When is Haarms going to show up?

[Bob the Boiler]

He is killing us with no production. He is 7'-3" and cannot grab 10 boards a game?
- Michigan game he played 19 minutes and had (2) rebounds total and (5) points.
- Florida State he played 19 minutes and had (5) rebounds total and (6) points.
- Virginia Tech he played 16 minutes and had (2) rebounds total and (0) points.

I feel you have to play Boudreaux over Haarms. He hustles, he gets board, he draws fouls.

Sorry to be Debbie Downer, but this team is hard to watch. It is like Edwards is a G-League player trying to build his stats so he can get called up. No team play at all. Not fun to watch 1 on 5.

 

[Ignacious McNutt]

I know, it's like we are young or something and it's early in the season.

 

[northside100]

I know, it's like we are young or something and it's early in the season.

I’m a huge Matt Painter supporter and it’s been tough to read the bitching on this board the last few days but the post above is spot on. 1) Carsen trying to do it all himself 2) Haarms has not been productive 3) For large spans of time this team has been tough to watch.

 

[Roeder]

He is killing us with no production. He is 7'-3" and cannot grab 10 boards a game?
- Michigan game he played 19 minutes and had (2) rebounds total and (5) points.
- Florida State he played 19 minutes and had (5) rebounds total and (6) points.
- Virginia Tech he played 16 minutes and had (2) rebounds total and (0) points.

I feel you have to play Boudreaux over Haarms. He hustles, he gets board, he draws fouls.

Sorry to be Debbie Downer, but this team is hard to watch. It is like Edwards is a G-League player trying to build his stats so he can get called up. No team play at all. Not fun to watch 1 on 5.

I defended Haarms a couple weeks ago, but I do agree this trend of little production is concerning. I was hoping to see some improvement from year 1-2, but so far he is the same player.

Agree Painter needs to play Boudreaux more and let Haarms be the energy guy off the bench like last year. He is still a sophomore and has plenty of time to improve.

 

[guppy likes purdue]

IDK he is still rebounding better this year than last and is rebounding at a higher rate than anyone on the team did last year

 

[purduepat1969]

I’m a huge Matt Painter supporter and it’s been tough to read the bitching on this board the last few days but the post above is spot on. 1) Carsen trying to do it all himself 2) Haarms has not been productive 3) For large spans of time this team has been tough to watch.

Actually it's like Painter's missed 3 years of recruiting to replace the senior class...If you want to be logical, let's use facts. Haarms is a red shirt sophomore. Carsen is a junior. Cline is a senior. Boudreaux is an experienced grad transfer. Eastern is an experienced sophomore. Grady Eifert is a senior. Where is the youth? They're not starting. And they're not getting much playing time. If you wanna talk about youth, I'd suggest you look at Duke with 4 freshmen starting

 

[SunnyFL24]

He is killing us with no production. He is 7'-3" and cannot grab 10 boards a game?
- Michigan game he played 19 minutes and had (2) rebounds total and (5) points.
- Florida State he played 19 minutes and had (5) rebounds total and (6) points.
- Virginia Tech he played 16 minutes and had (2) rebounds total and (0) points.

I feel you have to play Boudreaux over Haarms. He hustles, he gets board, he draws fouls.

Sorry to be Debbie Downer, but this team is hard to watch. It is like Edwards is a G-League player trying to build his stats so he can get called up. No team play at all. Not fun to watch 1 on 5.

Touche.....that pretty much sums it up....

 

[Lionheart1]

Haarms made Teske look athletic.

 

[northside100]

Actually it's like Painter's missed 3 years of recruiting to replace the senior class...If you want to be logical, let's use facts. Haarms is a red shirt sophomore. Carsen is a junior. Cline is a senior. Boudreaux is an experienced grad transfer. Eastern is an experienced sophomore. Grady Eifert is a senior. Where is the youth? They're not starting. And they're not getting much playing time. If you wanna talk about youth, I'd suggest you look at Duke with 4 freshmen starting

I wasn't the one to say that this team is young, but am happy to 'be logical and use facts' as you bring up good questions, namely is this a young team and is it an inexperienced team.

