Jump to content

2021 Recruiting Hub


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, slojoe said:

Bryant was a 2015 McDonald's All-American.

My mistake.  He's outside of the top 25 composite and I didn't recall him being a MDAA...

Bryant is ranked the No. 22 senior nationally by ESPN.com, No. 30 by 247Sports.com, No. 33 by Scout.com and No. 37 by Rivals.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, IUwins0708 said:

Matt Painter DOES NOT develop big man, he’s a good coach but he’s not a big man developer whatsoever.  That is one of the craziest narratives that lives in the basketball world.  Crean was better than Painter at that and the NBA rosters are proof

Can you elaborate on why you don’t think he develops bigs? Is it solely because of lack of NBA success? What else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Stlboiler23 said:

Can you elaborate on why you don’t think he develops bigs? Is it solely because of lack of NBA success? What else?

I cant speak for anyone else innit but I think Painter does a very good job of recruiting and developing bigs for his system and his program. It may not translate well at the next level. Which brings up the debate is it his job to win games or get guys ready for NBA? As a big man recruit I think it depends on what you want after your college days are up  to whether PU is a good fit or not 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Billingsley99 said:

I cant speak for anyone else innit but I think Painter does a very good job of recruiting and developing bigs for his system and his program. It may not translate well at the next level. Which brings up the debate is it his job to win games or get guys ready for NBA? As a big man recruit I think it depends on what you want after your college days are up  to whether PU is a good fit or not 

I think you make some really good points. I wonder if guys like Haas, Hammons, and Swanigan would’ve had different NBA careers if they had played elsewhere. I’m biased but I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Billingsley99 said:

I cant speak for anyone else innit but I think Painter does a very good job of recruiting and developing bigs for his system and his program. It may not translate well at the next level. Which brings up the debate is it his job to win games or get guys ready for NBA? As a big man recruit I think it depends on what you want after your college days are up  to whether PU is a good fit or not 

they use to say some of the same things about RMK because very few of his players had great success in the NBA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Stlboiler23 said:

I think you make some really good points. I wonder if guys like Haas, Hammons, and Swanigan would’ve had different NBA careers if they had played elsewhere. I’m biased but I doubt it.

I agree. I can hate PU and still give credit where it is due. Painter recruits players to fit what is best for their system.  When you take those guys and add a Carsen Edward's you can make a serious run. I dont think it's an insult or put down but I do feel a painter does more with less than IU has the past several years

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Stlboiler23 said:

I’d argue it’s Painter’s job to do the best to prepare them for the league/get them to the league and feature them as much as he can at Purdue. Once they get there, it’s on the players.

Let’s look at Thomas Bryant. He was a good college player but he was drafted mid 2nd round. I’d argue you can attribute his success to his work ethic/what he’s done since he got to the league. It was far from a sure thing when he got drafted that he’d pan out so kudos to him. I didn’t think he’d end up being as good as he’s been. 

Ok I where you are coming from but I’m going to tweak what you are saying just a bit.

I knew Bryant always had a chance to make it because he has the ability to stretch the floor out to 3 point line and make shots (he showed that at IU) credit Crean for developing that. I didn’t think he would be able to guard guards off pick n rolls on the perimeter in NBA (something he struggled with at IU) Crean was absolutely horrific at pick n roll coverages btw. Credit Bryant  he has showed a ton of improvement on that in NBA. 

IU has had bigs the NBA is looking for more these days. Zeller, Vonleh, Bryant all are right at 7 foot and are capable of stretching the floor and making shots.

PU bigs have been back to the basket types that no longer exists in the NBA. They were good college players their games just don’t translate to next level. Swanigan had the best shot at it he was just undersized. So maybe it’s just PU style to recruit and get the giant bigs who can’t move and throw the ball to em down low 20 times a game. But if you want to be developed and go to NBA PU probs not your greatest choice if you are a big.  

Edited by 5 championships
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Stlboiler23 said:

Can you elaborate on why you don’t think he develops bigs? Is it solely because of lack of NBA success? What else?

