Will we ever get a recruit?
- Thread starter Hautmanboiler
- Start date
Nope. We are never going to sign another recruit. In four years, we'll just field a squad of all walk-ons. Or Painter will pull a Gene Hackman from Hoosiers and play with four.
"My team is on the floor..."
How silly, of course we will get someone! Just not a difference maker.
This is the appropriate response I think to those that have jumped off the ledge:
This is the appropriate response I think to those that have jumped off the ledge:
Haha nice.
No joke. There is zero way anyone can predict how any recruit is going to pan out before they even play their first college game. None.
Even harder when you don't know who the recruit is. Of course that's why this guy is who he is. Part of the Professional Bitchers Club we have on this board.
That's why the schools that get five star recruits do so bad each year
I fully agree. The 2009 Princeton Tigers were full of 5 star recruits and Painter missed on all of them. That's no way to win championships
Actually, experts get it right more often than not. That's why teams with the best recruits according to the ranking services like Rivals win more than those with lower ranked recruits. Not 100% of the time, but way more often than not. It's why Painter made 2 sweet 16's and won a league championship with a top 10 class with the baby boilers and why we were terrible with classes like 2011 with Donnie Hale and Jacob Lawson (unranked 3 star guys)... which is what we might be looking at now in 2017. There are exceptions, but they are just that... exceptions.
Right the real experts, but not those of you pretending to be one on here.
You need not be an expert, nor even had slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night to know that Painter has laid an epic egg in recruiting this year, on the heels of having laid an equally epic egg in the NCAA tournament the last two years...on the heels of flat out missing it altogether the two years before that.
It's been a whole year since we've signed 5 star recruit! My God, when will it end!!!
Exactly right.
These people on here who say that recruit rankings and stars don't matter know better. If Purdue were getting a bunch of 4 and 5 star guys, they'd be the first one's in line about talking the importance of player rankings as a predictor for future success.
I agree with this. I would love to have a couple 4-star guys coming in for 2017. As it stands right now, we do not. It might be premature to base any projections of wins/losses in future years based on our current position, because that position can change quickly. However, rankings do count.
That said, I could create an epic list of 5-star players that utterly failed at the college level. We can call it the Hanna Perera list in honor of one of the greatest from our friends down south.
I agree with this. I would love to have a couple 4-star guys coming in for 2017. As it stands right now, we do not. It might be premature to base any projections of wins/losses in future years based on our current position, because that position can change quickly. However, rankings do count.
That said, I could create an epic list of 5-star players that utterly failed at the college level. We can call it the Hanna Perera list in honor of one of the greatest from our friends down south.
Hanner Perea was a Rivals (and ESPN) 4 star recruit.
Just like Kendall Stephens.
Last edited:
Right, the point is that everybody has busts.
Perea (a 4 star, not a 5) was a bust just like Stephens.
That was exactly what Mathboy was pointing out. It's great to get 4-5 star guys but no guarantee they will be successful. Hanner was an example he used.
I love how your IU radar picked up his comment so quickly about one of your former players. You have had an account for over 2 years and this is your first post. I have always wondered, how do you (and the MSU police) pick up on something like this? Do you come here everyday looking for something IU to comment about? There could be whole threads on other schools sites about Purdue and I would have no idea. Yet one comment inside of a thread and you find it. Interesting....
No, Mathboy referred to Hanner as a failed 5 star player. Read his post.
Also, I believe this is the first time I have commented here so no, I don't come here everyday looking for something IU to comment about.
Hanner was a 5 at one point. He fell as he got older and didn't develop but he was a top 15 or so guy for a while. When this linked article was written in 2011, he was 15th in the nation, which would certainly be 5 star.
I know you corrected him, he said 5 star and he was actually a 4 star. We got that, thanks.
Amazing that right after Mathboy mentioned a former IU player, there you were. That's incredible timing! I'm sure you'll be around regularly now to keep everything IU accurate.
Yes, because following what Princeton did in 2009 is the recipe for success. SMH
I agree with this. I would love to have a couple 4-star guys coming in for 2017. As it stands right now, we do not. It might be premature to base any projections of wins/losses in future years based on our current position, because that position can change quickly. However, rankings do count.
That said, I could create an epic list of 5-star players that utterly failed at the college level. We can call it the Hanna Perera list in honor of one of the greatest from our friends down south.
I'd rather have a bunch of 4 and 5 star guys with a few who turn out to be busts as opposed to a bunch of 1, 2 or 3 stars guys hoping a few turn out to be great.
Rankings do matter. There is error in them, but the general theme is true. Rankings are generally all offensive and have little to no measure on chemistry, defense and court awareness except maybe a PG. However, with the shift the last couple of years to more "offensive ball... individual ball", I believe the rankings carry more weight than years ago. My preference is is higher rankings, but I know that is not the whole answer and not about to think Purdue is in trouble a couple of years from now as a consequence of recruiting today. Perhaps a year from now I'll reassess that thought, but for now I'm not in a panic situation...and of course it wouldn't matter if I was...
Wasn't amazing at all. There have been tons of IU threads on this board I haven't commented on. Mathboy said this, exactly: "That said, I could create an epic list of 5-star players that utterly failed at the college level. We can call it the Hanna Perera list in honor of one of the greatest from our friends down south."
Since Perea wasn't a 5 star, I thought the name of the list should probably be altered. Didn't mean to cause anybody anxiety. My apologies.
Point being, you would have to be lurking here in the first place to even know that was said.Or your iuradar went off.
Apology accepted, now that my anxiety is gone I will be able to sleep tonight.
Keep an eye on all the threads you never know when a big mistake like this involving a former IU player could happen again.
I agree. No problem. Let's call it the "Epic Four Star Failure List".
I think the point is still well taken in that many highly ranked high school players never get it in college. Either they don't have a head for it, or the skills of the players were exaggerated in the eyes of the scout team. It happens. That does not mean that this is the "most likely" scenario. No, most 4-star players go on to good college careers. So, yes, I still want 4-star recruits for Purdue. It is just that being a 4-star or 5-star does not guarantee a successful program. You have to get the right 4-star guys.
But, you could still get a bunch of semi-talented 2-3 star guys who work really hard, have a high Bball IQ (which is a stupid term anyway), etc, etc, but in basketball, physical talent usually beats those lesser talented teams a majority of the time.
Obviously it's not always the case as evidenced by upsets in the tourney, but again, statistically, you're going to win more with more talented, highly rated guys, than with lower rated, less talented guys.
Nobody is contesting this position. Mathboy and everybody else have said they would prefer to get 4-5 star guys every year. I'm not sure who you are trying to make this point with?
Honestly, look at Illinois. They get highly ranked 4* and the occasional 5* recruit, year after year, and they suck. While teams like Wisconsin (back in the Bo Ryan early 2000s) got 3* and low 4* players, yet competed every game, was a top BT team for a decade with a roster like that and was ranked all year long. It comes down to coaching as much as it comes down to talent in the NCAA. You have to know your teams identity, and you have to some how make your team believe in your style, and sacrifice everything for the team. If you do that, you can win with a program like ours, easily.
Latest posts
-
Bucket Game: Each Team One Game Removed From A Perfect Season- Latest: purduealum06
-
-
-
-