My contacts aren't in yet and I've been sick AF all week, so bare with me here.
As an avid follower of basketball coaches and philosophies at multiple levels of the game, I'll start by saying, imo, Matt Painter is in the very top percentile of coaches - at any level, and I think Purdue is really, really fortunate to have him leading the squad.
After seeing fan reactions from last night, It's come to the point that I think a lot of fans have been somewhat spoiled, for lack of a better term, with Purdue's success under Painter. Look at any program in the Big Ten during his tenure, and Purdue's overall success is right there with them or in most cases, above them, over the course of his 16 or 17 years at Purdue - - other than Izzo (MSU) and probably Beilein (UM). But I mean, it's impressive b/c these results are taking place in one of the premier conferences, playing against some of the best players and coaching against many of the best coaches the nation has to offer. Throughout Paint's career, look at the coaches he's coached against in the League and how many are still coaching at as high of a level as the Big 10. There are some really, really high quality coaches that have lost their jobs b/c they haven't been able to be as successful as Purdue under Painter. Look at Illinois and Indiana over the last 17 years and the amount of coaches they've had due to the inconsistency within their programs. Look at Fred Hoiberg's progress as a coach throughout his career and then look at just how difficult it's been for him at Nebraska. Each year I look at the coaches that make up the Big 10 and think: wow, like 1/3 of these coaches are eventually going to lose this job b/c of performance.
Now to the constructive criticism part. And before I start, I'm not going to go out and get my own team. Sorry Paint. I've heard you say that. I'm not gonna do it. I'm not going to stop by Matt Painter's office. I'm not going to call into his radio show.
So, in an interview earlier this year, Coach Painter said, "we run more plays than the Dallas Cowboys." And I can't exactly recall the exact context behind the quote, but it was said in a positive/proud manner and I felt it meant, something like, you know, we have an awful lot going on in our offensive system - - or it's highly complex. Then, just this last week, Sports Illustrated had that Purdue article, and a really good one, that talked about how complex the Purdue offensive system is and how Purdue is the first team to feature an "offensive coordinator" that has a white board with plays that the players look at during live game action, similar to college football. And that's great. I think Matt Painter has a brilliant basketball mind. It's obvious just listening to interviews and how he can immediately relay tangible information about games from 10 years ago, and who had how many points, and how many turnovers. Or how he can bring up Ty Jerome's free throw percentage from the previous two seasons weeks or months after the heartbreaker against UVA in the elite 8. I love it. I love that he has that cognitive capability. It's awesome. It shows how much he cares, because people aren't able to relay that type of information like that, unless they really care about the subject. But, as much as I appreciate the passion CMP shows by memorizing games and stats and structuring such a complex offense with plays that sound like computer codes, I think as a manager you have to know your personnel you're dealing with and build an offensive scheme accordingly. And in this case, such a complex offense is hindering players - especially the younger players on the team, and IMO hindering both the offensive and defensive fundamentals as refencered below, too.
Examples:
-Purdue's depth was it's strength at the beginning of the year, and it was maybe the biggest reason I was so bullish on this season's potential. Purdue was in a rare situation where it had potentially too much talent. I mean TKR, one of the highest rated Purdue recruits Painter has landed, was redshirted. And I know he had the foot issue, but I don't think that foot issue was the primrary reason he redshirted. Based on interviews, I think picking up defensive principles and adjusting to the speed and strength of players at the Big 10 level was.
-Look at what happened to Purdue's depth throughout the year. It dwindled. Ethan Morton, Caleb Furst and Brandon Newman (all high quality players and legit 4 star recruits) lost almost all of their minutes in the back half of the year until some recent game action. Personally, I think a big reason for Furst and Morton, is they are newer players in the system and there's just too much going on to try and pick it all up in 1-2 seasons. And speaking from personal experience, when you make the jump to the D1 level in a sport, and your not used to the new speed you're playing in, and you're not comfortable in the offensive and defensive systems your team runs, it's easy to lose confidence. And for most players at that level, that's something they've never had to deal with before. It creates an environment where mistakes start compounding and a player starts questioning himself on even the simplest plays. Exhibit A would be: Brandon Newman this season. Brandon is a really good player and he's putting in the extra work and I certainly hope he sticks it out and has a successful career @ Purdue. I just think he's having a tough time processing the offense and it's breaking down his overall confidence.
- Another example, look at Jaden Ivey, Purdue's most dynamic player since..maybe ever. I think it was the games @Wisco and @MSU that Purdue lost consecutively, you could tell he was rattled in the offense and was overthinking things. He was passing up quality shots and trying to force poor shots. Hummel continuously stated it on the broadcast. It was obvious he was lost in what to do in the offense at that time. I think even last night, he was a bit lost.
