*Official* B1G In-Season Thread
- Thread starter boilerzz
- Start date
Two years* And since he was high major recruit, and scouts already had a look at him, yes he would've been drafted if he went to Drexel.
Bridges played 2 years at Michigan State and honestly had very little to gain coming back for his second year because he was already a projected lottery pick if he went pro after his frosh year. He averaged 17 and 7 at Michigan State. He would have averaged 30 and 10 at Drexel and scouts would have noticed him very similar to how they are right now with Ja Morant. If you are that good, you will make it anywhere you go.
2 years my bad. And he wouldn’t have been drafted nearly as high, if it all. How many people from Drexel are getting drafted?
So conference results are all that matters? When I am evaluating a coach, I look at all aspects of a coach. It’s not close. It’s not debatable. Izzo and Beilein are the best coaches in the conference and two of the best in the country. Painter isn’t on their level. That’s a fact. Get over it.
How many 5 star kids are going to Drexel? Are you seriously not understanding this?
Still waiting to hear why Haarms (LOL) has a shot at the NBA. I'm sure you think Eastern does too, amirite?
It's actually kind of sad to see Purdue fans trying to tell the world that Painter is on the same level as Beilein and Izzo. No sane, rational college basketball fan would believe this.
You seriously think Painter develops players at the same level as Izzo and Beilein?
Bro come on. If a 5 star top 10 player from his class went to Drexel, he would get drafted. That's the point.
Neither of us are arguing that. We're simply saying, a player as good as Bridges could've went anywhere and still would've got drafted in relatively the same position. Case in point: Ja Morant.
Yes you are arguing that, dumb fvck. This whole argument goes back to my comment about developing players.
It's close, yes. Izzo and Beilein get a lot more highly ranked players in their program, so obviously the amount of players they have in the pros is going to be higher. I really can't believe you don't understand this, especially the bit about Bridges. Smh
I don't think Painter is better than Izzo/Beilein in player development.
I also don't think that Miles Bridges needed Tom Izzo or MSU to be a lottery pick.
Both can be true.
I agree that some 5-stars are destined for the NBA no matter where they go, but you're also disregarding guys that MSU developed like Bryn Forbes (0-star), Draymond (3-star), Denzel Valentine (low 4-star)? Or the MSU guys who had tremendous development but not NBA success, like Travis Trice (Final Four MOP), Kenny Goins (0-star walk on), Costello, Goran Suton, etc.
It's not like Izzo gets multiple 5-stars, or even 1, every class. He doesn't have one in 2019 class, didn't have one in 2018, had JJJ in 2017, had Bridges and Langford in 2016, none in 2015, none in 2014, none in 2013, etc.
Or what about any of the Beilein players who are in the NBA, that weren't 5-stars like Levert, Stauskas, THJr, etc.?
In 14+ years, Painter currently has only 3 players in the NBA. Vince Edwards (3/4-star) who has played 2 games total, Etwuan Moore (Top-35 ranked) who is pretty good (~12ppg) but was drafted 8 years ago, and Swanigan (5-star) who has played minimally in 18 games.
https://basketball.realgm.com/ncaa/conferences/Big-Ten-Conference/2/Purdue/105/nba-players
I think that is partly why Painter hasn't recruited as well. He hasn't had anyone really bust out and develop into an NBA player. He's had a few that had potential, but never take that next step. A lot of these kids want to see that your program has a pipeline to the NBA, or at least proof that it has happened before. Its kind of a catch22, as you need NBA results, but you can't recruit those kids without NBA proof
So, we're good then assuming if Swanigan went to Drexel, he would have been drafted in a similar spot too?
im not arguing really anything. i dont really give a shit if you think izzo or beilein develop players a lot better than painter. it's impossible to prove. what i was commenting on was your inability to understand that the majority of 5 star, top 15 players are going to succeed, get drafted, noticed, etc., wherever they go. it doesn't matter if it's duke or belmont
No it's not. Compare draft picks. Then compare their rankings coming out of high school. It's only close to you Purdue homers literally nobody else that watches college basketball.
