So what do you think Appling did that was wrong, then, if all she said no to was Appling wearing not wearing a condom?
*Official* B1G Off-season Thread
- Thread starter jwardelt
- Start date
So what do you think Appling did that was wrong, then, if all she said no to was Appling wearing not wearing a condom?
Doesnt seem like they want to play together in college. At least, thats what they’ve told people for a while now. Snow and Rabjohns have been saying they won’t play together for a long time now. Just because they can doesn’t mean they have to.
Last edited:
It’d be a huge surprise for them to commit to the same team. Franklin isn’t enough of a PG, Newman a straight SG.
Yup. Stewart, TJD and Brooks could easily play together in college. Doesn’t mean it’s the best decision for each or that they have to.
He received a scholarship offer two months ago, but "talking" had been going on for quite awhile. I do think Miller is doing something right in regards to using the Indiana name (and there is still some prestige there, just not as much as there used to be), and making Indiana offers more noteworthy and enticing than his predecessor. I think Painter has to work a lot harder for these kids than Miller. Not a knock on Purdue, but Indiana still is the "bigger" name basketball school and I don't think Painter does a great job selling what Purdue has to offer. If Painter could consistently land a top 50 or so kid every class, I think that would start to add up after awhile and probably push them over the sweet 16 hump.
Don’t disagree with you there. Painter’s biggest knock is his recruiting for sure. He needs to either hire an ace recruiter or learn to be a better salesman (easier said than done).
I think he’s been doing pretty good the past 3-4 years considering his results. Maybe not your top recruits but guys who develop.
I actually thought he's been doing a pretty good job tbh. Purdue isn't going to be able to get the flashy 5 star on a regular basis, but a team can win big with a consistent flow of solid 4 and some 3 star players. That method will end up having some down years when a large class graduates, but it shouldn't be fireable type of bad.
It’s fun to see the folks freak over not offering a kid right away. Damned If you do (Crean) damned if you don’t (Miller) with some in this fanbase. Miller is very much doing it the right way in my opinion.
Two all American players in the last two years.
Surely, that’s considered decent recruiting.
I think he's giving Purdue a complement in that they could be bringing in more of that kind of talent.
Well, he currently has an AA in the team. This make me think when he says Painter can do better, that he is talking about better than he is doing currently.
Maybe just in regards to selling the school. I think he's been a lot better the last 5 years. He struggled a bit after the baby boilers but has now begun to put together back to back to back classes and they haven't had near the fall off as they have had before.
You're spot on here. Painter had some truly AWFUL classes after the baby boilers (2011 was easily the worst with Hale and Lawson) and his classes were so inconsistent. 2008 was decent as Ryne Smith was a solid reserve and Lewis Jackson ended up being a pretty solid player for us but not any star power there. 2009 turned out to be a dud as Bade wasn't good and Barlow got kicked off. Byrd was solid but again, no star power. Barlow could've been a stud if he had actually cared. 2010 Terone was good but Anthony Johnson was a headcase and Carroll was just so limited. 2011 was awful. 2012 was pretty solid as Hammons and Davis were really good 4-year players. Simpson could've been good but had to quit due to a health condition. Don't get me started on Ronnie haha. 2013 looked really good on paper but Smotherman never put it together, Stephens had a lot of inconsistency, and Bryson just never figured it out. Ended up being a bust of a class. 2014 was no question the best class since 2007 but if you looked at the rankings, Haas was the only 4*. 4 really solid players who won a lot of games. 2015 was good because of Biggie but 2 bad additions in Ewing and Weatherford. 2016 and 2017 were good classes even though the jury is still out on 2017 class as 2 guys haven't even played yet. 2018 I like but still remains to be seen.
Franklin decision should be coming today. No strong intel suggests one way or the other. I am still going to say Purdue.
I think I am leaning the same way. Would be happy if it's IU, but if I had to bet, I would go with PU.
I am fine with either way if that means IU gets Newman. If for some reason they both end up at Purdue that would sting. Really need one of Newman or Franklin and then go for broke with Ramsey.