-Another example: Purdue's continuous problem with turnovers on offense and basic defensive principles throughout the season. Why did Purdue go from giving up 92.9 points per 100 possesions last year to 98.6 points per 100 possesions this year while having the advantage of having the same nucleus having played alongside each other an additional year? Why didn't Purdue, with a year more experience, get significantly better at taking care of the ball this year? Under Matt Painter, that just doesn't happen. Purdue prides itself on getting older and winning with experience. Look at how much the baby boilers improved over time, or the group of Vince, Dakota, PJ and Haas. It just didn't happen this year and the defense actually got worse - which is just mindboggling to me. And yes, I know there were coaching staff changes, but Paul Lusk and Matt Painter have coached years together before.
I just think there's a finite amount of space a person can process and retain until there are adverse effects. And when you're "running as many plays as the Dallas Cowboys," I think that just detracts from other areas of the game (like taking care of the ball on offense and basic defensive principles). Look at St Peters rotations last night and how young some of those kids were. When they subbed in a fresh 5 in the first half like a hockey line change, they didn't miss a beat. Some of those kids were freshmen ( and likely all were unranked) - but they played with confidence. That's impressive coaching, to be able to get that much out of raw players and to have those raw players play with that much confidence - to be able to play meaningful minutes in the biggest game of thier life to that point. But I think to build that type of confidence in a player, you have to be able to coach to that player's mental basketball ability at that point in his career. Keep it simple when you need to. Don't try to reinvent the wheel and overwhelm players with a shit load of sets. In fact, you know what's demoralizing as a player? When you're a top ranked team and playing another top ranked team and you know exactly what they're going to run, but they run it so effectively you just can't stop it. That's demoralizing. And that's what makes really high quality teams tick. They are just so good at the fundamentals.
We're all devastated, I'm sure. I mean, if you're paying to read Purdue sports info, then you're likely a devoted fan. But I guarantee you none of us are as devastated as Matt Painter is right now. We didn't recruit these guys and watch them grow as players over 2, 3, 4 or 5 years. We aren't attending workout sessions or study halls or practice every day. We aren't constantly monitoring tape to try and find the slight tweaks needed to win an extra possesion in a game. We aren't talking to the players in an emotional locker room after they've played thier last game. These posts that are saying we need a new coach need to stop. Again, Purdue is extremely fortunate to have Matt Painter calling the shots. This year is always going to be a "what-if?" sort of year, and those sort of seasons happen. It's not unique to Purdue. It's not Matt Painter's fault that Purdue hasn't been to a Final 4 since 1980. He's been the coach since 2006. He's getting Purdue in a position to play for: early season tournament championships, conference championships, conference tournament championships, sweet 16s, Elite 8s. And eventually it's going to be Final 4s and national championships. Purdue's recruiting has never been better and Matt Painter is entering the prime years of his coaching career. Purdue's basketball future is as bright as I've ever seen it.
As an avid follower of basketball coaches and philosophies at multiple levels of the game, I'll start by saying, imo, Matt Painter is in the very top percentile of coaches - at any level, and I think Purdue is really, really fortunate to have him leading the squad.
After seeing fan reactions from last night, It's come to the point that I think a lot of fans have been somewhat spoiled, for lack of a better term, with Purdue's success under Painter. Look at any program in the Big Ten during his tenure, and Purdue's overall success is right there with them or in most cases, above them, over the course of his 16 or 17 years at Purdue - - other than Izzo (MSU) and probably Beilein (UM). But I mean, it's impressive b/c these results are taking place in one of the premier conferences, playing against some of the best players and coaching against many of the best coaches the nation has to offer. Throughout Paint's career, look at the coaches he's coached against in the League and how many are still coaching at as high of a level as the Big 10. There are some really, really high quality coaches that have lost their jobs b/c they haven't been able to be as successful as Purdue under Painter. Look at Illinois and Indiana over the last 17 years and the amount of coaches they've had due to the inconsistency within their programs. Look at Fred Hoiberg's progress as a coach throughout his career and then look at just how difficult it's been for him at Nebraska. Each year I look at the coaches that make up the Big 10 and think: wow, like 1/3 of these coaches are eventually going to lose this job b/c of performance.
Now to the constructive criticism part. And before I start, I'm not going to go out and get my own team. Sorry Paint. I've heard you say that. I'm not gonna do it. I'm not going to stop by Matt Painter's office. I'm not going to call into his radio show.
So, in an interview earlier this year, Coach Painter said, "we run more plays than the Dallas Cowboys." And I can't exactly recall the exact context behind the quote, but it was said in a positive/proud manner and I felt it meant, something like, you know, we have an awful lot going on in our offensive system - - or it's highly complex. Then, just this last week, Sports Illustrated had that Purdue article, and a really good one, that talked about how complex the Purdue offensive system is and how Purdue is the first team to feature an "offensive coordinator" that has a white board with plays that the players look at during live game action, similar to college football. And that's great. I think Matt Painter has a brilliant basketball mind. It's obvious just listening to interviews and how he can immediately relay tangible information about games from 10 years ago, and who had how many points, and how many turnovers. Or how he can bring up Ty Jerome's free throw percentage from the previous two seasons weeks or months after the heartbreaker against UVA in the elite 8. I love it. I love that he has that cognitive capability. It's awesome. It shows how much he cares, because people aren't able to relay that type of information like that, unless they really care about the subject. But, as much as I appreciate the passion CMP shows by memorizing games and stats and structuring such a complex offense with plays that sound like computer codes, I think as a manager you have to know your personnel you're dealing with and build an offensive scheme accordingly. And in this case, such a complex offense is hindering players - especially the younger players on the team, and IMO hindering both the offensive and defensive fundamentals as refencered below, too.