I agree with you that this is not a particularly young team with two seniors and two juniors playing major minutes. Whether this team is experienced or not depends upon the measure you use. There may be other ways to measure experience, but the objective measures I've seen used most often are returning starts and returning minutes played. You may have another objective meaure your using or may be gauging experience based on your subjective view.

I don't have the time or desire to look up the exact numbers, but using returning starts for Purdue, this team has Carsen who started twenty some games as a freshman and thirty some games last year. After that it goes way to to Cline, who started something like a dozen games as a sophomore and Haarms and Grady, who I believe each started two games last year. If we measure in returning minutes played for Purdue, I may be wrong, but I think Carsen, Cline, Haarms and Grady averaged a combined 65 to 75 minutes a game last season, out of total of 200 available minutes, somewhere around 35% of the total available minutes. Again, I don't have the time or desire to look up how those two metrics compare nationally, but I can't imagine that they're high in terms of returning experience. One could cherry pick teams like Duke and say that they have less experience returning and be right, but my view is that objectively the one and done schools are not a good comparable for our program.

You'll point out that I've measured in minutes played for Purdue and say that EB started two full seasons and played a ton of minutes for Dartmouth and you'd be right, he's an experienced basketball player and that should count towards any analysis of how experienced this team is. The issue with EB at this point is that he doesn't have a lot of experience playing with this group of guys in this system, so I think somehow you'd want to include his numbers in evaluating experience but discount to account for the lack of continuity.

Your point is valid in that Painter had three years to recruit to replace last years class and so any lack of experience fall on him. Recruiting in the years following a large, successful class has obviously been a challeng for Matt and this is clearly a transition year. I remain hopeful that he'll get this figured out and end the year at .500 or better in conference with a chance to make the NCAA tournament, but you may be right and things could go sideways if he can't get this team to play hard, play together and play within the system.

 

[purduepat1969]

I wasn't the one to say that this team is young, but am happy to 'be logical and use facts' as you bring up good questions, namely is this a young team and is it an inexperienced team.

I agree with you that this is not a particularly young team with two seniors and two juniors playing major minutes. Whether this team is experienced or not depends upon the measure you use. There may be other ways to measure experience, but the objective measures I've seen used most often are returning starts and returning minutes played. You may have another objective meaure your using or may be gauging experience based on your subjective view.

I don't have the time or desire to look up the exact numbers, but using returning starts for Purdue, this team has Carsen who started twenty some games as a freshman and thirty some games last year. After that it goes way to to Cline, who started something like a dozen games as a sophomore and Haarms and Grady, who I believe each started two games last year. If we measure in returning minutes played for Purdue, I may be wrong, but I think Carsen, Cline, Haarms and Grady averaged a combined 65 to 75 minutes a game last season, out of total of 200 available minutes, somewhere around 35% of the total available minutes. Again, I don't have the time or desire to look up how those two metrics compare nationally, but I can't imagine that they're high in terms of returning experience. One could cherry pick teams like Duke and say that they have less experience returning and be right, but my view is that objectively the one and done schools are not a good comparable for our program.

You'll point out that I've measured in minutes played for Purdue and say that EB started two full seasons and played a ton of minutes for Dartmouth and you'd be right, he's an experienced basketball player and that should count towards any analysis of how experienced this team is. The issue with EB at this point is that he doesn't have a lot of experience playing with this group of guys in this system, so I think somehow you'd want to include his numbers in evaluating experience but discount to account for the lack of continuity.

Your point is valid in that Painter had three years to recruit to replace last years class and so any lack of experience fall on him. Recruiting in the years following a large, successful class has obviously been a challeng for Matt and this is clearly a transition year. I remain hopeful that he'll get this figured out and end the year at .500 or better in conference with a chance to make the NCAA tournament, but you may be right and things could go sideways if he can't get this team to play hard, play together and play within the system.

Very fair points. You're correct in starting minutes. I would have hoped Haarms developed a bit more, but it appears he is who he is. I don't think we're utilizing his skills very well, but that's a totally different topic.
I asked another poster this, and he never responded. My question is how much patience do we give Painter before we can clearly say he isn't going to get this program over the hump (FF, NC contender), or he shows the results? Or are most fans content with the results they've seen the past 14 years?

