take a nosedive so Painter will get fired than have Purdue succeed with Coach Painter in the lead.

I find this unfortunate. But then again, those of you who dislike Painter are probably frustrated by those who support him.

Full disclosure: I sometimes get frustrated with his decisions too. How could I not? In any basketball game, there are literally hundreds of decisions a coach has to make. It's a mathematical impossibility that I'll agree with every one. Yesterday, I wanted him to sub once for Biggie in the last ten minutes (just for thirty seconds or so) to keep him fresh. I also wanted him to have Carsen out there instead of one of the other guards between the two- and one-minute mark so we'd have someone in there who could get his own shot.

That doesn't mean I was right--I probably wasn't--nor does it mean I was wrong (I probably was). It just means I have opinions that don't always dovetail with Painter's. But when he's right, and I'm wrong, I'm absolutely delighted we won (and, by extension, I'm delighted I was wrong). And when his decisions don't work out, I'm not happy or celebratory about it. Because Purdue freakin' lost. That's what matters.

I hope you all have a happy and safe Sunday.

There are some that haven't been close to the arena and I bite my tongue because I've seen it for years...part of human nature. I also understand that "sometimes" those that may not be in the "know" see things that those in the "know" pass up. I try to keep an open mind, but admit sometimes it is very obvious they can't spell arena.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. "

 

[boiler-deuce]

A true realist calls it like they actually see it. I am a realist and don't search for confirmation bias. Painter pisses me off plenty, but I'll always give credit where I honestly see it deserved. He deserves credit for the win yesterday. I also don't just hop on here in bad times. I really don't have a lot of free time anyway but felt like Painter was worthy of me getting on and giving him a pat on the back. I was pretty down at the half and didn't see much worth watching the second half but was pleasantly surprised. Good Job Coach Painter!

 

[*4purdue*]

Haven't been a fan of CMP and have criticized him many times.... but I'll also give him credit for yesterday. It was a great halftime adjustment & won the game for us.

 

[PU pit bull]

Nicely worded

A true realist calls it like they actually see it. I am a realist and don't search for confirmation bias. Painter pisses me off plenty, but I'll always give credit where I honestly see it deserved. He deserves credit for the win yesterday. I also don't just hop on here in bad times. I really don't have a lot of free time anyway but felt like Painter was worthy of me getting on and giving him a pat on the back. I was pretty down at the half and didn't see much worth watching the second half but was pleasantly surprised. Good Job Coach Painter!

Haven't seen you on here much lately......what a nice post.

 

[BBG]

Just a thought, but I'm hoping at least one Painter critic will think about this...

We all like to be right. It's human nature. No one likes to lose an argument. Every person sees the world through his/her own lens, which means just about every person starts out believing he/she is right, no matter the issue.

But here's the thing. What gets annoying on this board is when "being right" about Painter being an average/substandard coach seems more important to you than Purdue winning games.

I'm talking about tone. Tone can often reveal far more than one's actual words. When Purdue is playing poorly, as in the first half yesterday, a rather unpleasant tone surfaces on this board. I'd call it righteous vindication or strident condemnation. A tone that says, "See?! THIS is what I'm talking about! Painter sucks, and Purdue will never succeed with him in charge! All you Painter lovers need to wake up!"

When I checked the board yesterday at halftime, it looked like the message board for a team that was 2-and-8 rather than 8-and-2 (or a team that had gone 8-and-27 last year rather than 27-and-8).

You don't like Coach Painter. Fine. We get it.

But the quickness and jubilance with which you go there suggests you're more concerned with being right than you are with Purdue winning, regardless of who the coach is.

The tone when we win is even more revealing than the tone when we lose. You don't sound genuinely happy. You sound grudgingly conciliatory. As if your team lost and you're barely avoiding blaming the refs: "I'll give Painter credit this time. He finally made an adjustment, though this doesn't excuse his seven hundred unforgivable coaching sins."

