I wish I had the time or energy to really dig in, but a few things

[BoilermakerD]

I saw someone post that we have no talent.

I don't buy that. We had the talent to beat Nebraska. Are they down? Sure. Were they missing Armstrong? Sure. But they're still freaking Nebraska.

The point is.. I don't buy that you can be good enough to beat Nebraska one week and lose like that to Illinois the next week because we have players with no talent. I've seen players with little to no talent at Purdue. Players who still contributed something.. but you knew how it looked when they failed.. Kyle Smith, Sean Petty, Dan Bick, Logan Link.. this wasn't players in the right place, doing the right things and just being rolled over by an equally executing player 2* above in real talent.

The fluctuation in results is one thing. Coaching. Well... if it was players just massively not executing and whiffing on tackles, that's one thing. While we didn't execute great... players weren't in position.

We gave a world of cushion underneath on defense and coached not to lose on offense.. just like all season before Nebraska.

Our offensive gameplan sucked. Illinois was very fast to the outside and not some amazingly stout team in the middle.

The gameplan should have been to run up the middle and pocket pass. We needed to do all of the things that we didn't do against Nebraska, because it was a team that was opposite in strengths.

Not a revelation that the roll out game didn't work.

I was watching the Bears game tonight and after Alshon Jeffery burned them for a whole drive, did you notice what San Diego did? They bracketed Jeffery over the top and took him out to the extent they could. They adjusted right after the first drive where their stuff just flat didn't work.

Shoop (and NO I AM NOT SAYING HUDSON OR HAZELL WERE GOOD) did not adjust. It's almost like a stubborn coach who just goes down losing the same way all game. In fact, I'd say that, except I'm not sure that that's it. I was almost sitting there thinking, is he thinking "hey, what we brought to the table didn't work. Uhh, too bad we didn't bring anything else, that sucks."

I'm not sure there's a plan B with this guy. I'm really not. Saturday was the first time I ever thought it was from just not having one rather than having one that is apparent but being too stubborn to go to it.

I'm not sure "bootleg not working, their faster than us to the edges, run up the middle and pocket pass" ever crossed the guys mind.

He is not a chess player. He is perhaps less of a chess player than any coach I've ever seen. And don't worry, Hudson is pretty close. And Hazell is responsible for all of this.

It's a good thing that Hazell and Burke and the Board's nonfeasance and Burke, Hazell, Hudson and Shoop's malfeasance can never take the Tiller, Young, Mollenkopf or other good eras away. And we will wake up from this one day. However, I fear that we are in a place as dark as the post Jordan Bulls of 2001, 2002, etc.

 

[lbodel]

I saw someone post that we have no talent.

I don't buy that. We had the talent to beat Nebraska. Are they down? Sure. Were they missing Armstrong? Sure. But they're still freaking Nebraska.

The point is.. I don't buy that you can be good enough to beat Nebraska one week and lose like that to Illinois the next week because we have players with no talent. I've seen players with little to no talent at Purdue. Players who still contributed something.. but you knew how it looked when they failed.. Kyle Smith, Sean Petty, Dan Bick, Logan Link.. this wasn't players in the right place, doing the right things and just being rolled over by an equally executing player 2* above in real talent.

The fluctuation in results is one thing. Coaching. Well... if it was players just massively not executing and whiffing on tackles, that's one thing. While we didn't execute great... players weren't in position.

We gave a world of cushion underneath on defense and coached not to lose on offense.. just like all season before Nebraska.

Our offensive gameplan sucked. Illinois was very fast to the outside and not some amazingly stout team in the middle.

The gameplan should have been to run up the middle and pocket pass. We needed to do all of the things that we didn't do against Nebraska, because it was a team that was opposite in strengths.

Not a revelation that the roll out game didn't work.

I was watching the Bears game tonight and after Alshon Jeffery burned them for a whole drive, did you notice what San Diego did? They bracketed Jeffery over the top and took him out to the extent they could. They adjusted right after the first drive where their stuff just flat didn't work.

Shoop (and NO I AM NOT SAYING HUDSON OR HAZELL WERE GOOD) did not adjust. It's almost like a stubborn coach who just goes down losing the same way all game. In fact, I'd say that, except I'm not sure that that's it. I was almost sitting there thinking, is he thinking "hey, what we brought to the table didn't work. Uhh, too bad we didn't bring anything else, that sucks."