Examples:
-Purdue's depth was it's strength at the beginning of the year, and it was maybe the biggest reason I was so bullish on this season's potential. Purdue was in a rare situation where it had potentially too much talent. I mean TKR, one of the highest rated Purdue recruits Painter has landed, was redshirted. And I know he had the foot issue, but I don't think that foot issue was the primrary reason he redshirted. Based on interviews, I think picking up defensive principles and adjusting to the speed and strength of players at the Big 10 level was.
-Look at what happened to Purdue's depth throughout the year. It dwindled. Ethan Morton, Caleb Furst and Brandon Newman (all high quality players and legit 4 star recruits) lost almost all of their minutes in the back half of the year until some recent game action. Personally, I think a big reason for Furst and Morton, is they are newer players in the system and there's just too much going on to try and pick it all up in 1-2 seasons. And speaking from personal experience, when you make the jump to the D1 level in a sport, and your not used to the new speed you're playing in, and you're not comfortable in the offensive and defensive systems your team runs, it's easy to lose confidence. And for most players at that level, that's something they've never had to deal with before. It creates an environment where mistakes start compounding and a player starts questioning himself on even the simplest plays. Exhibit A would be: Brandon Newman this season. Brandon is a really good player and he's putting in the extra work and I certainly hope he sticks it out and has a successful career @ Purdue. I just think he's having a tough time processing the offense and it's breaking down his overall confidence.
- Another example, look at Jaden Ivey, Purdue's most dynamic player since..maybe ever. I think it was the games @Wisco and @MSU that Purdue lost consecutively, you could tell he was rattled in the offense and was overthinking things. He was passing up quality shots and trying to force poor shots. Hummel continuously stated it on the broadcast. It was obvious he was lost in what to do in the offense at that time. I think even last night, he was a bit lost.
-Another example: Purdue's continuous problem with turnovers on offense and basic defensive principles throughout the season. Why did Purdue go from giving up 92.9 points per 100 possesions last year to 98.6 points per 100 possesions this year while having the advantage of having the same nucleus having played alongside each other an additional year? Why didn't Purdue, with a year more experience, get significantly better at taking care of the ball this year? Under Matt Painter, that just doesn't happen. Purdue prides itself on getting older and winning with experience. Look at how much the baby boilers improved over time, or the group of Vince, Dakota, PJ and Haas. It just didn't happen this year and the defense actually got worse - which is just mindboggling to me. And yes, I know there were coaching staff changes, but Paul Lusk and Matt Painter have coached years together before.
I just think there's a finite amount of space a person can process and retain until there are adverse effects. And when you're "running as many plays as the Dallas Cowboys," I think that just detracts from other areas of the game (like taking care of the ball on offense and basic defensive principles). Look at St Peters rotations last night and how young some of those kids were. When they subbed in a fresh 5 in the first half like a hockey line change, they didn't miss a beat. Some of those kids were freshmen ( and likely all were unranked) - but they played with confidence. That's impressive coaching, to be able to get that much out of raw players and to have those raw players play with that much confidence - to be able to play meaningful minutes in the biggest game of thier life to that point. But I think to build that type of confidence in a player, you have to be able to coach to that player's mental basketball ability at that point in his career. Keep it simple when you need to. Don't try to reinvent the wheel and overwhelm players with a shit load of sets. In fact, you know what's demoralizing as a player? When you're a top ranked team and playing another top ranked team and you know exactly what they're going to run, but they run it so effectively you just can't stop it. That's demoralizing. And that's what makes really high quality teams tick. They are just so good at the fundamentals.
We're all devastated, I'm sure. I mean, if you're paying to read Purdue sports info, then you're likely a devoted fan. But I guarantee you none of us are as devastated as Matt Painter is right now. We didn't recruit these guys and watch them grow as players over 2, 3, 4 or 5 years. We aren't attending workout sessions or study halls or practice every day. We aren't constantly monitoring tape to try and find the slight tweaks needed to win an extra possesion in a game. We aren't talking to the players in an emotional locker room after they've played thier last game. These posts that are saying we need a new coach need to stop. Again, Purdue is extremely fortunate to have Matt Painter calling the shots. This year is always going to be a "what-if?" sort of year, and those sort of seasons happen. It's not unique to Purdue. It's not Matt Painter's fault that Purdue hasn't been to a Final 4 since 1980. He's been the coach since 2006. He's getting Purdue in a position to play for: early season tournament championships, conference championships, conference tournament championships, sweet 16s, Elite 8s. And eventually it's going to be Final 4s and national championships. Purdue's recruiting has never been better and Matt Painter is entering the prime years of his coaching career. Purdue's basketball future is as bright as I've ever seen it.
Last edited:
