You got Michigan as a serious final four contender next year? They have the best pg in Big Ten next year.
If you aren't predicting Michigan for potential final four.....why not?
Very telling quote from Spike....
- Thread starter bonefish1
- Start date
You got Michigan as a serious final four contender next year? They have the best pg in Big Ten next year.
If you aren't predicting Michigan for potential final four.....why not?
Lewis Jackson was the best I've seen and that includes Deane but I only go back to the early 90's really. McKnight would be runner up for me.
Bone,
I'm not sure how to take the notion that getting after it and being blue collar is a negative. Maybe figure out how to marry a perception of scoring also but I would hate to lose the other characteristics.
We did score quite as others have pointed out. There must be a way to sell that.
And on the tempo topic only two of four teams playing a faster pace than us were worth a damn. I think that is because they forced tempo increase instead of generating organically with better execution on O and D.
I think tempo will increase as we get the experience level at the guard positions to grow. Better D, more forced turnovers, more easy points. With more forced turnovers we will see CE, SA, and PJ get some lay ups or assists to lane fillers and spot up three's in the secondary break for DM and RC. Vince"ent" will get dunks and three's.
Great post. It is easy to assume, the D first, plodding offense rap that Purdue gets. This was an eye opener for me.
I think the media, particularly the announcers for national TV games do a really poor job of knowing anything about teams outside of the top 5. Therefore they perpetuate stereotypes about teams which don't take into account current reality. They also can't get the guys names right, ever.
Well said! The mistake people always make is assuming that if you change your style of play to a pg dominant offense.....everything remains constant elsewhere on your roster.
It doesn't ....if we did that...Biggie and Haas aren't at Purdue....and the slew of highly ranked bigs that say they are now interested in Purdue...."because Purdue plays through their bigs"....are no longer as interested.
The teams that go deep in tournament....usually are solid across the board. So yes if you paired a future NBA pg with Big Dog, Brad Miller, Hammons....we very well might have been to a Final Four. Would Big Dog, Miller, or Hammons have come to Purdue to play 2nd fiddle to a pg? No way big dog would've....perhaps the other two might have.
John Groce runs a very guard friendly offense. It isn't style of play that wins games....the primary factors are talent and team chemistry. Teams high in both have the best odds on doing well in the tourney. Obviously coaching factors in as well.....but not many coaches are winning big without talent.
Maybe an adjustment from the "defense lives here" mantra to a "defense makes offense" (find a marketing major to help me with that) ethos would help us have a more modern perception.I think there are two different "perceptions" going on here. 1) the PG position at Purdue and it's "perception" (which is false BTW) and 2) Purdue basketball being defensive first.
As I said, the first one I think is false (and was proven that way when I used to think we had more of an defensive focus at the PG position) and being spread by either former PGs with a grudge or opposing coaches.
As far as being known for defense, that is absolutely true because in the past during games you heard announcers make mention of it and it is far from a bad thing. However, it has recently turned in to a more offensive game, you are correct and it will take time for Purdue and other schools that were defensive minded to change that perception. I mean there are signs that read "defense lives here" so there is most certainly the perception we are a defensive minded program.
Now, in regard to it making an impact, I don't think it does and here is why... by the time a kid makes a decision he has already talked to the coaches and voiced his concerns as far as offense goes and the coaching staff can ease his fears in terms of offense and show him numbers if he wants from last year where we most certainly were an offensive team. I believe our stats were "better" on the offensive side as opposed to defense as well. So to me that shows that there is a emphasis on putting up more numbers as opposed to defensive stops.
Look at our potential lineups for next year, that seems rather offense first as opposed to defense to me. But that is just my perception.
None are winning big without talent and your point about balance, talented guard + talented big, is really huge. Hard to overcome a major weakness at either
Maybe we've missed the point here. We can and have shown we can move the ball well on offense and play defense. The two are not mutually exclusive -- in fact, successful teams need both.