Honestly, you sound disappointed when we succeed. Which shows you'd rather Purdue take a nosedive so Painter will get fired than have Purdue succeed with Coach Painter in the lead.

I find this unfortunate. But then again, those of you who dislike Painter are probably frustrated by those who support him.

Full disclosure: I sometimes get frustrated with his decisions too. How could I not? In any basketball game, there are literally hundreds of decisions a coach has to make. It's a mathematical impossibility that I'll agree with every one. Yesterday, I wanted him to sub once for Biggie in the last ten minutes (just for thirty seconds or so) to keep him fresh. I also wanted him to have Carsen out there instead of one of the other guards between the two- and one-minute mark so we'd have someone in there who could get his own shot.

That doesn't mean I was right--I probably wasn't--nor does it mean I was wrong (I probably was). It just means I have opinions that don't always dovetail with Painter's. But when he's right, and I'm wrong, I'm absolutely delighted we won (and, by extension, I'm delighted I was wrong). And when his decisions don't work out, I'm not happy or celebratory about it. Because Purdue freakin' lost. That's what matters.

I hope you all have a happy and safe Sunday.

Brilliant post.

 

[BBG]

A true realist calls it like they actually see it. I am a realist and don't search for confirmation bias. Painter pisses me off plenty, but I'll always give credit where I honestly see it deserved. He deserves credit for the win yesterday. I also don't just hop on here in bad times. I really don't have a lot of free time anyway but felt like Painter was worthy of me getting on and giving him a pat on the back. I was pretty down at the half and didn't see much worth watching the second half but was pleasantly surprised. Good Job Coach Painter!

Great, here I was all set to give you grief and you go and make a post like that

 

[BoilerBiker]

To be heavily trolled can be a good sign though!

Usually means the team is currently successful, so it draws those people out (multiple accounts and all)

Back when PU bball was struggling, there was hardly any chatter or board traffic anywhere....
Nags kept at least one old board alive single handedly

Look at the football forum here. practically more talk in the last 3 months vs the last 3 years.

try to enjoy the team's success and skim over garbage sentiments or the pointless bickering (even some who are "positive").
And Gbi can enjoy the extra click-revenue

 

[tjreese]

A true realist calls it like they actually see it. I am a realist and don't search for confirmation bias. Painter pisses me off plenty, but I'll always give credit where I honestly see it deserved. He deserves credit for the win yesterday. I also don't just hop on here in bad times. I really don't have a lot of free time anyway but felt like Painter was worthy of me getting on and giving him a pat on the back. I was pretty down at the half and didn't see much worth watching the second half but was pleasantly surprised. Good Job Coach Painter!

This is NOT directed at you, but what if Biggie or Vince don't shoot as well and are just off or come up short a couple more boards due to odd bounces...what was Matt's adjustments? Does he get praise when players miss and come up short? Is it reasonable to judge his adjustments on whether the players actually execute as effective as desired? Again, this is NOT directed to you or anyone in particular. It just seems that Matt's coaching is not judged on his coaching, but whether his players execute like they are able...but that is pretty much at any level. Now, we all hold a coach responsible for things they cannot control to some degree, but what is reasonable? That is where I ask for specific approaches in strategy, but rarely get any. I'm probably older than most, I would love to see Purdue get the recognition this storied program should, but rarely does. My complaint not disclosed yesterday was that I wondered if Matt gave them too much in pregame, because the offense was not flowing as well and people were rushing some shots instead of getting them more in a flow...and part of that goes to ND's D. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with anyone criticising Matt, but do think it is fair to point out what was wrong and maybe what could have been done instead. Many times those are just opinions, but that is better than just venting.

 

[boiler-deuce]

Guys, honestly, I tend to have busy spells and then time to visit. No actual correlation to how the team performs. I just come, post my thoughts and opinion, and move on. Painter did a very good job of coaching yesterday. And, yes, you all know very well I will get on Painter for messing up. And, take hits...sometimes on a personal level...that I find disturbing. But, the crossroad win was nice. And, let's be honest...if we're going to destroy him when he makes mistakes, be real, and give the guy credit when it's due. He really made some nice adjustments yesterday.

