0-6 since firing Hazell
- Thread starter TC4THREE
- Start date
Firing DH wasn't done to inspire the team.
Hazell sure didn't inspire the team bringing 1 big ten win at home in 4 years. 0 IU wins. 11 of 13 big ten opponent teams and Purdue has ZERO winning percentage against. That is called licking and Hazell's teams did just that.
We get blown out today with the Haze hanging over the team.
100% agree, it was to make a statement by the new AD.
This is a ridiculous thread. Parker was clearly a step up from DH - we just don't have the players. Parker will be a good head coach someday. This season's record is all on DH.
While the team didn't see any wins without Hazell (even though they were surprisingly competitive in a few first halves) and there is no way to prove one way or the other, I feel like the team would not have fared any better with Hazell at the helm.
I don't think we would have won any with Hazell. Just pointing out the facts to a few that were fooling themselves.
The team shows fights, played inspired football, was watchable, was competitive for the most part, which is more than we could about Hazell the entire time he was here. We should have canned his ass last year, but Burk wanted to screw Purdue over one last time.
If you think there were fans that wanted Hazell fired because they thought Parker would bring in W's, you are delusional. Nobody here thought the W's would magically start rolling in...but the firing allowed to AD to see what the team looked like under a different coach from Hazell and judge what type of personality might fit in with program the best.
If you couldn't see the improvement in effort and execution, then you either didn't actually watch the games and looked only at the final score or you don't truly understand football at more than a very basic level.
It was listed as a reason to get rid of him at 3-3 by multiple people on this very board. Not the only reason but a reason. I correctly debunked that at the time and am reminding those people now.
Burke did us a favor NOT firing him last year. We are in a much better position this year for hiring a coach with better options, decent competition, and a new TV contract.
You know as well as anyone that I wanted him gone long ago. IIRC you and I were among the first on that bandwagon on KHC while most of these morons trying to hand out participation trophies for the Parker era were still blaming Hope for what was clearly big issues with Hazell.
I don't recall or find search results with many specific posts here saying dh2 gone would equate to immediate wins this season
Either way, it did prove evident that another guy, even without head coach experience, seemed to get better play out of the team despite the win/loss column not changing.
Hopefully he can find a head coach, coordinator spot for himself someday soon,
Not sure why anyone would be negative about that (?!)
Either way, it did prove evident that another guy, even without head coach experience, seemed to get better play out of the team despite the win/loss column not changing.
Hopefully he can find a head coach, coordinator spot for himself someday soon,
Not sure why anyone would be negative about that (?!)
Fair. One thing I will say is I have heard from family who work for Purdue that the players had quit on hazell. Excising the cancer at least made it better for them. Little solace for fans but guys like replogle and panfil deserved better than dh
we were competitive in every first half. That's inspiration!While the team didn't see any wins without Hazell (even though they were surprisingly competitive in a few first halves
Hazell was still "coaching" the Iowa game. Parker's first game was the following Saturday at Nebraska.
We were competitive if I remember correctly because they took out their starters. The game was not as close as the score indicated.
Being competitive at any moment in a game, let alone an entire half was like a revelation compared to the team under Hazell. Yeah, it is sad but true.
I was at it. We outscored them in the second half. Doubled them up if memory serves.
Most of the Iowa starters were out the entire 2nd half, since we waved the white flag in the first half.
Who said we would win games? How could the Haze hanging around the last 6 weeks possibly have helped this team?
Never said he would. Just said there weren't really any tangible benefits to booting him at 3-3. So far there have been none.
By the same token, teams haven't been taking us seriously in the first half which is the only reason we have hung around in some of these games. Then it is somewhat close at halftime and the opposition goes to the locker room and decides to get serious and lights us up in the second half.
Are you saying you would've rather had DH around the last 6 weeks? If not, I have no idea why you started this thread.
Yeah you should have kept Hazell. He was 3-3 and on pace for a 6-6 bowl campaign which would have been goodimprovement. Firing him premature undercut the improvement the program was making and knocked him out despite him having his best season and on pace forsuccess.
Morgan, please just take up golf like most other retired athletic directors. These lame posts are embarrassing your "legacy".
I realize you're probably embarrassed to have been so wrong about it. If I were Burke though I'd have never hired Hazell so there's that too.
So, if you wanted him gone, what difference did it make whether he were fired mid-year or after the Bucket game?
Let's say Haze got lucky and the team went 5-7. Would you have retained Hazell?
What would the tangible benefits have been for keeping him around and the team still finishing 3-9?
I would argue that the 10-15 reported interviews that happened during the season was a benefit. Even if an early hire wasn't made, it doesn't mean significant progress wasn't made in-season. There is something to say for doing your due-diligence.
Granted, you could still have done this at the day of age, however the ethical thing to do is to fire the coach and officially begin the search. I liked the call to do the inevitable.
Granted, you could still have done this at the day of age, however the ethical thing to do is to fire the coach and officially begin the search. I liked the call to do the inevitable.
Exactly and if Purdue had always taken this approach John Wooden would have coached at Purdue instead of UCLA. That would have been a great benefit!
Inspiration for the team was not why the decision was made, nor why it was the right thing to do.
Vince Lombardi would have gone 0-6 with that team...largely because it was assembled by Hazell, who in spite of being the worst coach in the history of the program (which is saying something on its own), he flat out could not recruit a lick, and in the rare instance that he did get anyone with talent, he failed in epic fashion in developing it.
He never should have been hired, and proved that time and time again from the time that he was taking the job on his own terms and then repeatedly from the moment that he got it with his off the field ridiculous antics and pathetic performance on the sidelines...so, firing him at any point once he had shown that from the outset was not going to be a moment too soon.
Purdue was going to finish 0-6 whether he was there or not...but he had proven time and time again that he not only should not have been there, but that he did not deserve to be there...not firing him when they did would have been a continued incredible disservice to anyone and everyone involved in any way with the football program.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Illinois gets blitzed at home by Maryland 91-70
- Latest: Fighter of the Nightman
-
A Revolution of Common Sense - A Seminal Shift in Values
- Latest: New Pal Boiler
-
