Lewis Jackson/Devon Archie

[parquet]

Lewis Jackson has been out all year for Purdue but he isn't redshirting as he is playing tonight against Wisconsin. I realize the importance of each player to his team is vastly different, but things like this make me wonder about redshirting Archie when he was healthy enough to go a while ago.

 

[FreddyBrown]

It was in Archie's best interest to redshirt so that in two years he might make enough of an impact to attract interest from lower-level professional teams overseas. Your mistake is in thinking any decision here would be made in the interest of the program, rather than in the individual interest of the player.

 

[HeneryHawk]

Archie should be playing, a tall shot blocker would have been nice in the OSU game.

 

[hawkeye12345]

Amen. I've said it a few times that redshirting Archie is a mistake. If the kid wasn't ready to compete then he shouldn't be on scholarship. If he wanted to walk-on and earn one then I'm all for that but to give a kid a scholarship and then declare he isn't good enough to play and needs another year to develop is just bad recruiting.

 

[HawkeyeShane]

Weird seeing you guys here...oh, wait...nevermind...

 

[SWIHawk]

Purdue is in an entirely different situation than Iowa. They have a potential Final Four team with a definite NCAA birth coming, and if adding Jackson gives them a better opportunity to get there, then it is a no-brainer to play him.

Iowa is clearly in a transition year that will result in a sub- .500 record. He could most likely help this year, but help what? Win a couple games and go from 6 games under .500 to 4 games under .500? It is clearly in the best interest of Archie and the TEAM for him to redshirt.

Iowa has basically no postseason hopes this year. Next year should clearly be an NIT year, with an outside shot at the NCAA if guys continue to improve and the incoming class is ready. Two years from now this team should be ready to make the jump to the NCAA. Archie could be a part of a potential NCAA team in two years, or part of a 10th place team this year.

No-brainer to redshirt.

 

[IATrainMaster101]

Purdue is in an entirely different situation than Iowa. They have a potential Final Four team with a definite NCAA birth coming, and if adding Jackson gives them a better opportunity to get there, then it is a no-brainer to play him.

Iowa is clearly in a transition year that will result in a sub- .500 record. He could most likely help this year, but help what? Win a couple games and go from 6 games under .500 to 4 games under .500? It is clearly in the best interest of Archie and the TEAM for him to redshirt.

Iowa has basically no postseason hopes this year. Next year should clearly be an NIT year, with an outside shot at the NCAA if guys continue to improve and the incoming class is ready. Two years from now this team should be ready to make the jump to the NCAA. Archie could be a part of a potential NCAA team in two years, or part of a 10th place team this year.

No-brainer to redshirt.

+1

 

[imported_ankle23]

Purdue is in an entirely different situation than Iowa. They have a potential Final Four team with a definite NCAA birth coming, and if adding Jackson gives them a better opportunity to get there, then it is a no-brainer to play him.

Iowa is clearly in a transition year that will result in a sub- .500 record. He could most likely help this year, but help what? Win a couple games and go from 6 games under .500 to 4 games under .500? It is clearly in the best interest of Archie and the TEAM for him to redshirt.

Iowa has basically no postseason hopes this year. Next year should clearly be an NIT year, with an outside shot at the NCAA if guys continue to improve and the incoming class is ready. Two years from now this team should be ready to make the jump to the NCAA. Archie could be a part of a potential NCAA team in two years, or part of a 10th place team this year.

No-brainer to redshirt.

I'm always encouraged when reason surfaces it's head....

Thank you.

 

[DuffMan]

I don't see how anyone looking at the situation logically and without bias could think Archie playing this year would be better for ANYONE involved.

He gets to play 2 full season with realistic chances to win. We get two full seasons from a player who can shore up our post play when Cole leaves after next year.