I'm not sure there's a plan B with this guy. I'm really not. Saturday was the first time I ever thought it was from just not having one rather than having one that is apparent but being too stubborn to go to it.

I'm not sure "bootleg not working, their faster than us to the edges, run up the middle and pocket pass" ever crossed the guys mind.

He is not a chess player. He is perhaps less of a chess player than any coach I've ever seen. And don't worry, Hudson is pretty close. And Hazell is responsible for all of this.

It's a good thing that Hazell and Burke and the Board's nonfeasance and Burke, Hazell, Hudson and Shoop's malfeasance can never take the Tiller, Young, Mollenkopf or other good eras away. And we will wake up from this one day. However, I fear that we are in a place as dark as the post Jordan Bulls of 2001, 2002, etc.

Just because you compete or win against a team doesn't mean you're on the same talent level. Is straight up talent the end all, be all? Absolutely NOT. Coaching can make a huge difference. But there's a ceiling level you reach.

Purdue is nowhere near as talented as nearly every Big Ten team.

People like to say we're on the same level as IU. In the last 3 recruiting classes, 46% of our recruits have been 2 stars. In IU's last 3 recruiting classes, 23% of their recruits have been 2 stars - half as many.

Purdue's problem is DEPTH. You can't succeed in football without depth. Do our starting 11 on each side match-up ok with IUs? Sure. But that's not how the game is played in reality.

 

[BoilermakerD]

I love your passive aggressive defense of the coaching. Someone criticizes shoop and you try to nullify what they say because they didn't criticize both coordinators. They te you'd get think Hudson is awful and ask you what you think of shoop now and you go quiet. And now this beauty of a post. I can tell you were one of the guys 3 years ago calling any critic of shoop "just a disgruntled bears fan" and talking about his unc tj Yates glory days.

Re read my post. Where did I say or even imply that our win against Nebraska puts us consistently on nebraskas talent level?? I'm not saying we are. If you beat Nebraska one week.. Is your talent level good enough to not get fisted by freaking Illinois the next?? Yep... If well coached.

But the game plan sucked. We went back to giving up the Grand Canyon in cushion on defense and our offense played into Illinois hands on par with Fraziers style playing into foremans hands.

You say we lack depth. So that's it? Ok... Riddle me this. If "depth" was it... Why were we getting pistol whipped in the first quarter

 

[lbodel]

I love your passive aggressive defense of the coaching. Someone criticizes shoop and you try to nullify what they say because they didn't criticize both coordinators. They te you'd get think Hudson is awful and ask you what you think of shoop now and you go quiet. And now this beauty of a post. I can tell you were one of the guys 3 years ago calling any critic of shoop "just a disgruntled bears fan" and talking about his unc tj Yates glory days.

Re read my post. Where did I say or even imply that our win against Nebraska puts us consistently on nebraskas talent level?? I'm not saying we are. If you beat Nebraska one week.. Is your talent level good enough to not get fisted by freaking Illinois the next?? Yep... If well coached.

But the game plan sucked. We went back to giving up the Grand Canyon in cushion on defense and our offense played into Illinois hands on par with Fraziers style playing into foremans hands.

You say we lack depth. So that's it? Ok... Riddle me this. If "depth" was it... Why were we getting pistol whipped in the first quarter

Well, I can tell you one thing - this team has more than 1 problem.

First off, I've never tried to "nullify" criticism of Shoop. I said it is completely moronic to use him as a scapegoat of our problems because our problems are so across the board. Taking the angle of "Oh, let's fire Shoop" after year 3 is NOT a solution or even remotely smart. That's what I'm saying.

Secondly, we have issues across the board. I've been saying this since after year 1 when I thought there should be changes to the staff (which is when most programs make moves).

It'd be one thing if we're in year 2 right now and talking about these things. Right now, the recruiting is bad, the coaching isn't reflecting much and the overall play is bad. Just because you have a good game where you beat someone you may not expect to and then lose to a bad team the next week - just doesn't say much. Upsets happen. And quite frankly, beat Nebraska in the situation they were in - wasn't really some big upset.