How would you feel about going after Bud Foster (DC Virginia Tech) if Purdue is looking for a HC?

[JohnnyDoeBoiler]

Don't know much about him other than he is one of the most respected DC's in the country. Feelings?

 

[arcb102000]

He has been at VT a long time. I was surprised that he was not given the HC position ewen Beamer retired. He actually might look to leave.

 

[Cevol03]

i would rather have Clemson's defensive coordinator Brent Venebles

 

[BoilerGrad02]

I just don't think Purdue is going to be able to win with a defense first system.

High octane offense and know how to identify and recruit players that fit your system. Start to win and get better and better defensive recruits to improve that side of the ball.

I honestly think you could give Purdue one of the top defensive coordinators in college football and they would still be below average right now, better yes, but not a good defense. So much of defense is predicated on talent and not coaching and Purdue just doesn't have much talent right now.

 

[njm8845]

I honestly think you could give Purdue one of the top defensive coordinators in college football and they would still be below average right now, better yes, but not a good defense. So much of defense is predicated on talent and not coaching and Purdue just doesn't have much talent right now.

I disagree 100%. I think it's easier to have a great defense with mediocre players than it is for offense.

I've also been on record by saying it's a silly idea that Purdue must have a high profile offense to be good.

 

[EastCoastBoiler]

Don't know much about him other than he is one of the most respected DC's in the country. Feelings?

I've worked with several VT alums in previous jobs. The rumors in their circles indicate that Bud Foster has carried on several affairs with married women in southwestern Virginia over the years, and this is why he was passed over as Beamer's replacement. Beamer retained Foster for his coaching/recruiting acumen, but Foster has never been a serious candidate to assume control of his own program due to poor personal character.

 

[arcb102000]

If true, he should move to Arkansas. Affairs seem not to be an issue there. Louisville would also seem hospitable.

 

[Cantonman]

They could pull someone off the street and he or she could probably do a better job than Hazell.

It would be nice to see them get Les Miles, but probably cannot afford him, but it's doubtful he or any other quality coach is willing to accept such a challenge!

 

[threeeputtt]

Don't know much about him other than he is one of the most respected DC's in the country. Feelings?

More OC's make better HC than DC.

 

[Fan4Life]

I've also been on record by saying it's a silly idea that Purdue must have a high profile offense to be good.

I agree 100% with you on this. Purdue had great offenses during their last run of winning, but that does not mean that is the only way Purdue can win. Also, many forget that during Tillers' best years, Purdue's defense was top 3-4 in the B1G. It wasn't just offense.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

I disagree 100%. I think it's easier to have a great defense with mediocre players than it is for offense.

I've also been on record by saying it's a silly idea that Purdue must have a high profile offense to be good.

Name the "great" B1G defenses with "mediocre" talent.

 

[lbodel]

I just don't think Purdue is going to be able to win with a defense first system.

High octane offense and know how to identify and recruit players that fit your system. Start to win and get better and better defensive recruits to improve that side of the ball.

I honestly think you could give Purdue one of the top defensive coordinators in college football and they would still be below average right now, better yes, but not a good defense. So much of defense is predicated on talent and not coaching and Purdue just doesn't have much talent right now.

Here's the problem with offense-first. Look at Tiller's latter years - we had a "potent" offense and shit for defense. We could blow out a crap MAC/1-AA team, and win against a couple Big Ten bottom-feeders - but we didn't REMOTELY compete against anyone good. Our losing streak against top 25 teams was ridiculous.

Look at IU - Wilson has done a pretty decent job, but it's been a SLOW build and it's acceptable because it's IU and they had very low expectations with years and years of losing. He's done it offensive first - but it's the same thing, they can win some games against crap teams and had a hard time competing with anyone good. This year, their defense isn't actually too shabby and they are actually competing.

You have a much better chance at competing with a good defense. If you can hold teams to 10-17 points - a very average offense can put up that much. I'd rather lose against a good team 17-7 than 56-21. Because all it takes is one play to turn that into a competitive game. It takes 6-7 to be competitive in that 56-21 game.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

Here's the problem with offense-first. Look at Tiller's latter years - we had a "potent" offense and shit for defense. We could blow out a crap MAC/1-AA team, and win against a couple Big Ten bottom-feeders - but we didn't REMOTELY compete against anyone good. Our losing streak against top 25 teams was ridiculous.

Look at IU - Wilson has done a pretty decent job, but it's been a SLOW build and it's acceptable because it's IU and they had very low expectations with years and years of losing. He's done it offensive first - but it's the same thing, they can win some games against crap teams and had a hard time competing with anyone good. This year, their defense isn't actually too shabby and they are actually competing.

You have a much better chance at competing with a good defense. If you can hold teams to 10-17 points - a very average offense can put up that much. I'd rather lose against a good team 17-7 than 56-21. Because all it takes is one play to turn that into a competitive game. It takes 6-7 to be competitive in that 56-21 game.

It's easier to scheme a good offense than a good defense.

 

[BoilerGrad02]

It's easier to scheme a good offense than a good defense.

This is what I'm saying. I would love to have a great defense but it's just more dependent on recruiting. I can think of so many mediocre programs that have had good offenses throughout the years because of their system/scheme, very few defenses.

Get a high powered offensive scheme to Purdue to win more games and get some recruiting momentum. Hopefully then you can land better and better defensive recruits similar to what Tiller did from 1997-1999 that led to the very good defenses of 2000-2004. And even Tiller himself said he lost a lot of his energy for recruiting later in his tenure. We still had good offenses but the defenses fell apart from 2005-2008.

I just think it's much harder to do it the other way around (though I agree not impossible).

 

[New Pal Boiler]

This is what I'm saying. I would love to have great a great defense but it's just more dependent on recruiting. I can think of so many mediocre programs that have had good offenses throughout the years because of their system/scheme, very few defenses.

Get a high powered offensive scheme to Purdue to win more games and get some recruiting momentum. Hopefully then you can land better and better defensive recruits similar to what Tiller did from 1997-1999 that led to the very good defenses of 2000-2004. And even Tiller himself said he lost a lot of his energy for recruiting later in his tenure. We still had good offenses but the defenses fell apart from 2005-2008.

I just think it's much harder to do it the other way around (though I agree not impossible).

Get a good QB, a decent Oline, and an innovative OC, and you're good to go. IU is a perfect example.

We only ever had good defenses with 3 or 4 future NFL players.