I appreciate your passion for Purdue football and your critical eye in not assuming that the shiny new coach is automatically better than the old one.
I do not appreciate your assault on the English language or your assumptions about players who have not even stepped on the practice field yet.
If the previous guy was such a bad recruiter, why would the new guy failing to "retain what he was given" be a terrible thing?
I wasn't an English major and never took typing or data input classes that current students take. I make no apologies for my typing or spelling mistakes or misuse of the English language. I don't swear or usually have my words censured. .
it wasn't me that said I faulted Brohm for not keeping Hazell's recruits. If given the opportunity, I'd name another 20 players I'd love to see cut and play elsewhere. My criticism of Brohm is if Hazell's recruits were not good enough to get the job done, and they were 3* athletes, I'd want to replace them with better recruits
I've followed the national recruiting services for the past 10 years. Since I don't have the time or money to see someone other than m y son personally compete, I trust a national rating of a player verses a personal one. It's been said by many on this board and by national analysts that Hazell's recruits just weren't talented enough to win. It's been said our recruiting classes have ranked in the bottom 2 of the BIG 10 for the last 5 years. Those are not my opinions, but rather they were expressed by a lot of professional sports analysts. others have criticized me in the past for being critical of 2* high school athletes who have never played a game for Purdue. I'm not critical of them or their rating. I didn't give them their rating. So somebody else was more critical of their performance than I was. if we praise somebody like Potts for having a 4* rating, should we praise and be kind to the athlete who has a 2* rating as well?
I'm more critical of Purdue coaches for recruiting the same players MAC, MVC and other FCS teams are recruiting. I want and believe Purdue should concentrate their efforts on the players other power 5 teams are recruiting. the time to look for hidden nuggets and trying to develop them is a strategy for the 80's. Today's high school athletes are a lot more capable and developed than they were back then. Teams like Alabama recruit athletes that are good enough to start and star as freshmen. When I'm critical of a high school athlete, yes I look at the stars. Somebody who actually knows something about football gave that assessment, and I respect their judgement and I believe most coaches do as well. What frustrates me most and I become most critical is when I see Purdue signing somebody whose best other offer was Western Illinois. and I ask, why were we recruiting this person in the first place when no other power 5 team was interested ? to me, the other school offerings a recruit has received is even more important than a star rating.
and yes, I was very critical of Purdue for not offering a scholarship to Cronk. it's not because he was a 3* lineman or because of his great size or because he was from West Lafayette and played for a state championship team at CC and expressed an interest in wanting to play for Purdue. What frustrated me most was he was an athlete that received offers from several other BIG 10 and other power 5 schools, yet for some reason he was not good enough for Hazell to even give him an offer, but some other 2* guy with offers to Marshall and Middle Tenn St was good enough to sign.
I received academic scholarship offers from UW, Northwestern and Purdue What I'd like to see is Purdue athletics doing the same thing: give offers to athletes who are also considering playing for other power 5 schools. Take a look at our commitments for the last 5 years. and then look at the other offers they received. It's obvious why they accepted our offer. Last week, I took a glance at the Nebraska rivals site and looked at the offers they gave out. They gave out twice as many offers as Purdue did, and It was very hard to find any 2 * athletes receiving an offer or being a target. the vast majority of their offers went to 4 * athletes. I want Purdue to compete. I want Purdue to win. but to do so, Purdue needs to start recruiting the same players other BIG 10 teams recruit rather than the ones Eastern Kentucky and Central Michigan recruit.
Look at Purdue basketball. they recruit the same players OSU, IU, MSU, UW, and Mich recruit. they don't go after the players ISU, Central Mich, and Wis -Milwaukee go after. and as a result, Purdue basketball is successful. I just have a hard time understanding why Purdue football doesn't follow that same philosophy and why we recruit as if we're a MAC team.
Replogle and Panfil were the best of their class. but the reality is, to be successful in the current BIG 10 with Penn St, Neb and Maryland, Purdue needs to find players who are even better. What worked for Tiller no longer works in today's college football. Today's teams win with talent. Elite talent. I'd like to see Brohm focus his actions going after that elite talent rather than finding players to fill holes. he has to start that process sometime. Why not today? Why wait until next year. I can accept the fact, that no 4/5* athlete is probably that excited or interested in coming to Purdue this year. But that doesn't mean we should accept failure and not at least make an effort. . if Potts was really interested in ND and IU, don't you believe he would have signed by now? and there are many other 4* athletes out there. but they will never consider Purdue if we do not first reach out to them. That's all I'm really asking and expect. make the effort and extend an offer. I hope Brohm at least talked to Werner and Yeast. I don't expect him to flip either player, but I expect him to at least have tried.