I actually think Painter is one of the best if not the best big man developer in the conference. Hammons, swanigan, haas, harms, williams. He's got a track record.
*Official* B1G In-Season Thread
- Thread starter boilerzz
- Start date
It doesn't matter what you or I think. It matters what recruits think and clearly RECRUITS give Crean credit for developing Wade, Oladipo, Anunoby.
The #1 rated recruit specifically called out Wade and Oladipo as reasons for playing for Crean. Lol.
No he's still an awful game coach and roster manager but he's a very good guard developer. He's a PITA and WAF but he pushes his guys.
i don't know how you quantify that characteristic of a coach. I think "talent development" is overblown on both sides.
I think a lot of players can be productive at a lot of different schools under a lot of different coaches.
You said the more highly ranked guys they get the more first round picks they will have. Why can’t guys who are aren’t highly ranked coming out of high school be first round picks?
It does matter what you or I think because it's you and I who are having the conversation.
I just think in some instances coaches are given way too much credit for a player developing, when in reality they probably would be the same player regardless if they were coached by John Beilein or Tom Izzo.
COY and B1G champ looks good on a resume.
Burke was a 4* rated #75 coming out of HS. Rivals rated him a 3* #147 because he had committed to PSU then flipped to Michigan. hmmmm now Iwonder why he was not a 4* by Rivals. of course it had nothing to do with the school he committed to in the 1st place.
Final Fours, National Championships and a lot of NBA Draft Picks along with those COY and B1G Championships looks better.
Oh c'mon. I didn't say that at all. Based on my comments coaches who get more highly ranked players get more players in the NBA. That's it. Said nothing about tournament success.
There is always going to be a George Mason or Loyola. You can draw conclusions on those runs at your own peril.
Do you think Oladipo's career would've turned out any different if he was coached by Matt Painter, Tom Izzo, or John Beilein? I don't.
Having a million dollars looks better than having $100,000. But it'd be kind of weird for someone with $10,000 to make that argument.
GTFO. This conversation was already going off the rails.
Somewhat different sure, would he have gotten to the NBA? Probably. But thats all revisionist theory. Crean coached him. He gets credit for it.
Supposedly, UCLA may put a bid on him this off-season. Not sure you could lure him away, but that would be one spot that would be enticing.
I think he'd be a horrible fit for west coast recruiting, but it's not a bad thing for his name to be floated as an attractive candidate for other high-major jobs.
He just got bumped to $2.8M this past fall, but he's probably due to be in the $3.0M to $3.2M range based on recent results and other salaries in the league.
And my point is, most of the time, it's too much credit. Whether that's Matt Painter, Tom Izzo, John Beilein.
Right. That's why I made the analogy.
Just funny to see IU fans hopping on UM and MSU's jocks so hard. Painter is arguably the best regular season coach in the league. That's worth quite a little - and March success is what careers are defined by.
But it's okay to accept nuance in these discussions when Purdue fans feel good about their coach.
We don't have to worry about giving Matt Painter "too much" credit for developing NBA talent.
They can, but a majority of the first round picks are 5 stars and probably only a couple 3 stars every year.
Who are you to say? What kind of background with high level D1 athletics and NBA talent evaluation do you have?
They can be. They are. Happens all the time. I didn't say only highly ranked players can get to the NBA. Wtf are you talking about?
Highly ranked players get to the NBA at a higher rate than those who aren't. Coaches who get those players will get more kids to the NBA. Those coaches are also very good at their jobs.
Quite a jump you made there. It's just my opinion. I don't think anyone here is qualified in anything remotely close to college basketball/NBA evaluation but yet here we are, discussing it.
Very surprising for a guy that can’t recruit, can’t develop players and sucks at X’s and O’s
I'm just not sure how you can say if he went to such and such coach he's getting drafted or in the same position. To me it rely's not only on the coach but the situation. How they use him, the teammates around him, their work ethic, coaches work ethic, college life at the school, etc. Especially when it comes to guys who aren't super talented coming from high school and stay multiple years in college. I generally don't get into the whole had he went here he'd be where he is now still. Things in life prepare you for the path you take. To change the coach changes 3-4 years of a persons life and their experiences athletically and personally that are part of that current player in one of the most developmental times in a persons life. Getting philosophical but its true. My answer in short is who knows.
3 pages in 3 hours?
Thats it? Its all about Painter just skip over
Then knock it down the middle and break out the wedge. Maybe you can find your point there. It's certainly not what I'm talking about.
The Turn Around- you need to get this on the market ASAP! IU clearly elite in slogans...
The Movement
We’re Back
The Turnaround
RollLaugh
You’re penalizing coaches who get better recruits when it comes to player development. Its a dumb argument.
I'm not disregarding them all all. I'm just saying that using number of draft picks when evaluating talent development ignores the inherent advantage of having better raw materials to start with (recruiting issue). Bmore is way off base in that regard.
In my opinion, Painter does a great job of developing talent to work extremely well at the college game. The challenge he has is that most of the guys he can get to come to Purdue (recruiting issue) are guys that just aren't suited to the NBA and aren't going to be regardless of how well they develop due primarily to physical limitations. Even Carsen Edwards, who is a tremendous athlete is unilkely to breakout in the NBA because he's a 5'11 shooting guard.
I think everyone and their brother would argue that Beilein and Izzo are much better recruiters than Painter. If anyone disagrees, please let me know the basis for that argument as I have some jackasses on our home board I'd like to share it with.
But given the assumption that is true, I'm trying to reconcile how Beilein and Izzo are also clearly better than Painter at game management and talent development and yet over the last half decade, Painter has won more games in Big Ten play. Surely Painter is pretty good at something, right?
Similar threads
