Remember when wole said les
Miles Would have a better record than brohm? Whoooooopppppps
Commit 10 tomorrow??
- Thread starter Bullwhip Griffith
- Start date
Miles Would have a better record than brohm? Whoooooopppppps
No, you're a liar. I've offered no "excuses".
You are a liar.
Show me an excuse.
You make dumb@ss statements, get called on them, you disappear, only to reappear as if your moronic statements didn't happen, and refuse to admit the stupidity of your comments.
It's happening again.
You made a dumb@ss statement about not getting any 4-star recruits other than QB and WR... and I documented how wrong you are... and you're going to ignore it.
You
Are
Wrong
In a clown sort of way.
Congrats.
NAT you are a broken record. You said the same exact things about one of my posts last week, and the week before and to about 1/2 of my other posts. Are you sure that post was the dumbest post I've ever made? and that you've ever seen? Surely your memory is going bad. Looking back, my prediction the Boilers would go 9-3 last year looks pretty dumb now.
come on NAT. the single dumbest thing you've ever seen written?
I called 85 intelligent once. that has to rank up there pretty high. Dion't you agree?
Nat, you have a staple of about 5 posts.
the cupboard was bare.
we need time to develop
that was the dumbest post i've ever seen
just ignore him
and the all time favorite, that's what i've been saying for the last years.
and he must be a troll.
going back in the archives, i can find those exact same posts from you. it's like you have 5 buttons for replies. You can do better than that .
we've got another 9 months t o work on your creative posting skills.
Repeat after me, I, say your name , will try to follow reed's suggestions to try to make my posts more interesting and creative. I will stop calling people names. and when a question is asked, i will not change the subject using different stats.
first question for you. Who was paid more, Hope or Brohm? Obviously brohm has increased attendance. Who's team achieved better post season success? Hope or brohm? Who had a better record against IU? Hope or brohm?
I'm not comparing brohm to hazell. Morgan fired Hope because he said he wanted more than just mediocrity. while brohm has increased attendance over the Hazell ears, has he really improved this team over the hope years? and then look at their paychecks. if louisville didn't try to lure Brohm, is he really worth what Purdue is giving him? Shouldn't we be expecting just a little more for our investment, than we received? great teams have depth. Do we have depth? or do we still have great drop-offs at many positions.
well as you say, these things take time. Well how many more decades is it going to take? I was at the outbck bowl when we lost to Georgia! That was more than 2 decades ago. and boy did i see the excuses made after that game by purdue fans. to please 85m the simple facts are - we lost. you don't need any more facts. one fact is good enough. and the facts are last year's IU game. the facts are we lost. I don't need 5 paragraphs of excuses. Indiana also played that game with key players injured. and that was the same for every team we played last year including nevada. Good teams are supposed to win GIMME games no matter where they are played. we had no excuse for losing that game. the same was true for that western or central or northern michigan game. they played under the same conditions - no excuses.
I give kudos for brohm bringing the highest ranked talent to purdue in over 30 years. even better than what Tiller brought here. but it's all meaningless unless the team actually wins. How many more top 25 classes will we need before we have a top 25 team? 4? 8? 2 more decades? I know from your broken record, it takes time to develop this talent.
Also
brohm - 2-1 against IU
Hope - 3-1 against IU.
seems more like an issue of opportunity, no?
You guys broke Bigs. It was an odd journey to watch since he started as an offbeat uninformed poster that ridiculously backed his opinions with ancient links to irrelevant articles but now he’s our best troll. He can singlehandedly take a thread over 100 posts.
Golf clap for Bigs...
Golf clap for Bigs...
Also had Bilodeau who was a 4 star TE. Let Bigs whine. If anything I’ve learned from his post are he ignores facts. I’m guessing he’s never stepped between the lines of any athletic field, ever.
Yeah guess you’re right. It’s where the women race walkers congregate
I'm just going to throw up the 247 composite team talent average player ranking for the past 3 years and sort by the 3 year average. This includes transfers.
