No question Painter gets guys who fit his style and he gets everything out of them. They buy in, the work hard. They are successful.
But at the end of it all, they are not talented enough.
The moment Smith made that under the leg dime to Lurch who mishandled it immediately, it was easy to see that Arizona simply needed to turn on the jets and bury the boilers.
I am fully sick of dysfunctional Indiana being unable to build any kind of success over a span of time, but im also not going to sugarcoat what is plain and obvious to see with Purdue. They dont have the horses to run at the derby. The best they have is what we just saw, unless they get another 7'4" anomaly.
No question Painter gets guys who fit his style and he gets everything out of them. They buy in, the work hard. They are successful.
But at the end of it all, they are not talented enough.
The moment Smith made that under the leg dime to Lurch who mishandled it immediately, it was easy to see that Arizona simply needed to turn on the jets and bury the boilers.
I am fully sick of dysfunctional Indiana being unable to build any kind of success over a span of time, but im also not going to sugarcoat what is plain and obvious to see with Purdue. They dont have the horses to run at the derby. The best they have is what we just saw, unless they get another 7'4" anomaly.
I didn't think this team was as good as that team that lost to UVA. I was kind of surprised they got out of the first weekend and absolutely thought they'd lose in the S16.
Hope is not optimism, which expects things to turn out well, but something rooted in the conviction that there is good worth working for. - Seamus Heaney, Irish poet and likely Hoosier basketball fan.
POTFB
I hate Purdue more than anyone but the objective reality is that Painter will always field a competitive team. The PG they have coming in may be better than Braden Smith.
I'm not so sure that Purdue wont luck into a title eventually (at least, while Painter is there). While FDU will always be there, from an objective standpoint, they've been playing better lately in the tournament, no longer losing to the lower-seeded teams. Last 5 years, they've had 1st round loss (FDU), two sweet 16's, an elite 8, and a championship game loss. You can knock the guy, but that's pretty damn good.
It's going to come down to whether he can pick up his recruiting one notch. Painter is an excellent developer of players from the upper 3 star / lower 4 star level so that he can consistently create teams that are in the 10-25th range. If he can start to pull in a couple of 5 stars, I suspect that he could pull off a title. That's a hard thing to do though because Painter likes to get guys who fit his system and that doesn't exactly fit to the current NBA mold. Purdue is also a difficult location to recruit to. It may come down to whether he can capitalize on their current positive tournament runs.
@squeakyclean Everyone is able and allowed to evolve. He'll need to, or they'll never have the firepower to win it all. But man, his track record is pretty darn established, what indications are there that he's going to change. The way he talks, he's more likely to dig in and double down on what he's been doing, than change. Luke Ertel is bigger, stronger, and faster than Smith. But he isn't Final Four NCAA levels of good. Neither are Cox, Harris, Benter, Mayer, Jacobsen, the Ivy League transfer... he'll need to filter a couple guys out, and hit the portal, and get some dudes. If he rolls with Ertel, Benter, Cox, etc... they'll win a lot of games, but won't be able to beat multiple "Arizonas" in a row, like will be necessary. He's had 1 team, in his entire coaching career that I thought had a chance to win it all, and that was the Carson Edwards/Ivy team. Ironically, that wasn't the team that made the title game. Edey was the ONLY reason that team did what they did. And the disparity between everyone not named Edey, and that UConn team, was startling. Just like the talent disparity between Arizona and Purdue was the other night.
You can't win titles these days with JUST one year or two year NBA dudes. And you can't win titles with JUST multi year, non NBA dudes. You have to have a good blend of both.
You can't win titles these days with JUST one year or two year NBA dudes. And you can't win titles with JUST multi year, non NBA dudes. You have to have a good blend of both.
That was kinda my point with the last paragraph. He has a proven track record of developing the mid-4 star players that stick around 4 years and are really good players. If he can pull off a couple of 5 star players, I think he can cross that threshold.
"what indications are there that he is going to change". As I said, he's already doing better at not dropping the double-digit seed games. So he's apparently figured a few things out. The question I think it comes down to is, can he not get the 5 star recruits because it is that hard to get kids to go to Purdue or is it because Painter is stubborn and only recruits to a particular type / system? I suspect it is the former versus the latter, but the more he can put together successful runs in the tournament (and yeah, to the average IU fan, technically anything that is not a championship is considered a failure, but from a practicality standard, being an elite 8 team is a pretty successful year), the better he has a chance of pulling in higher end talent going forward.