NBA, that’s what the kids want. (Most anyway) Again not saying he’s a bad coach at all, actually think he’s damn good.  Just saying he develops bigs and I don’t see it. I’ll agree he gets guys who fit his system, although I don’t think Swanigan really did but you have to take a guy like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, IUwins0708 said:

NBA, that’s what the kids want. (Most anyway) Again not saying he’s a bad coach at all, actually think he’s damn good.  Just saying he develops bigs and I don’t see it. I’ll agree he gets guys who fit his system, although I don’t think Swanigan really did but you have to take a guy like that.

Hence why people think Calipari is a good coach because he gets guys to the NBA... wel duhhh when you have a gazillion McDonald’s all Americans it’s essentially an all star team and even if you averaged 9 points a game ur getting drafted high just on potential. I’d love to see calipari coach for one year with no McDonald’s all Americans. Flip flop him and Virginia’s coach for one year and see what happens. I bet more players than not have busted coming out of Kentucky but people still buy into the hype aka that ketchup kids parent

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, 5 championships said:

Ok I where you are coming from but I’m going to tweak what you are saying just a bit.

I knew Bryant always had a chance to make it because he has the ability to stretch the floor out to 3 point line and make shots (he showed that at IU) credit Crean for developing that. I didn’t think he would be able to guard guards off pick n rolls on the perimeter in NBA (something he struggled with at IU) Crean was absolutely horrific at pick n roll coverages btw. Credit Bryant  he has showed a ton of improvement on that in NBA. 

IU has had bigs the NBA is looking for more these days. Zeller, Vonleh, Bryant all are right at 7 foot and are capable of stretching the floor and making shots.

PU bigs have been back to the basket types that no longer exists in the NBA. They were good college players their games just don’t translate to next level. Swanigan had the best shot at it he was just undersized. So maybe it’s just PU style to recruit and get the giant bigs who can’t move and throw the ball to em down low 20 times a game. But if you want to be developed and go to NBA PU probs not your greatest choice if you are a big.  

You make a lot of good points here. I think it’s simply those are the recruits that Painter was able to land. He’d love to have guys like Zeller, Vonleh, and Bryant just wasn’t able to land a recruit of that caliber so he went with the best he could you know? Hammons I’d argue wasn’t a true back to the basket guy. He could do that but he did develop a pretty good jumper and could stretch it out to hit 3’s. He was also a pretty solid defender/shot blocker. But his work ethic wasn’t there all the time. If he had Swanigan’s work ethic, I think he’d be getting regular minutes in the league today. I bet Swanigan wishes he had Hammons dimensions lol. Haas was really good but had significant limitations that were never going to change. I think Painter has recruited all types of different bigs though not just plodding guys. Haarms is a great example. He can guard/defend players much smaller than him due to his versatility and quickness. He’s also never going to be a back to the basket guy either with his frame. 

All in all, I think Painter recruits bigs who are talented regardless of whether they’re a true back to the basket guy or no. Great example is Haarms versus Trevion Williams. I like Trevion and think he’ll be a heck of a college player but does his game translate to the NBA? Probably not too well. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Seeking6 said:

Cool. Just in case. Check the rules for NCAA recruiting between director of operations, assistant coaches,etc...and as you say interim. All not held to same standards. But what do I know. I just read the playbook. 

He is allowed to fill in as an assistant until another assistant is hired yes it is allowed. That’s the reason he was able to go out and recruit during the evaluation periods because IU was down a coach and they are allowed to have someone fill that vacancy until it is filled permanently.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Billingsley99 said:

I cant speak for anyone else innit but I think Painter does a very good job of recruiting and developing bigs for his system and his program. It may not translate well at the next level. Which brings up the debate is it his job to win games or get guys ready for NBA? As a big man recruit I think it depends on what you want after your college days are up  to whether PU is a good fit or not 

This. It's crazy to say that Painter doesn't develop bigs. We've all seen Hammons, Swanigan, Haas, etc. develop into fantastic players in their time at Purdue. But as you alluded to Billingsly, no matter how much those guys developed, they're not the type of bigs the NBA has use for right now. Whereas guys like Cody Zeller and Thomas Bryant are. 