That’s fair I suppose, but still, he has had two consecutive AA players and I am not sure that has ever happened at Purdue before. It seems to be pretty rare at most schools in basketball nationwide.
I don't know if he struggles selling the school as much as he made some strategic errors in recruiting following the Baby Boilers. For whatever reason, he started going after a different style of player - more long, athletic, and raw - and went away from the skill guys. And it had terrible results. He also missed out on a couple big 1A targets during that stretch and had some highly ranked guys (all three of the Johnsons and the 2013 class all come to mind) never really play up to that level in college.
His recommitment to prioritizing skill, and shooting in particular, has coincided with this recent resurgence. He talks about getting a great shooter in each class and that allowed him to build one of the best shooting teams in the country the past two years. Now, having back-to-back All Americans will make most rosters look pretty good, but he's gotten much better about stacking solid, if not remarkable, classes on top of one another.
I don't ever expect Purdue to overtake IU as the trendy/cool spot in the state, but I think as long as Painter can continue getting solid "Purdue guys"* and sprinkling in a big get every couple years, I think he's going to get over that hump.
*this cliche never gets old
He was never has bad as some of those recruiting classes became. It's just bad luck. He took some (Hale, Weatherford) that were bad reaches, but for the most part it was just an unlucky stretch. If Painter continues to have players develop like he has Purdue will be fine.
Painter needs to be a better salesman, but his recruiting is actually good. Problem with people on here and elsewhere is they look at the recruiting rankings and never think those can be wrong or reassess things. Matt Haarms was ranked 350th or something. When his college career is over, I'm guessing he will have had the impact of a top 50 guy. Confident, actually. Carsen Edwards was 91st and is already playing like he should have been a 5 star coming out.
Yeah, uh, I don't think many here do that. Let's just look at UM and IU for an example. UM and IU have both had multiple players ranked low who have come in and made significant impacts. Burke and Oladipo are the first two that come to mind, but both have had others as well. People constantly give credit to the coaches for the development of guys like Oladipo and Burke and even admit that the rankings were likely wrong.
Haarms wasn't seen by anyone.That happens. Edwards was absolutely undervalued but 91st in the country is no slouch. A lot of kids from 75-150 are going to flourish and a lot will fizzle. Its the way it goes. One thing rankings do not incorporate is how much the kid is willing to adapt and develop when they get to college. Some are able to get by doing the bare minimum, but past probably rank 10 it is on the kid. Most of the schools in the B1G have a system in place for the kid to achieve if they put in the effort.
Agree, but my point is people are so set on recruiting rankings that they oftentimes ignore what's in front of them. If you get a bunch of kids high profile recruits, and they underwhelm and your team barely squeaks in the tournament (say Missouri), are you really that good of a recruiter? Maybe you're not a good coach? Both? Maybe those recruits were overvalued and don't play team ball? If you get a bunch of 100-150 guys and win a ton of games, maybe you have a good eye for talent and are a better recruiter than people give you credit for. It's tough to separate coaching from recruiting, but there are so many different factors to consider.
Agreed and with your Missouri example. I think we have enough evidence to know that Cuonzo is a solid recruiter (had to hire ole' boys father though) and just a terrible coach.
Painter like all coaches would gladly accept the commitments of as many 5 star players as they could get, but I do think Matt has been "selective" on who he dials in on. He wants to know for sure the kid will buy-in to his system.
I don't think Martin is a good coach and he's incredibly overvalued as a recruiter. He gets highly ranked guys, yes, but that means virtually nothing because they never seem to mix and there's never a noticeable plan. That's part of recruiting.
Don’t think I’d agree about him being overvalued as a recruiter. I’d gladly take him back at Purdue to be an assistant and ace recruiter.
Yeah, if you pair him with Painter, they'd be good together and have already proven that.
It's funny how many Purdue fans would prefer Cuonzo simply because he has had a better track record with elite recruits while his on-court results have paled in comparison to Painter's.
Similar threads