 

[SIBoiler2]

This is NOT directed at you, but what if Biggie or Vince don't shoot as well and are just off or come up short a couple more boards due to odd bounces...what was Matt's adjustments? Does he get praise when players miss and come up short? Is it reasonable to judge his adjustments on whether the players actually execute as effective as desired? Again, this is NOT directed to you or anyone in particular. It just seems that Matt's coaching is not judged on his coaching, but whether his players execute like they are able...but that is pretty much at any level. Now, we all hold a coach responsible for things they cannot control to some degree, but what is reasonable? That is where I ask for specific approaches in strategy, but rarely get any. I'm probably older than most, I would love to see Purdue get the recognition this storied program should, but rarely does. My complaint not disclosed yesterday was that I wondered if Matt gave them too much in pregame, because the offense was not flowing as well and people were rushing some shots instead of getting them more in a flow...and part of that goes to ND's D. Anyway, there is nothing wrong with anyone criticising Matt, but do think it is fair to point out what was wrong and maybe what could have been done instead. Many times those are just opinions, but that is better than just venting.

My favorite game. What if. What if Colson blows his ACL 2 minutes into the game? What if Mike Brey forgets his team needs to play the second half to count the win and loads up the bus at halftime? You take them as they fall. This time it fell our way and some of it was because our coach made the right moves and their's didn't.

 

[Chuchumutha]

Haven't been a fan of CMP and have criticized him many times.... but I'll also give him credit for yesterday. It was a great halftime adjustment & won the game for us.

It wasn't just the adjustments. Whatever he did or said at the half must have been truly motivating. Because that was a completely different team that came out in the second half.

 

[tjreese]

My favorite game. What if. What if Colson blows his ACL 2 minutes into the game? What if Mike Brey forgets his team needs to play the second half to count the win and loads up the bus at halftime? You take them as they fall. This time it fell our way and some of it was because our coach made the right moves and their's didn't.

The point I was trying to make and obviously didn't do a good job was the praise for the adjustments that wouldn't have been praised if Biggie and Vince miss a few more. My attempt was to point out that Vince and Biggie's results generated praise for Matt's adjustments. Matt's adjustments didn't make Vince hit a few threes or get a few boards. Matt's adjustments didn't get Biggie playing the D he did. Sure, more room to work helped Biggie on offense to get the ball more, but he still had to hit the shots. More court helped Vince, but he still hit the three ball and got boards. Matt could have done EXACTLY what he did and Brey could had done exactly what he did with all the players doing exactly what they did and Biggie and Vince just missing a few more and no praise would have been warranted. Somewhere at some time we understand that coaches do not win and lose games as much has the hype tells us once the ball is thrown up. The practice leading up to the game is crucial, but players have an impact into the game and there is no doubt that Matt's game plans have been just as sound in some big games that Purdue has lost.

None of this is to diminish the impact of allowing Biggie and Vince more room to work, but to just say that had they missed a few in that same scenario I doubt too many would be praising Matt's adjustments. I'm guessing the extra room helped the O which helped the D, but I'm also guessing a few words were said by teammates about leaving it on the court and breaking through instead of just being close...and wouldn't be surprised if Biggie even led the way with a few others chiming in. I think Matt has done a great job subsitituting for Haas earlier in the year, but the games apparently were not as high a profile. Matt couldn't make ND match to Haas and so he matched to ND and this gave more room for the versatile Vince and Biggie to operate..a plus for Matt, but even with the good adjustments...those two don't hit and few get it...

 

[tjreese]

It wasn't just the adjustments. Whatever he did or said at the half must have been truly motivating. Because that was a completely different team that came out in the second half.