 

[JHHawk]

This decision will be made right or wrong by how Archie plays the next two years. Only then will we know if it was the right move. If he is a key contributor in two years, fine, good move. If he is not good enough to make that key contribution, it was a mistake,because it tied up a scholly that we could have used in 2011. It also lumped him in with our big soph class of Gatens,Tucker,Brommer,Fuller...which is problematic...ie..finding 5 new recruits in a single year...never a great thing to have to do wholesale recruiting. So as it stands, we have 4 scholly in 2010, 1 in 2011, 5 in 2012? It would be better to have 4-2-4 in those three years to even this deal out.
But,if this additional year ends up helping him become a key guy in 2012..then I guess it might be a good move.
Only time will tell.

 

[busabus114]

Archie playing this year doesnt really help iowa at all. Whats the difference between 6 Big 10 wins and 4? Nothing. I agree with the people using reason to see 2 full years of Archie on an improved team is better than 1.5 with the .5 being used in a lost season

I think its refreshing to see Lick do whats best for archie when he couldve panicked to get a couple extra wins this year and try and save his arse

 

[storminspank]

Painter doesn't want to lose a 2012 recruit. They're likely lining up around the corner.

 

[FreddyBrown]

I don't see how anyone looking at the situation logically and without bias could think Archie playing this year would be better for ANYONE involved.

He gets to play 2 full season with realistic chances to win. We get two full seasons from a player who can shore up our post play when Cole leaves after next year.

I can. Next season is critical to the future of the program. If substantial improvement isn't shown, we may be in a position of changing coaches and having to start over.

If Archie had played this season, he would have had the advantage of experience going into next season. That's a big, big advantage, particularly for juco kids who often come along slowly.

I think a very good argument exists that it would have been in the best interest of the program to play him this season, when it appears that he could have played a good chunk of the Big Ten season. That also would have been better for class balance and would have opened up another ride in the 2011 class.

Finally, I've not seen Archie play other than on video clips and only have that and his very modest juco stats to go on--but is it really worth three years of scholarship for two seaosns from a player that does not appear to be a program-changer? Scholarships are the currency of college basketball. You have a limited number and it's important to use them wisely.

We're not in Purdue's situation, but we have our own legitimate reasons why playing Archie now would have been better for this program.

One thing that would change the dynamics of the decision substantially is if Lick has an absolute assurance from Barta that he'll be here for the duration of his contract, or at least through the 2011-2012 season.

 

[parquet]

Painter doesn't want to lose a 2012 recruit. They're likely lining up around the corner.

And we don't mind losing a 2011 recruit? Just curious. I can see both sides to the argument about redshirting Archie. Not much mention has been made of the reducing the 2011 recruiting number to 1.

 

[Sweetriver]

Redshirting Archie assumes that he will be better in his 3rd year than the recruit we would have gotten had we his scholarship to give away after 2 years. We may not ever get a definitive answer to that question, but I think the decision is dubious.

We are going to have an excess of guys who play the 5 the next two years: Cougill, Cole, Brommer, Larson and Archie. Larson can also play the 4 or even the 3, but that is still too many guys for just one position when we only have 1 scholarship point guard.

 

[SLarew]

Cole, Brommer and Larson are all better suited for the PF postion than Center. Cole has been playing there out of necessity and doing okay. I cant say I see much playing time available for Archie this year unless someone gets injured. Cougill and Brommer are probably ahead of him at this time.

Purdue needs a PG worse than Iowa needs Archie at this time.

 

[CAARHawk]

On the old sight when Archie was first signed and videos of his play in JC started to surface, I said right away that he looked like a red-shirt. He wasn't even close to being able to play Big Ten ball.

I got hammered for that opinion, but I still think it is right. He needed a year of good coaching to be able to contribute. He was one of the most raw recruits I had ever seen. Sure he was athletic, but that is as far as it went. If he played this year it would have been a huge waste and he probably wouldn't have developed enough by next year to make much of an impact. Now he gets a year of coaching to work on his deficiencies, body positioning, etc. He can then get a year of experience playing against Big Ten competition without fouling out immediately, or just being a massive liability and then he can have a productive senior year, ala Cy Tate.

As far as the argument that it takes away a 2011 scholly. That is a good point, but he was offered. Now, Lick could work with the kid this year and assess whether he is really Big Ten material. If not, he could get him placed at the right level and the kid would still have 2 years left to play.