 

[Ignacious McNutt]

Yep it's official. Haarms is the forum whipping boy this season.

 

[northside100]

Very fair points. You're correct in starting minutes. I would have hoped Haarms developed a bit more, but it appears he is who he is. I don't think we're utilizing his skills very well, but that's a totally different topic.
I asked another poster this, and he never responded. My question is how much patience do we give Painter before we can clearly say he isn't going to get this program over the hump (FF, NC contender), or he shows the results? Or are most fans content with the results they've seen the past 14 years?

I'm happy to provide my take on your question, but let me preface this by saying I'm admittedly biased. I knew Joe Tiller pretty well and watched his frustration as the university didn't step up to support football at a championship level in the way that they're starting to do now. So my bias is in believing that while a truly extraordinary coach in football or men's bb, say a Brad Stevens, can build a championship level program with far fewer resources than their competition, those coaches are incredibly difficult to find. With most coaches, even those that are very talented and driven, the best that you can hope for is for them to somewhat out perform the station of your program.

Given my bias, while it's frustrating and disapointing to me as a fan to see Purdue fall short in regular season and tournament conference championship bids and fail to advance deep into the NCAA tournament, I try to temper that frustration with the view that in my mind, based on resources, recruiting base, admissions, etc. there are at least five programs in the conference that are better positioned to win in men's basketball than Purdue (just my opinion, but I think it's fairly objective).

So if I'm the President and AD, I have to ask myself whether my goal is to continue what we've been doing, i.e. making the tournament most years and occassionally seriously challenging for a conference championship, or if my goal is truly to contend for final fours and national championships. If my answer is the former, I'm very greatful to have Matt Painter coach as long as he wants so long as his performance doesn't significantly decline over an extended period of time.

If my answer is the latter, I figure out what resources, i.e. $$$ it would take to get to that level and decide whether I'm willing and able to make that commitment. If the answer is yes, I sit down with Matt Painter and clearly communicate that these are our new expectations tell him that he has these additional resources to work with to put his assistant pay, recruiting budget, etc. in the top ten in the country and ask him to come back with a plan for what changes. As part of my analysis, I also determine what we're willing to pay for a replacement coach if Matt doesn't deliver. Assuming that I'm willing to hire a replacement that's compensated in the top ten in the country, I start evaluating what type of coach I can attract for that money if Matt doesn't show signficant improvement in two years, I make the change.

 

[Lionheart1]

Agree with those who say he is what he is ... what you see is what you will be getting.

 

[purduepat1969]

I'm happy to provide my take on your question, but let me preface this by saying I'm admittedly biased. I knew Joe Tiller pretty well and watched his frustration as the university didn't step up to support football at a championship level in the way that they're starting to do now. So my bias is in believing that while a truly extraordinary coach in football or men's bb, say a Brad Stevens, can build a championship level program with far fewer resources than their competition, those coaches are incredibly difficult to find. With most coaches, even those that are very talented and driven, the best that you can hope for is for them to somewhat out perform the station of your program.

Given my bias, while it's frustrating and disapointing to me as a fan to see Purdue fall short in regular season and tournament conference championship bids and fail to advance deep into the NCAA tournament, I try to temper that frustration with the view that in my mind, based on resources, recruiting base, admissions, etc. there are at least five programs in the conference that are better positioned to win in men's basketball than Purdue (just my opinion, but I think it's fairly objective).

So if I'm the President and AD, I have to ask myself whether my goal is to continue what we've been doing, i.e. making the tournament most years and occassionally seriously challenging for a conference championship, or if my goal is truly to contend for final fours and national championships. If my answer is the former, I'm very greatful to have Matt Painter coach as long as he wants so long as his performance doesn't significantly decline over an extended period of time.

