But not at those critical positions. Colletto's classes weren't great, but he didn't average next to last in the conference like Hazell did.
One more win each year. That is realistic progress.
- Thread starter TheBoris
- Start date
New Pal Boiler......Purdue 85 just had to open his mis or un-informed mouth...
DL David Nugent OL Matt Light
Roseltt Colvin Jim Niedrach
Greg Smith Nick Sweeney
Chuckie Nwokorie Wayne Fincham
Craig Williams Chukky Okobi
So if you still think that Brohm is inheriting better offensive and defensive lineman from Haze than Tiller did from Colletto..........By the way...My friend Chukky would love to debate this topic with you in person Purdumb 85......
If you compare how competitive Colletto`s last team was to DH`s last team it`s not even close...........
Not even close.............LOL! Really....... Jimmy's last year......blown out by 38 to MSU.... by 35 ND....14 to WVU...21 to NCST... 17 PSU....28 OSU......and by 17 at home to a 3 win IU team! Maybe the talent was a little better.....................but Tiller elevated most of those guys after he arrived!
I think the most comparable examples to Brohm taking over Purdue in recent history (offensive guy with HC experience taking over a struggling program) are Leach at WSU and Dykes at Cal.
Both took a step back in year 1. Then made progress making a bowl in year 2 (leach) or 3 (Dykes), followed by another step back in the year after the bowl.
In terms of the state of the program they were taking over, WSU is more like Purdue, though Leach had much more HC experience, and experience at the P5 level. Cal was in better shape - probably closer to where Purdue was when Tiller left - program in decline after a long stretch of success, only going to 2 bowl games in the last 4 years
Based on that, I think Purdue might be in for a ROUGH season in 2017, followed by a gradual upward trajectory, though perhaps only 2 bowl games in the first 5 years.
Both took a step back in year 1. Then made progress making a bowl in year 2 (leach) or 3 (Dykes), followed by another step back in the year after the bowl.
In terms of the state of the program they were taking over, WSU is more like Purdue, though Leach had much more HC experience, and experience at the P5 level. Cal was in better shape - probably closer to where Purdue was when Tiller left - program in decline after a long stretch of success, only going to 2 bowl games in the last 4 years
Based on that, I think Purdue might be in for a ROUGH season in 2017, followed by a gradual upward trajectory, though perhaps only 2 bowl games in the first 5 years.
The wins may not be there in year one.........but I bet we are a hell of a lot more competitive in most games. At least (I feel) we will be fun to watch! Haven't been able to say that In a long time...........
Last edited:
Just be wary of underestimating the hole the program might be in. Hazell certainly wasn't capable of running a program, but that doesn't mean he's completely incompetent. He may have been able to put bandaids on problems, though certainly problems of his own making, that people may be unaware of.
overall, I believe you're correct in your assessment. It's abundantly ridiculous to look back at known results and say, "Tiller had X, so he had Y results. Brohm doesn't have X, so he won't have Z results." That's just silly.
Nobody believed Tiller would have the success he had. Nobody.
Ahhh . . . "Purdumb". You just showed your hand: with that comment you showed weakness and a lost argument. I don't care who your "friends" are, make believe or not. And if you need "Chukky" to argue your battles, send him over, but he'll probably just laugh at you.
Logic is hard. And it seems to be wearing on you.
Your position weak, so you're trying to change my point. Brohm is inheriting just as I said, a series of very poorly ranked recruiting classes JUST LIKE TILLER. Period. That point cannot be argued, but keep on trying.
You want to use known outcomes to compare to unknown outcomes. It's not an intelligent play.
What's more, you're showing how uninformed you are.
Matt Light was a FR reserve TE in 1996. He didn't play in 1997 due to injury. He bulked up and was moved to OT in 1998. I know I'm just "Purdumb" (nice insult to the fan base, by the way), but he didn't play a part of the turnaround of 1997.
Oops. So, I have a "mis or un-informed mouth..."
And you?
Now . . . if you want to talk about the brilliance of Tiller moving players to take advantage of their strengths vis-a-vis Tiller's teams weaknesses, and the resulting successes that came, that's a different conversation. But that's not what you were arguing.
It's really very simple.....Those plyers left over for Tiller had more meat on the bone then BRHOM will have.
Chunky says hello!
well... you convinced me.
Well, not really.