We have also had two prominent point guards -- RJ and Bryson -- transfer out recently, unhappy -- fairly or not -- with how CMP used (or did not use) them.
If I were another coach competing against us for top point guards, I would cite these things too. I'm not saying fairly -- I agree with a lot of you, it is NOT fair. I AM saying these things do not help us.
We have also had two prominent point guards -- RJ and Bryson -- transfer out recently, unhappy -- fairly or not -- with how CMP used (or did not use) them.
If I were another coach competing against us for top point guards, I would cite these things too. I'm not saying fairly -- I agree with a lot of you, it is NOT fair. I AM saying these things do not help us.
I understand your point, but I don't directly agree with the cause-effect logic in use here. When kids quit, regardless of their position on the team, their actions can be used as negative recruiting points. When Bade and Hale quit, I guess someone could have said that Purdue just doesn't provide a healthy and attractive environment for Power Forwards. Meh. I doubt anyone said anything. Overall, this just doesn't meet the eyeball test, So a red-shirt combo guard (Bryson) quits. Another meh.
However, when the starting PG quits, as in the case of RJ, that makes a point. However, I consider it a single point, with no evidence of a trend. RJ has gone on to massive oblivion at other places, so in many respects, another Meh.
I think that the maturation and development of PJT as a BIG PG is probably more impressive than any legacy of negative outcome from RJ's leaving. Of course, people will take exception to my statement about PGT, but if you look at what he was able to do with the team this past year, given his limited intrinsic physical skills, Painter's work with him is pretty impressive.
Bryson never red shirted while at Purdue.I understand your point, but I don't directly agree with the cause-effect logic in use here. When kids quit, regardless of their position on the team, their actions can be used as negative recruiting points. When Bade and Hale quit, I guess someone could have said that Purdue just doesn't provide a healthy and attractive environment for Power Forwards. Meh. I doubt anyone said anything. Overall, this just doesn't meet the eyeball test, So a red-shirt combo guard (Bryson) quits. Another meh.
However, when the starting PG quits, as in the case of RJ, that makes a point. However, I consider it a single point, with no evidence of a trend. RJ has gone on to massive oblivion at other places, so in many respects, another Meh.
I think that the maturation and development of PJT as a BIG PG is probably more impressive than any legacy of negative outcome from RJ's leaving. Of course, people will take exception to my statement about PGT, but if you look at what he was able to do with the team this past year, given his limited intrinsic physical skills, Painter's work with him is pretty impressive.
Keady ended up playing Deane more as a 2 while he was at Purdue. He had Carson Cunningham ('00-'01), Austin Parkinson, and Brandon McKnight as his 1's during the three seasons that Deane played at Purdue. He should have played Deane as the 1: that was an inherent flaw of his offensive ideology, IMO. It held Purdue's offenses back more than it boosted them, especially in the halfcourt.
What I think is going on here in this thread is some are looking for a static reason as to why certain things either have or haven't happened for Purdue basketball and I don't think things are that simple.I understand your point, but I don't directly agree with the cause-effect logic in use here. When kids quit, regardless of their position on the team, their actions can be used as negative recruiting points. When Bade and Hale quit, I guess someone could have said that Purdue just doesn't provide a healthy and attractive environment for Power Forwards. Meh. I doubt anyone said anything. Overall, this just doesn't meet the eyeball test, So a red-shirt combo guard (Bryson) quits. Another meh.
However, when the starting PG quits, as in the case of RJ, that makes a point. However, I consider it a single point, with no evidence of a trend. RJ has gone on to massive oblivion at other places, so in many respects, another Meh.
I think that the maturation and development of PJT as a BIG PG is probably more impressive than any legacy of negative outcome from RJ's leaving. Of course, people will take exception to my statement about PGT, but if you look at what he was able to do with the team this past year, given his limited intrinsic physical skills, Painter's work with him is pretty impressive.