You can’t compare draft picks because Izzo recruits 4 and 5 star guys so they are going to the NBA anyway. He just rolls the ball out.
Yes probably? I think player development is a misleading trope used way too much these days in regards to coaches.
The fact is, there are a lot of good coaches out there that help develop their players, there are also a ton of good players who would probably succeed regardless who their coach is. I think it's hard to quantify which coach is definitively better than the other in that regard.
So Painter doesn't get near as many 4 and 5 star recruits......but he should have as many first round picks?
Use logic. Seems like a coach who gets more highly ranked players would have more first round picks.
I think it's fair to say Beilein is the best in the league at player development.
Misleading to you, maybe. The FACT is recruits see coaches getting their kids to the NBA. That is a FACT. That matters to them. They don't care if the kid is the 100th ranked recruit or the 10th ranked recruit. They care about getting to the NBA. They see coaches like Cal, K, Self, Beilein, Izzo all getting kids to the NBA. Hell, look at Crean. He got the #1 rated recruit to go to GEORGIA. You know why? The kid liked the way Crean developed Wade and Oladipo. Says Crean's got a track record of getting guys like him to the NBA.
So, it's not misleading at all.
Why can only 4 and 5 star recruits be first round picks? Great logic Bob.
If he had more success in the tournament and got more kids to the NBA, he may be able to get some additional 4 and 5 star guys.
What's Archie's excuse for taking Dayton to the Elite Eight? Surely his team wasn't loaded with 4 and 5 star guys yet he was able to make a run in the NCAA Tournament at a small school. Weird. Based on your comments, that's damn near impossible to do if you don't have 5 star talent.
Crean got the #1 recruit to Georgia b/c the kid got 100 large from a bagman.
Wade would've got to the NBA with or without Crean, so would Oladipo.
Weird, right? I remember Oladipo being the #2 pick in the NBA draft and he wasn't even a Top 100 guy. I remember OG Anunoby being drafted in the 1st round and he wasn't a Top 100 guy. I can keep going if you'd like. Trey Burke, Denzel Valentine, Draymond Green..
It's gotta be that Painter has just had bad luck.
And here is the standard Purdue fanboy response. LOL! So predictable. So dumb. So wrong.
Dude, did you even read what my OP said? Can you think critically for one second? Here is what you said:
"I agree Painter does a lot with less talent. He’s a good coach. However, overall, it really isn’t close. Izzo and Beilein aren’t just good recruiters. They’re two of the best in game coaches and developers of talent in the country along with being really good recruiters. I mean, it’s not even debatable. Painter isn’t in that category. And again, that’s not debatable."
So let me get this straight. Painter does a lot with less talent, and routinely beats the other two coaches head to head. Yet the other two get BETTER talent and develop that talent BETTER. Don't you see the disconnect here?
Look, you want to use NCAA success as your barometer and that's fine. I personally feel that head to head and the grind of the conference season is a better gauge of a coaches potential. There are a lot of things that are out of your control when it comes to NCAA's. Luck, draw, injuries, etc. Those things are better overcome by a higher talent level vs X's and O'x IMO. X's and O's and talent development is more apparent throughout the course of a conference season.
Swanigan, Moore and Johnson would have as well. So would Carsen Edwards and Vince Edwards. They didn't need Painter. They would have gone to the NBA without him.
Dwayne Wade is one of the best NBA players of all time. He would've got there with or without Crean. That's just a fact. The kid was too good and naturally talented.
If you think Crean should get that much credit for the player Wade is today then I have some beach front property in Wyoming I'd like to sell you.
Yes exactly. Those players are good players regardless of who the coach is. I think those guys could've developed and played well at a ton of other programs besides Matt Painter or Purdue.
Going to bat for your golden boy? I love the flip flopping the IU fanbase has over Crean. Weird paradox here.
So we agree that Painter isn’t that good at developing players.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
👌🏻☠️🐺💪⛔️ 4th Anal. Very Macho Avatar Challenge 👌🏻☠️🐺💪⛔️- Latest: Necessary Roughness