But, hey, it save you from having a seriously thoughtful discussion.
The Haze's 3 classes were ranked 13, 14, and 13, in the B1G. Worse than Colletto. Fact.
Be careful New Pal Boiler...Purdue85 is certain he is right and so many including you....are wrong!!!
as opposed to you? Yeah, you don't have conviction of your opinions, eh?!
goodness, Bippus, your obsession with me is duly noted!
2/10/92Randy Peppler
After late signings of top recruits by MSU and Illinois, and
Purdue's loss of Kevin Lyles, recruiting guru Tom Lemming ranked
Purdue 8th in the Big Ten in his preliminary rankings.
Lemming said: "They [the Purdue coaching staff] worked really hard at
it, they gave a great effort, but they came second on a lot of top
players in Indiana [this is sounding too familiar]. The staff is
extremely hard working, and Colletto's got an excellent recruiting
coordinator (Frank Dorazio). They just had things fall the wrong way
this year. Next year, if they recruit with the same effort, the same
attitude, the same vision, they'll probably have an excellent year."
Jim Colletto was very upset at the "negative" recruiting going on.
"There's a tremendous amount of negative recruiting that goes on.
Unfortunately, that shouldn't happen but it does. Rather than selling
their own school, they have to try to create dobut in high school
players' minds by degrading other institutions." Its not just saying
that a certain institutions' facilities aren't as good, or that they
already have alot of players at that position, and quoting past
records but its down right dirty stuff. Colletto wouldn't name
specific instituions [it is well known that Michigan is a big
offender] but he is thinking about discussing the matter with
conference officials.
Lou Holtz echoed Colletto's remarks saying "As far as negative recruiting,
its unbelievable what goes on today. Everything that can possibly be
turned around negatively is."
Lemming's rankings: 1. Ohio State (6th nationally)
2. Michigan (7th nationally)
3. Wisconsin (about 20th)
4. Indiana (about 20-25)
5. Illinois
6. Iowa
7. Michigan State
8. Purdue
9. Northwestern
10. Minnesota
There were 10 schools in the Big Ten in 1992, so 8th wouldn't be last, or even next to last.
http://www.nwitimes.com/uncategoriz...cle_081b1681-3bf3-5a24-ad7c-00ef68a399d5.html
Ranked 9th out of 11 in 1993. So again, not last or next to last.
I find it comical you're trying to say Hazell sucked more than Colletto.
You're in a race to the bottom. It's pointless.
Colletto's recruiting classes sucked. So did DH's.
You seem hellbent on arguing. Yours is a fool's errand.
Never said Colletto's classes were good. Just that they were all better than the Haze's.
No . . . no, that's not true.
I made the following statement: "Colletto's recruiting classes were always at the bottom, and the talent was widely considered to be well below B1G standards!"
And you felt it necessary to follow up with: "True, but he did leave Tiller 2 NFL pass rushers and 2 NFL tackles."
So, you agreed with me.
But then you made the mistake of taking a known outcome (the results of Tiller's talent, years later) and comparing it to an unknown outcome (Brohm's talent, today).
That's not analysis of classes, that's laziness of knowing the outcome of some of the players Tiller inherited vs what the current classes will accomplish.
I've already dispelled that myth by focusing on a specific example. The reality is, none of us know what Brohm will do with the talent on the current roster. Not you, not me, and not my latest admirer, the bipster . . . !
You said most of Colletto's classes were dead last, like Hazells. As usual, you were wrong.
Amen! Haven't the past 4 years been tough enough without us arguing the difference between awful and putrid. Perhaps some of the passion for change on this board caused the administration to reverse its position on the unimportance of having a winning football program that will endure.
Once again let's go back to the original post.....Line play...and we all have watched DH teams get pushed around...Collector's teams lacked skilled players... obviously from day one..Tiller did not experience the void of talent that BRHOM will. As a Purdue fan I to hope that BRHOM coaches,develpoes and can scheme this team to multiple wins.who knows....maybe even back to back wins.....
Odds of a Tiller type turn-around next year are long.
It's nuts how long we have gone without knowing what even that feels like. It's a good thing Brohm likes a challenge because he sure as heck has one for this upcoming year.
It's nuts how long we have gone without knowing what even that feels like. It's a good thing Brohm likes a challenge because he sure as heck has one for this upcoming year.