Basketball (and sports in general) is a dynamic entity that changes frequently and it seems like any of a thousand different things can impact a game. But more to the point, I also think that much of what has been discussed in here is why Painter went out and got C. Edwards and Spike.
However, I still think some are looking for that issue from past teams that they can put a finger on and say "yes this is why" but that simply doesn't exist. But, that is just my 2 cents.
I've been following PU since the 80s and the 3 Amigos. Tony Jones was one of the best. I agree that Deane was probably the best total package in the last 25 years. LewJack was a great ball handler, defender and penetrator but terrible outside shooter. I also liked Cunningham. He was solid in all phases.
I was in school with GRob and Zo. There was no way he was going anywhere but Purdue. He was Keady (and Kendrick's) to lose. I remember watching the state championship from my Cary Quad dorm when Grob and Allan Henderson were going at it their Sr year.
Miller wasn't very highly recruited. He was a guard until about his Soph yr in high school when he shot up like 8 inches. Brad shared the scoring load with Austin and company, he wasn't the focus of the offense like AJ was.
To your point, obviously, you need to be solid across the board, chemistry, etc to play deep into the tourney. But, PU is rarely solid at PG.
Are you saying the reason PU hasn't gotten to a FF in the last 35 yrs is bad luck? If I'm not mistaken, PU and Northwestern might be the only 2 B10 teams who haven't been there in that time frame.
It's also strange that we made the FF the year before Keady arrived and haven't been back since. Keady brought the football mentality to PU basketball, didn't have teams focused around the PG, and is the reason PU has the blue collar, defense first reputation.
Don't let Purdue4sore read this, he'll accuse you of whining.
But you're point is spot on and one I've made before. Fair or not, Painter is likely perceived as 'un-point guard' friendly. And you can guarantee other coaches are going to use that in recruiting against him. If you're competing with Painter for a top PG and the PG has aspirations of playing in the NBA, that other coach is going to have a lot of ammo to show you that Painter isn't the best coach to help you get there. Now, if you were 6'11 and a good low post player, it might be different.
Which goes back to my original point, being, Painter wants his PG to:
1) Play D
2) don't turn the ball over
3) Feed the post
4) run the offense
Creating your own shot and improvising are probably not high on this list but if you're a 5* PG, those are the skills you need to build on to display and play in the NBA.
I understand your point, but I don't directly agree with the cause-effect logic in use here. When kids quit, regardless of their position on the team, their actions can be used as negative recruiting points. When Bade and Hale quit, I guess someone could have said that Purdue just doesn't provide a healthy and attractive environment for Power Forwards. Meh. I doubt anyone said anything. Overall, this just doesn't meet the eyeball test, So a red-shirt combo guard (Bryson) quits. Another meh.
However, when the starting PG quits, as in the case of RJ, that makes a point. However, I consider it a single point, with no evidence of a trend. RJ has gone on to massive oblivion at other places, so in many respects, another Meh.
I think that the maturation and development of PJT as a BIG PG is probably more impressive than any legacy of negative outcome from RJ's leaving. Of course, people will take exception to my statement about PGT, but if you look at what he was able to do with the team this past year, given his limited intrinsic physical skills, Painter's work with him is pretty impressive.
But, RJ's quitting had a major impact on a top PG recruit decommiting and leaving us in the spot we've been the last 2 years which is PG being the weakest spot on the floor.
Regarding Bade and Hale, those 2 weren't Big 10 caliber players. They should have never been given scholies to begin with.
TMHR as well......was in that '80 FF with Purdue, Louisville, and UCLA after defeating Georgetown in the Regionals.....came close in '87, falling to UNLV in West Regional final.
Everette Stephens the best of them from GK's teams.....didn't have a long career, but played a couple of partial seasons with the Bucks and Pacers. Porter Roberts as well as those Lenny mentioned. For CMP, Lewis Jackson was definitely good enough IMHO.....his outside shot was never consistent, but he had other strengths and improved enough at the FT line to be solid.