Zeller, Bryant, Vonleh, to varying degrees, are guys that have the athleticism to defend the perimeter, run the court, and in Bryant's case he can even knock down open 3's. That's the NBA big in today's climate. No matter how good Purdue's guys were in college, none of them fit the NBA mold. Doesn't mean Painter didn't help them improve in college and help turn them into really good college players. 

Edited by BGleas
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BGleas said:

This. It's crazy to say that Painter doesn't develop bigs. We've all seen Hammons, Swanigan, Haas, etc. develop into fantastic players in their time at Purdue. But as you alluded to Billingsly, no matter how much those guys developed, they're not the type of bigs the NBA has use for right now. Whereas guys like Cody Zeller and Thomas Bryant are. 

Zeller, Bryant, Vonleh, to varying degrees, are guys that have the athleticism to defend the perimeter, run the court, and in Bryant's case he can even knock down open 3's. That's the NBA big in today's climate. No matter how good Purdue's guys were in college, none of them fit the NBA mold. Doesn't mean Painter didn't help them improve in college and help turn them into really good college players. 

You sir hit the nail on the head with the post. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stlboiler23 said:

I think BGleas summed it perfectly. He was never going to be able to turn Haas into a regular contributor in the NBA for example. 

He could if he had developed his bigs to have an outside shot, no? However, it doesn't fit his system, and he's trying to win games instead of develop bigs for today's NBA. So I don't think it's a knock on Painter to say he doesn't develop bigs for the NBA, b/c it isn't his priority, winning is, and I would think Turdue fans would be happy with that.

Edited by cybergates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, cybergates said:

He could if he had developed his bigs to have an outside shot, no? However, it doesn't fit his system, and he's trying to win games instead of develop bigs for today's NBA. So I don't think it's a knock on Painter to say he doesn't develop bigs for the NBA, b/c it isn't his priority, winning is, and I would think Turdue fans would be happy with that.

I think it's more of a recruiting thing than a development thing. You can't develop Hammons, Haas or Swanigan into being as athletic as Zeller and Bryant. They're just different players. Swanigan did shoot much better from the perimeter his second season, he hit almost 40 three's at a 44.7% clip. But, he can't defend the perimeter and is a bigger, less athletic body so doesn't really protect the rim or run the floor well either. 

But, I ultimately agree with you, Painter is more concerned with recruiting and developing to his system to win games at Purdue than he is developing guys for the NBA, especially compared to someone like Crean. I think that's the right approach for Painter anyways, he's not typically going to get that high-end NBA-ready talent at Purdue anyways. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BGleas said:

I think it's more of a recruiting thing than a development thing. You can't develop Hammons, Haas or Swanigan into being as athletic as Zeller and Bryant. They're just different players. Swanigan did shoot much better from the perimeter his second season, he hit almost 40 three's at a 44.7% clip. But, he can't defend the perimeter and is a bigger, less athletic body so doesn't really protect the rim or run the floor well either. 

But, I ultimately agree with you, Painter is more concerned with recruiting and developing to his system to win games at Purdue than he is developing guys for the NBA, especially compared to someone like Crean. I think that's the right approach for Painter anyways, he's not typically going to get that high-end NBA-ready talent at Purdue anyways. 

To me the job of the college coach is to do what is best for his program and put players into position that will help you win.  His job is not the get those players ready for the NBA over what is best for the team.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BGleas said:

I think it's more of a recruiting thing than a development thing. You can't develop Hammons, Haas or Swanigan into being as athletic as Zeller and Bryant. They're just different players. Swanigan did shoot much better from the perimeter his second season, he hit almost 40 three's at a 44.7% clip. But, he can't defend the perimeter and is a bigger, less athletic body so doesn't really protect the rim or run the floor well either. 

But, I ultimately agree with you, Painter is more concerned with recruiting and developing to his system to win games at Purdue than he is developing guys for the NBA, especially compared to someone like Crean. I think that's the right approach for Painter anyways, he's not typically going to get that high-end NBA-ready talent at Purdue anyways. 

