Very telling quote from Spike....

[lbodel]

I think that in this coming season Purdue's offense will be much better than its defense.

That said, I think that having a brand that recruits associate with Purdue is a good thing, even if it doesn't completely match reality.

I think Purdue's "reputation" is playing hard. You go back to the Hummel/Johnson/Moore years, those were defensive teams but also had a great offense.

I think this is more of a message board problem.....

 

[mathboy]

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".

Nice deflection from your original argument.

In case you forgot, it was that Painter and Keady both ran an offense that was somehow strangely toxic to PG's. ...and that's why we never get good PG's, and without good PG's, we can't get to a Final Four. (I think I have the cause-effect logic correct).

Love you, Bonefish, but sometimes you get so far down a bad trail that there is little hope of rescue. The reason I bring this up is to put a nail in the coffin of this erroneous reasoning. I really dn't want to see this again. Each of these premises and results is not supportable, in detail, and falls apart when you look at it with real data.

 

[boilerzz]

"Purdue really gets after it and they're blue-collar and coming from Michigan, it's more offensive-minded."

I think this perception of Purdue from an outsider, particularly at the PG position, has held PU back over the years in terms of some of the players they've been able to recruit. I'm sure this perception is used negatively by other coaches in recruiting, especially the guard position.

I'm not sure that will change until you get totally new blood in the system with the new AD.

 

[bonefish1]

Nice deflection from your original argument.

In case you forgot, it was that Painter and Keady both ran an offense that was somehow strangely toxic to PG's. ...and that's why we never get good PG's, and without good PG's, we can't get to a Final Four. (I think I have the cause-effect logic correct).

Love you, Bonefish, but sometimes you get so far down a bad trail that there is little hope of rescue. The reason I bring this up is to put a nail in the coffin of this erroneous reasoning. I really dn't want to see this again. Each of these premises and results is not supportable, in detail, and falls apart when you look at it with real data.

part of my point connecting Painter and Keady is that obviously Painter played and coached under Keady, so it's not surprising that he would have some of the same tendencies and coaching philosophies.
Keady rarely if ever had really good PGs or at least PGs with pro talent. We've seen the exact same thing with Painter. I'd also argue that they have simiar philosophies on the defensive end.
Now, does any of this hurt Purdue in recruiting or getting farther in the tournament? That's the debate.
But, ultimately, the question is "why hasn't Purdue been to the FF in 36 years?"

Surely, in that timeframe, there have been several teams with far lesser talent that P that have made the FF. .

 

[bonefish1]

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.

In your world, what % of getting to the FF is luck vs talent vs coaching?
Matchups don't count because if they did, upsets would be rare.

 

[boiler2288]

Nice deflection from your original argument.

In case you forgot, it was that Painter and Keady both ran an offense that was somehow strangely toxic to PG's. ...and that's why we never get good PG's, and without good PG's, we can't get to a Final Four. (I think I have the cause-effect logic correct).

Love you, Bonefish, but sometimes you get so far down a bad trail that there is little hope of rescue. The reason I bring this up is to put a nail in the coffin of this erroneous reasoning. I really dn't want to see this again. Each of these premises and results is not supportable, in detail, and falls apart when you look at it with real data.

Generally agree on your premise but teams DO get to the FF without "pro potential" PG's. I can name at least 1 each from the last 3 FF's. I think Keady had better PG's in his time than MP has recruited or kept so far though. Brian Walker, Ricky Hall, Steve Reid, Porter Roberts, Everette Stephens, Carson Cunningham,Tony Jones, Brandon McKnight, Austin Parkinson even Willie Dean brought different types of "game" and none fit NBA proto type but several of these guys were All-BIG10 and all except Dean and Cunningham were defensive standouts.