.. 2017 .... 2018 .... 2019 ..... Avg .... Team
( 92.13 ) ( 92.89 ) ( 92.37 ) [ 92.46 ] Ohio State
( 89.94 ) ( 89.64 ) ( 88.98 ) [ 89.52 ] Michigan
( 87.89 ) ( 88.64 ) ( 89.80 ) [ 88.78 ] Penn St
( 85.85 ) ( 86.28 ) ( 86.98 ) [ 86.37 ] Nebraska
( 85.58 ) ( 86.09 ) ( 85.96 ) [ 85.88 ] Mich St
( 85.17 ) ( 85.92 ) ( 85.94 ) [ 85.68 ] Maryland
( 84.63 ) ( 85.34 ) ( 85.35 ) [ 85.11 ] Wisconsin
( 84.58 ) ( 84.63 ) ( 85.05 ) [ 84.75 ] Northwestern
( 84.11 ) ( 84.50 ) ( 84.66 ) [ 84.42 ] Iowa
( 82.65 ) ( 83.35 ) ( 84.90 ) [ 83.63 ] Illinois
( 82.22 ) ( 83.56 ) ( 84.62 ) [ 83.47 ] Minnesota
( 82.84 ) ( 83.47 ) ( 84.11 ) [ 83.47 ] Indiana
( 83.15 ) ( 83.33 ) ( 83.65 ) [ 83.38 ] Rutgers
( 81.63 ) ( 82.01 ) ( 83.80 ) [ 82.48 ] Purdue
Purdue 2017 (14th), Purdue 2018 (14th), Purdue 2019 (13th)
247's definition of ratings for a player is the following:
A mid three-star (84-86): is a player that we consider to be a capable starter for a Power Five football team and an impact player at the Group of Five level.
A low three-star (80-83): is a player that we consider to be a potential contributor at a Power Five program but a probable Group of Five starter with impact potential.
For reference:
- 1 player w/ 247 [perfect] 1.0000 would improve Purdue avg by [+.19].
- 1 player w/ 247 [4 star] .9000 would improve Purdue avg by [+.07].
- So you can see how hard it is to improve a roster quickly.
2020 composite team talent is not out yet [late September], but Purdue should be 84+.
The actual composite team talent can be found:
https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/?Conference=Big-Ten
https://247sports.com/Season/2018-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/?Conference=Big-Ten
https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/?Conference=Big-Ten
.. 2017 .... 2018 .... 2019 ..... Avg .... Team
( 92.13 ) ( 92.89 ) ( 92.37 ) [ 92.46 ] Ohio State
( 89.94 ) ( 89.64 ) ( 88.98 ) [ 89.52 ] Michigan
( 87.89 ) ( 88.64 ) ( 89.80 ) [ 88.78 ] Penn St
( 85.85 ) ( 86.28 ) ( 86.98 ) [ 86.37 ] Nebraska
( 85.58 ) ( 86.09 ) ( 85.96 ) [ 85.88 ] Mich St
( 85.17 ) ( 85.92 ) ( 85.94 ) [ 85.68 ] Maryland
( 84.63 ) ( 85.34 ) ( 85.35 ) [ 85.11 ] Wisconsin
( 84.58 ) ( 84.63 ) ( 85.05 ) [ 84.75 ] Northwestern
( 84.11 ) ( 84.50 ) ( 84.66 ) [ 84.42 ] Iowa
( 82.65 ) ( 83.35 ) ( 84.90 ) [ 83.63 ] Illinois
( 82.22 ) ( 83.56 ) ( 84.62 ) [ 83.47 ] Minnesota
( 82.84 ) ( 83.47 ) ( 84.11 ) [ 83.47 ] Indiana
( 83.15 ) ( 83.33 ) ( 83.65 ) [ 83.38 ] Rutgers
( 81.63 ) ( 82.01 ) ( 83.80 ) [ 82.48 ] Purdue
Purdue 2017 (14th), Purdue 2018 (14th), Purdue 2019 (13th)
247's definition of ratings for a player is the following:
A mid three-star (84-86): is a player that we consider to be a capable starter for a Power Five football team and an impact player at the Group of Five level.
A low three-star (80-83): is a player that we consider to be a potential contributor at a Power Five program but a probable Group of Five starter with impact potential.
For reference:
- 1 player w/ 247 [perfect] 1.0000 would improve Purdue avg by [+.19].
- 1 player w/ 247 [4 star] .9000 would improve Purdue avg by [+.07].
- So you can see how hard it is to improve a roster quickly.
2020 composite team talent is not out yet [late September], but Purdue should be 84+.
The actual composite team talent can be found:
https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/?Conference=Big-Ten
https://247sports.com/Season/2018-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/?Conference=Big-Ten
https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/?Conference=Big-Ten
Last edited:
For everyone’s benefit, I posted a blind coaches test to also assist in the analysis of Brohm versus other current BIG10 coaches. It’s showing you comparison information without names.
I hope you all take a look and really analyze it, then also utilize the information in my post above on composite team talent.