Agreed on the differences in athleticism regarding the players you mentioned. Of course, Haas was never going to be as athletic as Bryant. Swanigan may be a really good comp with Bryant. IIRC they're both McD's All-Americans and came back for a sophomore year with a focus on extending their range to make themselves more attractive to the NBA. I'm sure both fanbases had moments where they wished the players would go inside instead of jacking up 3's. Both Painter/Crean seem to have allowed the players the freedom to try to develop a skill required in today's NBA. 

In regards to Haas, it is unlikely he could have been developed into an NBA player by anyone. It does make me wonder about someone like Frank Kaminski though. I doubt many had him as a 1st round pick coming into college (could be wrong), but in Wisconsin's system he became one. So I guess if Haas went somewhere like there he might have had a better chance (to avoid STD's).

Edited by cybergates
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IU Scott said:

To me the job of the college coach is to do what is best for his program and put players into position that will help you win.  His job is not the get those players ready for the NBA over what is best for the team.

Then why would a kid go to your school if he has NBA aspirations? It doesn’t have to be one or the other but let’s be real if you aren’t going what’s best for the player why would they come play for you? That’s like telling teachers don’t push your kids don’t try to expand their knowledge. Just teach them to pass the test because after all you only get evaluated on the results. Not all but a lot of kids want and have potential (at the IU level) to make the nba. If you aren’t going to let them try to expand their game because it isn’t in your best interest at the moment then you are holding kids back. People go to college to get a job...kids at high D1 level go to a school to get to the nba or have a future in basketball. Not only are you failing them but yourself if you aren’t living with the growing pains of a player that is trying to improve. Down the road players will see that and not come there if you aren’t looking out for their interest as well as your own. It’s a tightrope...but a selfish coach I don’t think will be successful for long. You might not coach every single player the same but you have to identify those that have the potential and try to help them achieve their goals which hopefully benefits you in the end with winning games or at least leading to more recruits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Then why would a kid go to your school if he has NBA aspirations? It doesn’t have to be one or the other but let’s be real if you aren’t going what’s best for the player why would they come play for you? That’s like telling teachers don’t push your kids don’t try to expand their knowledge. Just teach them to pass the test because after all you only get evaluated on the results. Not all but a lot of kids want and have potential (at the IU level) to make the nba. If you aren’t going to let them try to expand their game because it isn’t in your best interest at the moment then you are holding kids back. People go to college to get a job...kids at high D1 level go to a school to get to the nba or have a future in basketball. Not only are you failing them but yourself if you aren’t living with the growing pains of a player that is trying to improve. Down the road players will see that and not come there if you aren’t looking out for their interest as well as your own. It’s a tightrope...but a selfish coach I don’t think will be successful for long. You might not coach every single player the same but you have to identify those that have the potential and try to help them achieve their goals which hopefully benefits you in the end with winning games or at least leading to more recruits.

I did not say you shouldn't develop them but I am saying that I am not going to play a person where they are not really comfortable.  If I have a 6'10 big guy but he thinks he is the next Kevin Durant and wants to stay outside I am not going to just put him out there if he is not really that great at outside shooting.  I will put that player out there if they improve and hsow that they can shoot outside but until then you are going to play in the post.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, cybergates said:

Agreed on the differences in athleticism regarding the players you mentioned. Of course, Haas was never going to be as athletic as Bryant. Swanigan may be a really good comp with Bryant. IIRC they're both McD's All-Americans and came back for a sophomore year with a focus on extending their range to make themselves more attractive to the NBA. I'm sure both fanbases had moments where they wished the players would go inside instead of jacking up 3's. Both Painter/Crean seem to have allowed the players the freedom to try to develop a skill required in today's NBA. 

In regards to Haas, it is unlikely he could have been developed into an NBA player by anyone. It does make me wonder about someone like Frank Kaminski though. I doubt many had him as a 1st round pick coming into college (could be wrong), but in Wisconsin's system he became one. So I guess if Haas went somewhere like there he might have had a better chance (to avoid STD's).

Don’t think so re Haas. Kaminski was a totally different player in terms of his style of play, body, athleticism, etc... Bo Ryan was a hell of a coach but he wouldn’t have been able to make Haas an NBA guy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...