I tend to agree with the reasoning that guard play (and particularly PG) has not been a strength many times and plays a factor......however......there are other factors too.....(whether you want to call it luck, injuries, bad shooting night, poor matchup, coaching issues, recruiting "miss" etc.....many have a different or individual perspective/view on this I suppose) that's why it's best to have balanced teams and get as many chances to keep "knocking" on the door.......eventually......you can get past enough teams and open it.....or kick the dang thing down.
You can’t have it both ways. You site two kids that were proven to be not BIG type players in Bryant and RJ, and claim because they quit it proves some sort of anti-PG bias on Painter’s part. Then you dismiss my argument about Hale and Bade because they were not BIG type players. So which is it? Bade and Hale show that simply having kids leave a program is not an indicator of a coaching system bias against the position. It just doesn’t work that way.
That “top PG recruit” we had de-commit was RJ’s cousin, and simply took the side of his relative. Remember, Walker de-committed without playing one game or going through one practice with Painter, so he had no idea what Painter’s approach to PG’s was.
I think you are on some sort of mission to prove a ridiculous theory that Painter’s approach to basketball is unattractive to PG’s. You are attempting to use a single data point to show a trend. If you remove RJ from Painter’s history, then you would see a string of successful PG’s that have played well in Painter’s system. RJ went on to such great “success” that you wonder why Painter didn’t bench him earlier.
A couple things: Some, (me included) would argue that Painter tried to fit square pegs (Bryson and RJ) into round holes (Painter's vision of a PG). I'd also argue that instead of building around the players strengths, he tried to mold them into the type of PG he wants in his system.
Secondly, I'd be interested to know what your definition of success is regarding PGs under Painter? (Keep in mind, Moore was not a PG).
It's certainly not tourney success because Painter has a whopping 2 sweet 16's to show for his coaching career at P.
Finally, why do you believe Painter is unable to land a top PG or put a PG in the NBA?
Let's see if I can sort through this... Round peg/square hole: Okay, then both RJ and Bryson have had brilliant careers after they left Purdue? I say they lacked capabilities at Purdue and they will lack capabilities where ever they go. It is a characteristic endemic to them and not to Painter, or Painter's system. There was no strength to build around.
You also seems to mix NCAA success with NBA type talent in your argument. There were previous recent posts that showed little if any correlation between NBA success and NCAA success for PG's. Furthermore, I will propose that the best PG in the world may not have NCAA success. The NPOY at PG could not take his talented team past the first game of the NCAA this year, so I am not sure what that "proves" or "dis-proves" about either Izzo's or Painter's systems.
How many small forwards has Painter put in the NBA? Have we had NCAA success with SF's? Ergo, Painter's system must be anti-small forward in nature. You can do the same thing for any single position on the team. Do you see? It is easy to make this inaccurate type of statement based on this sort of generalized nonsense. Just gloss over the details and make it look like it fits your position.
If you've read my posts, I've said that you do need to have overall team talent across the board, but the most important position on the floor is PG. And that historically, where PU has struggled the most, is at the PG position?
(Do you agree or disagree that PG is the most important position?)
The next logical step in the discussion, if you buy into the argument that P has lacked great PG play, which is what I believe is needed in the tourney, is 'Why has P struggled at the PG position". To which I would say "it's a coaching/offensive philosophy of what they want their PG to be".
Of course, it could just be the fact that Painter and Keady were really poor tourney coaches. Granted, our sample size is only an N of 2, but in a combined 36 years of coaching, neither has gotten P to the FF.
Good regular season coaches? No doubt.
Maybe they just lack the ability to make the right adjustment at the right time in a pressure packed win or go home tourney game.
Sorry, but lumping Painter and Keady into the same logical mess is just too much error to deal with. Take one or the other and work through the issues. They are very different coaches who have very different offensive philosophies.