If my answer is the latter, I figure out what resources, i.e. $$$ it would take to get to that level and decide whether I'm willing and able to make that commitment. If the answer is yes, I sit down with Matt Painter and clearly communicate that these are our new expectations tell him that he has these additional resources to work with to put his assistant pay, recruiting budget, etc. in the top ten in the country and ask him to come back with a plan for what changes. As part of my analysis, I also determine what we're willing to pay for a replacement coach if Matt doesn't deliver. Assuming that I'm willing to hire a replacement that's compensated in the top ten in the country, I start evaluating what type of coach I can attract for that money if Matt doesn't show signficant improvement in two years, I make the change.

I think that's a very reasonable approach. I'd like to see measured improvements year over year. What I will say is that he's made regular season record improvements year over year since the 2011 season when he leveraged the Missouri job and got more $$$. But it unfortunately hasn't resulted in NCAA tourney depth or recruiting ranking improvements. That's my concern.

 

[cheeseman18]

I wasn't the one to say that this team is young, but am happy to 'be logical and use facts' as you bring up good questions, namely is this a young team and is it an inexperienced team.

I agree with you that this is not a particularly young team with two seniors and two juniors playing major minutes. Whether this team is experienced or not depends upon the measure you use. There may be other ways to measure experience, but the objective measures I've seen used most often are returning starts and returning minutes played. You may have another objective meaure your using or may be gauging experience based on your subjective view.

I don't have the time or desire to look up the exact numbers, but using returning starts for Purdue, this team has Carsen who started twenty some games as a freshman and thirty some games last year. After that it goes way to to Cline, who started something like a dozen games as a sophomore and Haarms and Grady, who I believe each started two games last year. If we measure in returning minutes played for Purdue, I may be wrong, but I think Carsen, Cline, Haarms and Grady averaged a combined 65 to 75 minutes a game last season, out of total of 200 available minutes, somewhere around 35% of the total available minutes. Again, I don't have the time or desire to look up how those two metrics compare nationally, but I can't imagine that they're high in terms of returning experience. One could cherry pick teams like Duke and say that they have less experience returning and be right, but my view is that objectively the one and done schools are not a good comparable for our program.

You'll point out that I've measured in minutes played for Purdue and say that EB started two full seasons and played a ton of minutes for Dartmouth and you'd be right, he's an experienced basketball player and that should count towards any analysis of how experienced this team is. The issue with EB at this point is that he doesn't have a lot of experience playing with this group of guys in this system, so I think somehow you'd want to include his numbers in evaluating experience but discount to account for the lack of continuity.

Your point is valid in that Painter had three years to recruit to replace last years class and so any lack of experience fall on him. Recruiting in the years following a large, successful class has obviously been a challeng for Matt and this is clearly a transition year. I remain hopeful that he'll get this figured out and end the year at .500 or better in conference with a chance to make the NCAA tournament, but you may be right and things could go sideways if he can't get this team to play hard, play together and play within the system.

I just checked Bart Torvik's preseason projections, which showed "returning minutes" and "returning possession minutes". Both were about 42%. In terms of national rank, the first is about 280th nationally, the second is 269th. So no, not considered to have much experience.

 

[tjreese]

Yep it's official. Haarms is the forum whipping boy this season.

not so fast...cline could show up again

 

[KentuckyBoiler]

Yep it's official. Haarms is the forum whipping boy this season.

Eifert has been up toward the top too

 

[Wolegib]

If you are judging experience based solely on minutes played in the previous season, whose fault is it the minutes previously played by this year's starters is so low?

 

[purduepat1969]

If you are judging experience based solely on minutes played in the previous season, whose fault is it the minutes previously played by this year's starters is so low?

Now you're going to raise the ire of the Painter fans. Careful...

 

[proudopete]

If you are judging experience based solely on minutes played in the previous season, whose fault is it the minutes previously played by this year's starters is so low?

Probably the four seniors

 

[Wolegib]

Now you're going to raise the ire of the Painter fans. Careful...

I'm am not worried! The majority of the board hates me no matter what I post or whose side I'm on

 

[pig1960]

If you are judging experience based solely on minutes played in the previous season, whose fault is it the minutes previously played by this year's starters is so low?

My god you are kidding right? If not there is very little that can be said to help you.