The differing opinions are welcomed, we all view the world differently, but it’s truly shocking some of the misinformation that is being stated, which is what I’m trying to clarify through 3rd party information in the post above and link below.
The coaches test is found here:
https://purdue.forums.rivals.com/th...p5-conf-record-by-current-big10-coach.195873/
I hope you all take a look and really analyze it, then also utilize the information in my post above on composite team talent.
The differing opinions are welcomed, we all view the world differently, but it’s truly shocking some of the misinformation that is being stated, which is what I’m trying to clarify through 3rd party information in the post above and link below.
The coaches test is found here:
https://purdue.forums.rivals.com/th...p5-conf-record-by-current-big10-coach.195873/
Is this meant to be evidence that Brohm inherited a bad team? Because if it's meant to anyway be a knock on Brohm himself I think it should be noted that he came in late in the 2017 recruiting cycle, choosing maybe half of those recruits himself. That is 12/85 scholarship players, ~14% of the team. For an assessment of Brohm himself I think a look at the recruiting class rankings from these three years would be more logical.
What is the data telling you?
Regarding the inherited roster comment.
The composite team talent average shows what a 3rd party thought of the roster and where it ranked in the BIG10 for 2017, 2018 and 2019. All these guys do this for a living, its big business, are they wrong on a few recruits? Sure. On an entire roster for one team only? Probably not. Purdue was #14, #14 and #13 in the BIG10.
Regarding your separate comment of recruiting.
Purely looking at recruiting class rankings can be deceptive and are ripe for argument. Average fans fail to understand the components of the formula, which # of recruits, potential and top end talent is important.
So some teams recruit well but their ranking is low:
- Wisconsin (2017 #39, 2018 #46, 2019 #29)
247 recruiting rankings are by the following formula.
Each recruit is weighted in the rankings according to a GAUSSIAN DISTRIBUTION FORMULA (a bell curve), where a team's best recruit is worth the most points. You can think of a team's point score as being the sum of ratings of all the team's commits where the best recruit is worth 100% of his rating value, the second best recruit is worth nearly 100% of his rating value, down to the last recruit who is worth a small fraction of his rating value.
Lastly, you mention "in the 2017 recruiting cycle, choosing maybe half of the recruits himself. That is 12/85 scholarship players."
I agree, he was hired late in the 2017 cycle and he didn't have a full year to recruit. While I don't recall the exact number Brohm specifically recruited, I will tell you that only 5 original scholarship players are left from 2017 recruiting cycle. Surprisingly, 3 walk-on's have started and 2 have received scholarships.
What is the data telling you?
Regarding the inherited roster comment.
The composite team talent average shows what a 3rd party thought of the roster and where it ranked in the BIG10 for 2017, 2018 and 2019. All these guys do this for a living, its big business, are they wrong on a few recruits? Sure. On an entire roster for one team only? Probably not. Purdue was #14, #14 and #13 in the BIG10.
Regarding your separate comment of recruiting.
Purely looking at recruiting class rankings can be deceptive and are ripe for argument. Average fans fail to understand the components of the formula, which # of recruits, potential and top end talent is important.
So some teams recruit well but their ranking is low:
- Wisconsin (2017 #39, 2018 #46, 2019 #29)
247 recruiting rankings are by the following formula.
Each recruit is weighted in the rankings according to a GAUSSIAN DISTRIBUTION FORMULA (a bell curve), where a team's best recruit is worth the most points. You can think of a team's point score as being the sum of ratings of all the team's commits where the best recruit is worth 100% of his rating value, the second best recruit is worth nearly 100% of his rating value, down to the last recruit who is worth a small fraction of his rating value.
Lastly, you mention "in the 2017 recruiting cycle, choosing maybe half of the recruits himself. That is 12/85 scholarship players."
I agree, he was hired late in the 2017 cycle and he didn't have a full year to recruit. While I don't recall the exact number Brohm specifically recruited, I will tell you that only 5 original scholarship players are left from 2017 recruiting cycle. Surprisingly, 3 walk-on's have started and 2 have received scholarships.
For 2017, Brohm brought in 4 grad transfer to plug the massive roster holes left behind. 2 on the OL, one LB and one CB. That continually gets ignored by ThE gUrU.
And, accordingly, those are 4 roster spots currently occupied by sophomores instead of seniors.
At this point I believe he's purposefully just throwing stupid crap out simply to get a reaction. Maybe he's such a sad human being that it's his main form of entertainment. NOBODY could really be as stupid as his comments would lead us to believe, could they?
The art of trolling requires legit takes to throw readers off. As a troll, I know.
he’s dumb to a fault.
