With this draft going on of Purdue players of the last twenty years. Do you think Purdue would still be where it's at today had the likes of Kelly Butler, Pollard and big play Ray not left a year early for the draft? I know all three didn't leave the same year. Butler would have been an AA caliber OL and would prolly help win 2/3 more games. Pollard and Ray stay and that team prolly wins 3/4 more games. Not too mention how much better recruiting would have been over that time span bc of the number of wins. I think Tiller would have obviously not been on such a hot seat. And able to go out on his own terms later in his career. I think we wouldn't have went to hope. The job would have been much more desirable.
Just for fun. Thoughts
- Thread starter takedownboiler
- Start date
As they say in Texas-Edwards was "All Hat-No Cattle"
Coming out of HS, he was a great athletic and physically gifted player but never fulfilled the hype, either at PU or in NFL. I recall watching him during pre-game kneeling by himself in endzone gesticulating, crying and praying and thought this guy is another headcase that puts himself above the team just like Pollard did. However, Pollard simply could not get along with Tiller or any of the coaches and most of the offense, Wunderlic tests should be given to every recruit before enrollment...
Coming out of HS, he was a great athletic and physically gifted player but never fulfilled the hype, either at PU or in NFL. I recall watching him during pre-game kneeling by himself in endzone gesticulating, crying and praying and thought this guy is another headcase that puts himself above the team just like Pollard did. However, Pollard simply could not get along with Tiller or any of the coaches and most of the offense, Wunderlic tests should be given to every recruit before enrollment...
Pollard was more of a difference-maker than Ray. As the other poster said, Spencer and Avril were better than Edwards anyway (even with less development).
imo, later portion of Tiller's tenure comes down to:
- Everyone figured out how to cover the spread offense
- Tiller lost most of his best assistants because Burke was cheap
- Curtis Painter was not remotely as good as Orton or Brees
Butler leaving early impacted the 2004 season for sure. Long term, who knows, but Dave Owen struggled (im being kind) all year.
He was always just looking for sacks and would get himself out of position. He should have been benched till he listened to his coach and learn how to play the position.
Don't necessarily agree with #1. The other two are legitimate and help explain why our offense was not as good, at least against decent teams, at the end of Tiller's career. The players were just not as good as what we had previously. That, and I still think experimenting with the spread option kind of bastardized what we had going also.
I think the league adjusted for sure. They started jamming our WRs to mess up timing and tried to eliminate the rhythm throws. They didnt stop it, but it wasnt as explosive.
That Utah spread in 2005 was a disaster. Kirsch was a QB that could run, and that was a bad fit. He was perfectly fine under the orignal spread we ran. Just a bad fit.
Well I'm not so sure that the league hadn't tried to do some things against our receivers for quite some time. I remember going up to watch Brees play in the Big House and seeing them shut us down with that strategy. I just think that strategy was even more effective as our talent level decreased. Less time for our QB to throw for a QB who needed time and perfect protection to deliver a throw. All of a sudden we didn't have another second or two for our WR's to fight off the defender at the line of scrimmage before our offense became incapable of delivering the ball to them. I guess I don't view it as the league figuring us out so much as the same strategy just became much more effective with a weaker OL and worse QB.
Keep Orton upright in 2004 and avoid the hip pointer maybe it avoids 2 of the 4 losses in a row. Going 6-2, 11-2 and tied for second in the conference may swing some recruiting battles that make 2006-2009 better.
I would add the NCAA screwing us over with the rule change on flights for recruiting visits.
Where did he say this?
We still put up points against certain teams. Not sure that is consistent with us being "figured out". Maybe Alvarez finally figured out that it helped to jam our smaller receivers but that was a strategy Michigan had been used for a long time. It wasn't some grand revelation and it still didn't help the worse teams that we continued to beat and score on.
I believe it had more to do with going from Drew Brees to eventually Curtis Painter and having a shaky offensive line.
He spoke at the AD's dinner I attended before a Purdue/Wisky football game when hope was still HC. He said that when Tiller arrived bringing in basketball on grass it was so oddball that coaches really wouldn't gameplane much for it. His point was you are going to focus practice for the tradional teams rather than one oddball offense. Teams would've prepped a week for the spread but had drilled for the rest of the league all season.
Once every coach started implementing aspects of the spread that advantage was taken away.
Certainly it was less unique at the end of Tiller's tenure than at the beginning. I agree with that. I'm not sure that's the same as saying that people figured it out, at least not to me. I think it had far more to do with going from one of the best QBs in the history of football to a quarterback who couldn't deliver throws against the slightest bit of pressure. In my opinion, what other coaches "figured out" that it was much easier to defend it with Curtis Painter under center than it was with Brees.
I see what you're saying and it is not an invalid point, however I think you have missed my main point. Our offense went from an anomaly to a known commodity. Drew was, and is great.
I'm not really interested in a further conversation as long you want to keep moving goal posts. I told you what i knew, you asked how i knew it, i told you and know you want to change the narrative to fit what you have already decided.
I'm not moving the goal posts at all. Just wondered what Alvarez actually said and appreciate you telling me. I would interpret it much differently than you did but that doesn't mean either of us is wrong.
We were damn good in 2004, in Tiller's 7th or 8th season, up until the infamous fumble. If the rest of the league had figured us out, they didn't necessarily show it. I agree as our talent level dropped, we became easier to game plan.
Tiller's offenses were near unstoppable when they had a very good QB with very good OL play. He didn't needs a ton of skill and speed on the outside as he could manufacture routes and combos to get guys open according to what the opposing defense had. When the line play dropped and the QB didn't have the clean pocket that Brees and Orton enjoyed (really, when Brees took Purdue to the Rose Bowl he was barely touched all season), the play suffered.
Edwards was so full of himself he couldn't get out of his own way.
Yes jamming our receivers and with our smaller WR`s at the time that tactic really hurt us.
As far as you guys who think the spread offense was figured out, I think the problem was more Curtis Painter. He would put up crazy stats against average-to-worse teams. Those offenses had a ton of talent at the skill positions and he simply couldn't get the ball to them against good teams. Would Elliott have been able to do it? I'm not sure but Tiller definitely gave CP too long of a leash.