Purdue's reputation is a heck of a lot better now than it was 4 years ago. Painter probably still has a good decade of coaching left. The odds of winning a championship are not great, but I am definitely not putting them in the "never going to happen" range.
Painter can't get the 5 star athletes to come to W. Lafayette. He resorts to recruiting high IQ white kids. That will win you a lot of games but never a title. He needs to go after athletic but raw 3 stars like Crean did with Oladipo, Anunoby, etc. But that would also mean more peaks and valleys as though guys are often busts. He seems to have made the decision to be a sure fire Sweet 16 team each year with no hope of anything more rather than rolling the dice on having more.
All fair criticisms of Painter, but we would have killed to have Purdue's last 10 years ... even without a title.
@squeakyclean I know what you mean when you refer to "5 star"... but it really doesn't need to be traditional 5 star recruits. Just needs to be relatively obvious NBA guys. Painter has sent a handful of players to the NBA, but he pretty much never has a team that has more than 1 of them. But beyond that, he virtually never has "NBA like" athleticism, especially on the perimeter.
Obviously he "could" start going harder after them, and/or landing them. But I'm not sure he could have a more hot program than what he had during Edwards/Edey years, and then this year... Maaayyyybeee Braden Smith makes a roster, maybe Jacobsen might someday if he develops A LOT, but I don't see a single other player on this years roster that is even close to NBA level. He would/should have already cashed in on the Edwards/Ivey and then Edey years, if he was going to. Last offseason, he allowed guys like Colvin and Heide to leave... basically the two guys on his roster that had the size, length, AND athleticism to play with/against NBA level players. And he brought in Cluff, and Mayer. Cluff is a REALLY good college basketball player. He shored up one of their weaknesses with rebounding. But he went backwards, seemingly willingly, on the things that have always cost him in the NCAA tournament. So, I'm not sure I agree with you on your assessment on whether he's trying to go after the types of guys he's gonna need.
I guess I'll believe it when I see it. It doesn't really matter. They're still going to be near the top of the B10 most every year, while Painter is there. Just like Wisconsin will be under Gard. So until IU finds a coach that can match that, AND tap in to the resources to get NBA level guys... we'll be looking up at those schools. But I'd gladly finish 4th or 5th in the conference, and have the horses to win a natty and/or make a deep run every now and then...over finishing near the top of the B10 every year and never having the horses to win it all.
@gthomas Obviously...looking backwards... all things being equal. But would I trade our next 10 years for theirs? Nope. I still think we'll get the hire right, if CDD isn't the guy... within the next 5-6 years. And when we do, we'll bust through and win one. I don't think Painter is willing or able to bring in, and coach the guys it'd take for him to win it all.
@gthomas I agree, but I also know that having the same success as Painter has been having, many IU people would want him gone for not being able to win the big one. Just a fact.
Could you imagine this board if IU would have lost to a 16 seed! Yikes - hell, we see it now when we lose to Northwestern, and Iu isnt even good right now.
@iunorth wish I had your optimism. I want to, and I used to, but not any more. 26 years of abject failure has taken that away from me. I can't let myself believe we'll actually get it right eventually. When we do, I'll acknowledge it, but I'm not optimistic we will, at least not in the next 5-6 years.
"Getting it right" is certainly a lower bar for me now than it was under Knight/Davis/Sampson/Crean. Under all of them, at various points, I thought we had the chance to be routinely among the best 5-10 programs in the country. Now I believe getting it right means popping into the top 10 once every few years, but routinely among the top 35 and a solid tournament team.@iunorth wish I had your optimism. I want to, and I used to, but not any more. 26 years of abject failure has taken that away from me. I can't let myself believe we'll actually get it right eventually. When we do, I'll acknowledge it, but I'm not optimistic we will, at least not in the next 5-6 years.
@gros-louis I kind of agree. I think there are probably different versions of "right". I think a coach that always has a winning record, is routinely a top 6-7 B10 regular season team, but has a team every 3-4 years that has the horses to legit compete for a natty, would be "right". A Gard/Painter esque program that gets to top 3-4 every year, and is solid, and returns lots of guys most years, and competes for 2nd weekends a lot... is also "right". I'd choose the first one if given the choice.
But I don't see a scenario where we get a coach that has IU at the top of the B10 every year, and has FF level teams most years. I don't know why it couldn't happen, I just can't envision it.
I hate Purdue more than anyone but the objective reality is that Painter will always field a competitive team. The PG they have coming in may be better than Braden Smith.
his potential is... watched him a few time this year. He's legit
Latest Post: Iran War Has Started Our newest member: Steven Ross Recent Posts Unread Posts
