Football philosophy

[njm8845]

It seems the consensus on these boards is that Purdue is bound to fail due to Hazell's philosophy of establishing the run. The line of thought is that most of Purdue's successful teams in the past have thrown the ball. Hence, focusing on running is not the way to win at Purdue.

It's hard for anyone to say Hazell has done even a mediocre job, but I disagree with the careless disregard for Hazell's philosophy.

First off, just because the good Purdue teams have thrown the ball doesn't mean other types of teams can't be a success. Further, Purdue has rarely shown "sustained" success, so maybe throwing the ball isn't the way to build a lasting program. Tiller's teams from 97-04 may be the exception that proves the rule.

Secondly, a common refrain is that "we can't win playing OSU ball". I don't see why this should be true - there are a lot of ways to win a football game, and I don't see any from which Purdue is excluded. Since the Hazell hire, I've been able to talk myself into his philosophy. I think it's hard to attract top tier athletes to Purdue. I don't think it's as hard to attract big ugly OL who control the LOS. The former is what you need to win in a pass oriented offense (that or a quirky scheme like Tiller had). The latter is what you need to win in a run oriented offense. All the recent good Purdue squads have been led by an NFL QB. I respect the Cradle as much as anyone else, but I'd rather rely on a system that requires recruiting 4 really good OL than one which requires an NFL QB.

Further, if we concede that Purdue is not as talented as other B10 teams, I would think the first thing we want to do is shorten the game. This gives us a better chance to win; the likelihood of the more talented team winning increases as possessions increase. The best way to shorten the game is by running the ball.

Obviously with the mounting losses it's been easier and easier to say that this philosophy is incorrect. But while Hazell may not be implementing it properly, failure doesn't indicate the philosophy is wrong. Wisconsin has built a great program that is focused on running. MSU has built a recent powerhouse also based on hard nosed football. I don't see why either of these schools can do it and Purdue can't.

 

[FLAG HUNTER]

whatever he is doing its not working, I think everyone is throwing out their ideas that they think will work better

 

[New Pal Boiler]

You don't need big offensive linemen to run the ball, you need good ones. We don't have enough of those, nor have we traditionally ever had enough of them to play smash mouth football.

We have tried OSU ball before, and it didn't work. I take it you weren't around for the Colletto era?

Given our history with QBs, I think we have a much better chance of recruiting an NFL QB than 3 or 4 NFL Offensive linemen.

 

[BoilerGrad02]

What I think you have to consider is that both MSU and Wisc rely heavily on a power running game with a designated point of attack. Purdue runs a read option which 1)Takes longer to develop (because no one knows whether they will have the ball at the beginning of the play). 2) Requires good decision making by the QB. 3) Requires your QB, RB and WR (or third option if there is one) to be legitimate running threats 4) More agile O-linemen who can get outside to make certain blocks (at least more often then in a power running scheme).

Hazell talked about establishing a power running game when he arrived at Purdue but now seems to want to focus on a "finesse" style of running game (which can be effective with the right personal but I don't see Purdue having those types of players).

I don't think focusing on the running game is how a coach can be successful at Purdue but bring up MSU and Wisc's successful running games doesn't seem to be a good comparison IMO.

 

[SIBoiler2]

A really good coach can be successful at Purdue (see Tiller, Young and Mollenkopf). All others up to this point have been mediocre and that's what you see on the field. Some have been blessed with incredible talent and barely were .500 teams (see Agase and Colletto). What we have now is a very different level of ineptitude. Is he a bad coach? Maybe so, maybe not. Is he willing to attempt to make changes to fix existing problems? Not so far. Crappy offense in year 3 still carrying the same OC. If we are only paying for a spokesman as the HC at least get one with the intestinal fortitude to make hard choices and changes when needed.

 

[PalmCoastFl]

Nothing wrong with running the ball..............but to be successful at it, you have to be able to throw the ball with a degree of success!!! Otherwise teams will put 8 in the box to stop the run and force you to throw.