 

[Wolegib]

There were many games last year when Purdue had big leads and our 4 seniors were still playing to pad their stats . There were also many games against lesser opponents where Painter could have played his younger players a lot more minutes and still won the game. We didn't really need our starters playing in several blow out games but they played anyway. The same was true this year.

What's better coaching strategy ? Having our younger players get experience or winning a game by 20-30 points?

 

[tjreese]

If you are judging experience based solely on minutes played in the previous season, whose fault is it the minutes previously played by this year's starters is so low?

Only Taylor, Nojel and Grady can make the claim. Wheeler and Sasha red shirted...maybe a few more minutes for Cline. I wanted that last year and wanted some more minutes early this year...but it was even harder this year due to many new pieces. Last year...early season offered a LOT of opportunity

 

[Wolegib]

Only Taylor, Nojel and Grady can make the claim. Wheeler and Sasha red shirted...maybe a few more minutes for Cline. I wanted that last year and wanted some more minutes early this year...but it was even harder this year due to many new pieces. Last year...early season offered a LOT of opportunity

And what about Haarms?

 

[tjreese]

And what about Haarms?

don't know his minutes, but he got some time and last year was a very special team and a lot of that is what Haas brought inside. Purdue had a very good shot of going farther without the injury. Haas would have kept some attention from TEch inside and made it a bit easier for the perimeter players that had athletes not letting them breath...because only Carson could /would drive teh ball adn when Haas was gone..so was a lot of what Purdue was about offensively.

 

[Wolegib]

Before the season started there was a lot of talk of pairing up Haarms with Haas as a twin towers against certain teams that plan would have afforded Haarms more playing time but it never materialized,

 

[Purdue0034]

I do think Taylor should have played a lot more than he did especially once he got healthy. Maybe he wouldn't have transfered; who knows. If healthy, he defiitely could have helped us this year. I am hoping Wheeler starts against Maryland. We will see.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

I do think Taylor should have played a lot more than he did especially once he got healthy. Maybe he wouldn't have transfered; who knows. If healthy, he defiitely could have helped us this year. I am hoping Wheeler starts against Maryland. We will see.

Who was he taking minutes from last year?

 

[bonefish1]

Very fair points. You're correct in starting minutes. I would have hoped Haarms developed a bit more, but it appears he is who he is. I don't think we're utilizing his skills very well, but that's a totally different topic.
I asked another poster this, and he never responded. My question is how much patience do we give Painter before we can clearly say he isn't going to get this program over the hump (FF, NC contender), or he shows the results? Or are most fans content with the results they've seen the past 14 years?

To your last question: a lot of fans are happy with Painter. He gets you 20+ wins, upper half B10 finish and a tourney appearance. But, after that, they don’t really care what happens. They usually have excuses as to why P falls short in the NCAA ( injuries, bad draw, bad officiating, bad location, etc). They don’t have visions of Purdue being a great program and competing for National Championships and they’re too afraid of the unknown were we to go a different direction.

 

[bonefish1]

I'm happy to provide my take on your question, but let me preface this by saying I'm admittedly biased. I knew Joe Tiller pretty well and watched his frustration as the university didn't step up to support football at a championship level in the way that they're starting to do now. So my bias is in believing that while a truly extraordinary coach in football or men's bb, say a Brad Stevens, can build a championship level program with far fewer resources than their competition, those coaches are incredibly difficult to find. With most coaches, even those that are very talented and driven, the best that you can hope for is for them to somewhat out perform the station of your program.

Given my bias, while it's frustrating and disapointing to me as a fan to see Purdue fall short in regular season and tournament conference championship bids and fail to advance deep into the NCAA tournament, I try to temper that frustration with the view that in my mind, based on resources, recruiting base, admissions, etc. there are at least five programs in the conference that are better positioned to win in men's basketball than Purdue (just my opinion, but I think it's fairly objective).

So if I'm the President and AD, I have to ask myself whether my goal is to continue what we've been doing, i.e. making the tournament most years and occassionally seriously challenging for a conference championship, or if my goal is truly to contend for final fours and national championships. If my answer is the former, I'm very greatful to have Matt Painter coach as long as he wants so long as his performance doesn't significantly decline over an extended period of time.