It "might" have been the players that just refused to lose. I remember in 1987 IU was at Purdue and both were ranked 2 and 3 or something to the effect. I think maybe IU hit a bucket at the end of the half or just had maybe a 6-8 point lead at half...maybe much smaller. When the teams came out to start the second half Mitchell was shaking his head to let everyone know...PURDUE was not going to lose this game. Purdue was focused, intense and willing to do whatever it took to get the W and Mitchell was publicly acknowledging it. I'm sure the coaches had a few words, but would love it if the fire came from the players. There are two VERY confident players in Biggie and Carsen and the others are more confident than last year. Yes, something stoked the fire...

 

[StickPurdue]

The point I was trying to make and obviously didn't do a good job was the praise for the adjustments that wouldn't have been praised if Biggie and Vince miss a few more. My attempt was to point out that Vince and Biggie's results generated praise for Matt's adjustments. Matt's adjustments didn't make Vince hit a few threes or get a few boards. Matt's adjustments didn't get Biggie playing the D he did. Sure, more room to work helped Biggie on offense to get the ball more, but he still had to hit the shots. More court helped Vince, but he still hit the three ball and got boards. Matt could have done EXACTLY what he did and Brey could had done exactly what he did with all the players doing exactly what they did and Biggie and Vince just missing a few more and no praise would have been warranted. Somewhere at some time we understand that coaches do not win and lose games as much has the hype tells us once the ball is thrown up. The practice leading up to the game is crucial, but players have an impact into the game and there is no doubt that Matt's game plans have been just as sound in some big games that Purdue has lost.

None of this is to diminish the impact of allowing Biggie and Vince more room to work, but to just say that had they missed a few in that same scenario I doubt too many would be praising Matt's adjustments. I'm guessing the extra room helped the O which helped the D, but I'm also guessing a few words were said by teammates about leaving it on the court and breaking through instead of just being close...and wouldn't be surprised if Biggie even led the way with a few others chiming in. I think Matt has done a great job subsitituting for Haas earlier in the year, but the games apparently were not as high a profile. Matt couldn't make ND match to Haas and so he matched to ND and this gave more room for the versatile Vince and Biggie to operate..a plus for Matt, but even with the good adjustments...those two don't hit and few get it...

The coaches job is to put the most affective lineup on the court, which he did. It is true that if Vince wasn't hitting those shots that would have hurt, but who is to say that if he wasn't, somebody else starts taking those shots? The team looked frustrated going into the half and I was worried. They came out playing aggressive defense and were hitting shots. I felt good when I saw how the players were responding. Biggie is something Purdue missed after the baby Boilers left. A player that can just take over the game and the players respond to his leadership. He is one heck of a college player. The biggist reason for victory though was minimilizing turnovers and getting to the free throw line. Those were the biggest factors, but Painter deserves the credit he is being given. It gives me great hope for the tournament. They may choke and go out early, but that would be surprising. My expectation is 1-3 losses in conference play. End up in the #8-#15 range. Snag a 3-4 seed and get a good shot at an elite 8. The team is capable of going to a final four because of the field this year as long as they don't beat themselves. This team has much better options and I like the smaller rotation. Painter is leaving his guys on the court more and not trying to keep players happy with minutes. I feel a heck of a lot better because they managed a win. There are still issues with the team, but there are only 2-3 heavy favorites this year with a handful of contenders.

 

[tjreese]

The coaches job is to put the most affective lineup on the court, which he did. It is true that if Vince wasn't hitting those shots that would have hurt, but who is to say that if he wasn't, somebody else starts taking those shots? The team looked frustrated going into the half and I was worried. They came out playing aggressive defense and were hitting shots. I felt good when I saw how the players were responding. Biggie is something Purdue missed after the baby Boilers left. A player that can just take over the game and the players respond to his leadership. He is one heck of a college player. The biggist reason for victory though was minimilizing turnovers and getting to the free throw line. Those were the biggest factors, but Painter deserves the credit he is being given. It gives me great hope for the tournament. They may choke and go out early, but that would be surprising. My expectation is 1-3 losses in conference play. End up in the #8-#15 range. Snag a 3-4 seed and get a good shot at an elite 8. The team is capable of going to a final four because of the field this year as long as they don't beat themselves. This team has much better options and I like the smaller rotation. Painter is leaving his guys on the court more and not trying to keep players happy with minutes. I feel a heck of a lot better because they managed a win. There are still issues with the team, but there are only 2-3 heavy favorites this year with a handful of contenders.

