Yes… if you hire a Barry Alvarez and he doesn’t want to leave after he becomes Barry Alvarez.. you’ve won. But you could end up with Darrell hazell or danny hope. In fact, MUCH MORE OFTEN you will. And much more often than landing Alvarez and having him stay, you’ll land him and he’s OUT the first chance he gets
One-Dimentional
- Thread starter jageh345
- Start date
Yeah, I don't "absolve" the offense for anything. Just putting some numbers to the offensive struggles. As you can see Purdue has rushed for fewer yards than every single opponent gives up on average. That is consistently not good, even for a pass heavy offense. But within the "not good" lies differences between simply below average at the high end and awfully abhorrently terrible at the low end. The numbers also show how little is needed from the run game in order for the offense to be functional.
Think about what I am saying.. Purdue is #129 (out of 130) in rush offense at 74.3 yards per game. If they can squeeze out just 85 yards against Nebraska that would be the equivalent of what the #126 team averages.
Posts like yours with all the data to support it is exactly what we need on here. Every other post is based in failed interpretation and emotional bias. So thanks for putting that all together as it is all very telling.
It also coincides with Brohm wanting to run as he must of done the same kind of math.
Reportedly, he had offers from the likes of:
Minnesota
Texas Tech
Baylor
Arkansas
BYU
Houston
Iowa State
Nebraska
Missouri
Notre Dame
Ole Miss
TCU
Texas A&M
et al
That's d@mn impressive. In fact, we're told (by some on this forum), recruits aren't any good if they don't have offers like that....
I agree on the importance of trying to run the ball, even if it doesn't generate a lot of yards. I don't subscribe to the argument that running the ball is wasting a down at this point. Purdue actually ran several times on first down against Iowa, and I think it helped open up space for the intermediate passing game.
That's really good stuff. Magic number is 80! Horvath is apparently going to give it a go in practice this week. However still extremely doubtful. Perhaps he can play against MSU
Running the ball is only a waste if you are getting absolutely nothing out of it AND it is not affecting what the defense is doing. But it is also a waste when you force passes into tight windows or take sacks because the stingy defense has 7 guys in coverage. If you are getting annihilated up front there aren't really many good options on the play sheet.
I know a lot of people say "pass to open up the run" but that's really hard to do unless the defense starts off with a little bit of respect for your run game. This is where I'd like to see a bit more diversity in the run game. A halfback draw for example can slow down the pass rush, but without a quick burst RB or someone like Horvath to break arm tackles it isn't going to be effective.
For us casual fans it is easy to ascribe causes and offer solutions, but we generally aren't seeing the root of the issue. We don't see the entire chess game, only the movement of the pieces. If there was an easy answer the Brohm brain trust would have found it by now. There was fortunately just enough of a crack in the Iowa defense that they found a way around the talent deficit in the trenches. Well, Wisconsin slammed that crack shut. Back to the drawing board...
I think most people would say that Wisconsin has a running game and “interception game” (or fumble or sack).
Chryst was smart enough to limit Mertzs passes to 5-10 yards and once they had the lead, he stopped passing. Not because they didn’t need to, but because they were afraid to. (Go watch the 4th Q of the Wisconsin/ND game if you need an example or proof)
I am a Brohm supporter, but there are times I believe that Brohm doesn’t want to accept that we can’t run the ball.
Even Tiller was smart enough to throw the ball the entire game against Wisconsin in 1998. Ok, 83 passes versus 19 runs.
Last edited:
I recall that game clearly. Watched it from a bar in Wisconsin. It was actually '98, Brees first year as starter. 83 passes.. in a loss. Maybe an example of being too one-dimensional?
What I don't recall is what defensive scheme Alvarez and Cosgrove deployed. Tiller favored the pass but also typically not shy about running the ball when the situation called for it. In his early coaching clinics at Purdue he broke his one back system into simple math for the QB depending on numbers in the box.
I recall 400+ rushing yards against Northwestern in a WIN. My recollection is Wisconsin set back and allowed the dink and dunk all day and tighted up when they needed to... to the tune of 4 INT. That '98 team wasn't prolific in the run game, but it was serviceable. I'd take J. Crabtree and that '98 OL in a NY minute right now.
RE. I’d take J. Crabtree and that '98 OL in a NY minute right now.
Agreed…and with those available, Tiller still threw it 83 times. I’m not all for zero runs, but I thought we needed to attack the flats/outside the hash marks (bubble screen, WR screen, triple sets and quick passes.
Everything I read said their CBS are their weakest point and I think we should have made their CBs make 20-30 tackles or at least make their OLB cheat to cover the wide side. Heck go to 5 WR sets to force them to switch to Dime DB packages. Something to get the LBs out of their standard sets. A Plummer roll out would have been nice (admittedly I stopped watching before he took over).
Dink and dunk would have given our Defense and much needed breather and maybe put some FGs on the board.
Yeah, I suspect the loss of Horvath has been a bigger blow than some are willing to admit.
There’s no comparing Tillers offense w Brohms, especially when going against a team like the Wisconsin team we played on Saturday. They blitzed the sh@& out of us. Tillers playbook could neutralize and even destroy a team that blitzed at the rate UW did on Saturday- which is why they probably wouldn’t have. Chanel had 6 TFLs and 3.5 sacks. The team had 10 TFLs, and 9 were from LBs. Those stats scream heavy blitzing. They don’t include hurries or no gain runs. They were coming on every play and we didn’t scheme to stop it - so they didn’t stop. No screens. No draws. I don’t care if we had the ‘98 O line or the ‘69 O line. I don’t care if we had Brees or Griese. If you don’t adjust to counter what UW was doing, it doesn’t matter. Our OL isn’t great. Neither are our RBs or QBs. But Brohm, as an offensive mind, was not good on Saturday and needs to be better going forward. That was much more on him and the staff then anyone else. I like coach Brohm and I’m hoping better days are ahead.
I was at that game at Camp Randall in 1998. Wisconsin was gifted an INT that hit the ground--but it was before reviewable plays. The 1997 Purdue v. Wisconsin game was memorable in its own right, too. Billy Dicken, Ed Watson and the Boilers steam rolled Ron Dayne and the Badgers 45-20 for a surprisingly easy win.
You also can't compare the teams because the Big Ten defenses in the late 90's had linebackers that were recruiting to stop the run who could be exploited in pass coverage.
and we still lost. I was at the Drew Brees vs Ron Dayne showdown. Brees put the ball into our T.E.'s chest to tie the game if I recall correctly and it popped up and was intercepted by UW LB.
We were pretty good under Tiller...did you just write that? Considering he retired on the job after the 2004 season, it's been a 17 years since Purdue averaged about 7 wins per season. Purdue still has only one 10-win season in its entire football history. The first year I was a Purdue fan, 1978. Iowa went from Frye to Ferentz. UW has been consistently good since Alvarez. Even NU has been consistently better than Purdue since Barnett. And, if I were on a ledge, I'd have stepped off sometime between 1982 and 1996 when Purdue was atrociously bad. Instead, I drove 1,200 miles round-trip on the weekends to watch the team play. I'm not entitled to a good team, but I'm entitled to voice my opinion.
Similar threads