I would agree that PG is the most important position, but only by a fraction of a measure. To win the NCAAs you need high end talent, strong team play (including PG), and luck with the teams you draw. The PG part of that whole equation is so minor overall that to use the cause-effect of PG to NCAA wins is very tenuous. Go back through previous NCAA winners and see who their PG's were. You will be surprised at how many were nobodies, low ranked and with no NBA success.
Just for fun, I found a website on CBS that ranked all 20 starters from the 2016 Final Four in order of importance.
4 of the top 5 were guards.
http://www.cbssports.com/college-ba...016-ranking-every-starter-from-no-20-to-no-1/
But only 2 were point guards and one was a wing who switched to point. That kind of kills your "the most important position is point guard" premise while using data you provided. Doesn't it?
Ok, so if it's not point guards, what is it. What's kept Purdue from reaching the FF zero times in 35 years?
Bad luck isn't right answer.
Does it come down to the coaching?
I'm just pointing out the flaw in your logic. I would assume it is a mixture of different reasons for different years.
But hey. Feel free to blame 35 years of performance on one thing.
What were those two couches thinking? All they needed was a team of point guards and voila.
Brad Miller averaged more points per game than AJH as both a Jr. and Sr. Miller averaged 17.2 ppg as a senior. Offense not running through Brad....um ok....whatever.
I have never encountered a difficult problem that has a single cause. Usually multiple causes interacting make the puzzle difficult to solve. Now, when attempting to apply this simple logic to a basketball team's performance, a team which completely changes every year (new players in old out), and add in the changes to their competition every year, you have just created a mess.
You cannot say that "one thing" has prevented Purdue from reaching the FF for 20 years. Each year is different, with different constraints and conditions. Attempting to find a single reason for this will lead you into incredibly erroneous conclusions, and will result in proposed solutions that are ineffective. For example, deciding that somehow Painter is toxic to Point Gauds, then lumping Keady into the same false logic pattern.
Don't be that dullard that thinks real life should be like TV where Sherlock or Castle can find the bad guy in 60 minutes. It's not that simple.
You cannot say that "one thing" has prevented Purdue from reaching the FF for 20 years. Each year is different, with different constraints and conditions. Attempting to find a single reason for this will lead you into incredibly erroneous conclusions, and will result in proposed solutions that are ineffective. For example, deciding that somehow Painter is toxic to Point Gauds, then lumping Keady into the same false logic pattern.
Don't be that dullard that thinks real life should be like TV where Sherlock or Castle can find the bad guy in 60 minutes. It's not that simple.
I have never encountered a difficult problem that has a single cause. Usually multiple causes interacting make the puzzle difficult to solve. Now, when attempting to apply this simple logic to a basketball team's performance, a team which completely changes every year (new players in old out), and add in the changes to their competition every year, you have just created a mess.
You cannot say that "one thing" has prevented Purdue from reaching the FF for 20 years. Each year is different, with different constraints and conditions. Attempting to find a single reason for this will lead you into incredibly erroneous conclusions, and will result in proposed solutions that are ineffective. For example, deciding that somehow Painter is toxic to Point Gauds, then lumping Keady into the same false logic pattern.
Don't be that dullard that thinks real life should be like TV where Sherlock or Castle can find the bad guy in 60 minutes. It's not that simple.
Should the expectation for Painter or our next coach to be to get P into the FF? Should the be the measuring stick, because if it's not, the expectation then is going to be 'win 20+ games, make the tourney, keep the program in the black financially'.
I know we all want and 'hope' P makes the FF, sooner rather than later, but as a boss once said to me "hope is not a strategy".
It is not for the fans to have a "strategy." The only thing the fans can do is "hope." You can learn about that at church on Sunday.
the athletic Dept has always reminded the fans that they should do more than hope and choose to make a difference/contribute... $ (or lack thereof)
Nailed it. I personally don't contribute much, therefore I don't complain. There is a reason the top programs stay on top and it isn't just tradition. It's money.
Bingo. I think some people try to simplify it so they can attempt to get their tiny minds around it but there are countless factors that go into it.
Similar threads