not only did the aggressive offense ..Carsen in particular draw a few fouls early on ND as I was hoping Purdue could get into the bonus early to have more clock and less defense, but Purdue took an outstanding free throw shooting team and never fouled them. THAT too was huge. Most teams have little problem playing 8, but going past that sometimes is difficult and I think we saw that last year...

I'll also add that it is not whether someone else was taking Vince's shots, it was the makes I was discussing. Teams look better when they hit shots. A team can do everything right and if they miss they look horrible. Coaches know how good shooting covers up problems and makes teams look better than they are. My point was not good shooting, but merely to suggest that I think most people wouldn't even be on here talking about the team in this positive of a manner had a few more shots rimmed out...and the monkey came back to West Lafayette.

 

[SIBoiler2]

The point I was trying to make and obviously didn't do a good job was the praise for the adjustments that wouldn't have been praised if Biggie and Vince miss a few more. My attempt was to point out that Vince and Biggie's results generated praise for Matt's adjustments. Matt's adjustments didn't make Vince hit a few threes or get a few boards. Matt's adjustments didn't get Biggie playing the D he did. Sure, more room to work helped Biggie on offense to get the ball more, but he still had to hit the shots. More court helped Vince, but he still hit the three ball and got boards. Matt could have done EXACTLY what he did and Brey could had done exactly what he did with all the players doing exactly what they did and Biggie and Vince just missing a few more and no praise would have been warranted. Somewhere at some time we understand that coaches do not win and lose games as much has the hype tells us once the ball is thrown up. The practice leading up to the game is crucial, but players have an impact into the game and there is no doubt that Matt's game plans have been just as sound in some big games that Purdue has lost.

None of this is to diminish the impact of allowing Biggie and Vince more room to work, but to just say that had they missed a few in that same scenario I doubt too many would be praising Matt's adjustments. I'm guessing the extra room helped the O which helped the D, but I'm also guessing a few words were said by teammates about leaving it on the court and breaking through instead of just being close...and wouldn't be surprised if Biggie even led the way with a few others chiming in. I think Matt has done a great job subsitituting for Haas earlier in the year, but the games apparently were not as high a profile. Matt couldn't make ND match to Haas and so he matched to ND and this gave more room for the versatile Vince and Biggie to operate..a plus for Matt, but even with the good adjustments...those two don't hit and few get it...

I got your idea. Just poking at you. If I really have a problem with anything you say I'll be direct but don't foresee that happening.

 

[tjreese]

I got your idea. Just poking at you. If I really have a problem with anything you say I'll be direct but don't foresee that happening.

no problem..was a little confused but that could be by starting the morning with some coffee and Rumchata (nice Christmas drink and moments ago a little Jack and ginger ale or it could just be old age...

 

[Ben Shadeland]

I agree with your post. I just don't get it? I watch every game to the last second hoping we can hang on or pull of a last second win. After that I find myself with a few thoughts. Never once have I had the urge to get up and posting something negative about the team or the coach during the game. Maybe I am not deep enough of a person, but I just don't get it. I guess you find a lot of brave people hiding behind their computers these days.

Good thoughts. I get frustrated sometimes, but I'm always happy when we win. And when we lose, my thoughts go in different directions, but I think it's always apparent that I want this team and this coach to succeed.

 

[Ben Shadeland]

There are some that haven't been close to the arena and I bite my tongue because I've seen it for years...part of human nature. I also understand that "sometimes" those that may not be in the "know" see things that those in the "know" pass up. I try to keep an open mind, but admit sometimes it is very obvious they can't spell arena.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. "

Well said.