If my answer is the latter, I figure out what resources, i.e. $$$ it would take to get to that level and decide whether I'm willing and able to make that commitment. If the answer is yes, I sit down with Matt Painter and clearly communicate that these are our new expectations tell him that he has these additional resources to work with to put his assistant pay, recruiting budget, etc. in the top ten in the country and ask him to come back with a plan for what changes. As part of my analysis, I also determine what we're willing to pay for a replacement coach if Matt doesn't deliver. Assuming that I'm willing to hire a replacement that's compensated in the top ten in the country, I start evaluating what type of coach I can attract for that money if Matt doesn't show signficant improvement in two years, I make the change.

Great post. I agree with almost everything you’ve said.
The financial metrics are there for what an AD has to invest to consistently compete. And if it’s really about money, maybe MBob, Daniels and the BOT sit down to evaluate whether having a self sustaining athletic department puts P at a competitive disadvantage and how the AD is funded needs to change.

 

[bonefish1]

Eifert has been up toward the top too

But that’s really in Painter. I use to ruonon Bade pretty good, but that was just a massive recruiting miss by Painter as Bade wasn’t D1 level.

 

[Ignacious McNutt]

But that’s really in Painter. I use to ruonon Bade pretty good, but that was just a massive recruiting miss by Painter as Bade wasn’t D1 level.

Except that he was. With every one of your posts, I am more and more glad you aren't in any position to make any changes at Purdue. I mean that seriously and I think you probably are a nice guy and just passionate about Purdue, but a coach you aint.

 

[SCBoiler1]

200 minutes available

Seniors Cline/Eifert 57 minutes
Juniors Boudreaux/Carsen 50.3 minutes
Sophomores Eastern/Haarms 43.8 minutes
Red Fresh Stef/Wheeler 28.7 Minutes
Freshmen Hunter/Williams 18.3 Minutes

Inexperienced? Yes Young? Not really

Young usually is normally considered a positive when looking to the future. If you believe Carsen stays next year, then we will be older and more experienced. But if he leaves, we loose a lot of minutes and points next year (45% of the minutes and 57% of our points per game) and we'll be inexperienced again next year.

By Comparison, Maryland plays no seniors and 1 junior meaningful minutes. They are a young team. Michigan plays 1 senior and 2 juniors.

 

[bonefish1]

Except that he was. With every one of your posts, I am more and more glad you aren't in any position to make any changes at Purdue. I mean that seriously and I think you probably are a nice guy and just passionate about Purdue, but a coach you aint.

Just because he got a scholarship doesn’t mean he could compete at this level.
If he could, he wouldn’t have quit.

 

[Ignacious McNutt]

Just because he got a scholarship doesn’t mean he could compete at this level.
If he could, he wouldn’t have quit.

Yeah because it's not like a person can't change their mind? He was a two sport recruit IIRC and O$U even wanted him for football. So it isn't shocking he made the change to something he liked better.

But you clearly have talked to Bade to know right? Or is it more likely you are just blowing smoke? I'm going with the smoke.

 

[bonefish1]

Yeah because it's not like a person can't change their mind? He was a two sport recruit IIRC and O$U even wanted him for football. So it isn't shocking he made the change to something he liked better.

But you clearly have talked to Bade to know right? Or is it more likely you are just blowing smoke? I'm going with the smoke.

Neither. I’m basing it on watching him play, and after about the first 5 minutes of him being on the floor, it was clearly obvious to any objective observer that he want B10 material.

 

[Ignacious McNutt]

Neither. I’m basing it on watching him play, and after about the first 5 minutes of him being on the floor, it was clearly obvious to any objective observer that he want B10 material.

Well because we all know you are an objective observer right with years of experience coaching at the division one level.

Man you really do have a hard time just admitting you are wrong on something, even when it's so blatantly obvious. I mean the fact that you are holding on to this whole Bade thing after all this time just makes it seem even more so. It's okay man, let it go!

 

[tjreese]

Before the season started there was a lot of talk of pairing up Haarms with Haas as a twin towers against certain teams that plan would have afforded Haarms more playing time but it never materialized,

yes, I would have liked that some last year as well