after reading it, it was nice of Hope to recommend CJB to take the job.
Hope's ill will was for Burke, not Purdue.after reading it, it was nice of Hope to recommend CJB to take the job.
I realize that but sometimes people hold grudges for all the wrong reasons plus he could have mentioned about the funding, facilities, or anything else.Hope's ill will was for Burke, not Purdue.
I realize that but sometimes people hold grudges for all the wrong reasons plus he could have mentioned about the funding, facilities, or anything else.
The Hope story is consistent with what has been previously reported.
https://purdue.forums.rivals.com/threads/danny-hope-told-brohm-to-chose-purdue.111285/
I do wonder what Hope could have done with a state of the art football complex and more budget for assistant coach salaries. He really did do an admirable job scratching out 5 to 7 wins and may or may not have continued to do so. Gary Nord is another guy that in hindsight was somewhat underappreciated. But I said back in December, perhaps hitting rock bottom was needed as a wake-up call to the underlying problems.
Not sure as he's recruiting wasn't that great. He was obsessed with athletes and speed, while regularly ignoring size along the lines. He'd just recruit kids and then move them to a position that they didn't have the size to play.
Hope's a good guy, but he wasn't cut out to be the head man.
Maybe in the defensive back seven on the size thing, but overall not really. And frankly, wouldn't you love to have some of those DBs back that Hope recruited?
Hazell was big on size in his recruiting, to the point of taking a bunch of 6'3"+ DBs who couldn't cover my grandma.
I am of 2 minds on Hope's approach to the lines. His best line at Purdue was the Rose Bowl team with a converted TE, 3 converted D-linemen and 1 true OL recruit. He put 2 convereted D-linemen in the NFL as OL players too during his second stint. Of course the Rose Bowl was almost 2 decades ago when there was much less specialization in HS along the lines.
Yes, but as HC, he would try to put guys that were HS CB at LB
Yes, but as HC, he would try to put guys that were HS CB at LB or hope they bulk enough to play on the DL. If we started out with guys as big as a TE (most HS TE are blockers/linemen anyways especially back then) or LB that might have helped. It wasn't the skill positions that were an issue under Hope, it was every where else.
Not sure as he's recruiting wasn't that great. He was obsessed with athletes and speed, while regularly ignoring size along the lines. He'd just recruit kids and then move them to a position that they didn't have the size to play.
Hope's a good guy, but he wasn't cut out to be the head man.
Maybe in the defensive back seven on the size thing, but overall not really. And frankly, wouldn't you love to have some of those DBs back that Hope recruited?
Hazell was big on size in his recruiting, to the point of taking a bunch of 6'3"+ DBs who couldn't cover my grandma.
I am of 2 minds on Hope's approach to the lines. His best line at Purdue was the Rose Bowl team with a converted TE, 3 converted D-linemen and 1 true OL recruit. He put 2 convereted D-linemen in the NFL as OL players too during his second stint. Of course the Rose Bowl was almost 2 decades ago when there was much less specialization in HS along the lines.
I won't dispute the "head man" part, but Danny Hope has long been considered one of the top when it comes to recruiting. He was at the levers of the recruiting machine when Tiller was at the helm.
You're absolutely right JohnnyDoeBoiler. Danny Hope was never given the tools to succeed, and I think he did quite well considering what we now know."Brohm even spoke with former Purdue coach Danny Hope about the job. Hope told Brohm to take it. "
This speaks to what some on here have said over and over again. Danny Hope was a good man who deserved to have more commitment from those above him. The fact he got to bowl games was incredible considering what many of us as fans know now about the total lack of commitment from every angle.
Yeah he could get players, but during Tiller I think Tiller was probably giving him so direction and we seemed more balanced recruiting.I won't dispute the "head man" part, but Danny Hope has long been considered one of the top when it comes to recruiting. He was at the levers of the recruiting machine when Tiller was at the helm.
Yeah he could get players, but during Tiller I think Tiller was probably giving him so direction and we seemed more balanced recruiting.
The Hope story is consistent with what has been previously reported.
https://purdue.forums.rivals.com/threads/danny-hope-told-brohm-to-chose-purdue.111285/
I do wonder what Hope could have done with a state of the art football complex and more budget for assistant coach salaries. .
So did Tiller. Joe Holland was a HS safety. Its not uncommon at programs like Purdue.
As for the lines, he started to rectify the OL problem late in his tenure. He recruited King, Roos and Cermin who turned into productive players. Who knows what he would have done, but it certainly would have been better than the dumpster fire Hazell lit.
I can agree with that, to an extent.. We would likely not have found out. He did not have the resume for a Big Ten HC job. It was a hypothetical.. But being the fall guy for a program struggling due to meager support/investments, Big Ten or not, certainly didn't do him much of a favor. For a few hundred grand less perhaps he could have been a moderately successful MAC coach.. My only point from my hypothetical was that his legacy cannot be viewed in a vacuum. He isn't the hero of the story, but he isn't the villain either. Far, far from it. Putting the blame on Hope for the downfall from the Tiller years is misguided.You would've never found out, because Hope would've only got a courtesy interview, if Purdue was investing heavily in football.
He should consider himself lucky he got to coach a big ten team for 4 years. He didn't have the resume to warrant the opportunity.
Completely agree. If Hope had the right backing from our lame duck AD, he might of been very successful here based on what he was able to do with so little.I can agree with that, to an extent.. We would likely not have found out. He did not have the resume for a Big Ten HC job. It was a hypothetical.. But being the fall guy for a program struggling due to meager support/investments, Big Ten or not, certainly didn't do him much of a favor. For a few hundred grand less perhaps he could have been a moderately successful MAC coach.. My only point from my hypothetical was that his legacy cannot be viewed in a vacuum. He isn't the hero of the story, but he isn't the villain either. Far, far from it. Putting the blame on Hope for the downfall from the Tiller years is misguided.