ADVERTISEMENT

"Purdue so worried about getting beat over the top that when the wide receiver makes his break...

BoilermakerD

All-American
Apr 18, 2010
4,976
1,135
113
There's no one within 5 yards of him."

That's Hudson and hazel saying that because they don't think we can win one on one match ups with Mac receivers deep....

WE ARE WILLING TO GIVE UP EVERYTHING ELSE
 
There's no one within 5 yards of him."

That's Hudson and hazel saying that because they don't think we can win one on one match ups with Mac receivers deep....

WE ARE WILLING TO GIVE UP EVERYTHING ELSE
Stacey from GBI stated in the post game radio show that they were NOT using a prevent defense (stated several times) but rather it was the plan all week to give them everything underneath and protect against the long ball.
Sorry - but isn't that a prevent defense?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rgarlitz
Stacey from GBI stated in the post game radio show that they were NOT using a prevent defense (stated several times) but rather it was the plan all week to give them everything underneath and protect against the long ball.
Sorry - but isn't that a prevent defense?
Yeah I heard that too. Just because you plan to do it ahead of time doesn't mean its not a prevent defense.

Even worse than that, it's a tacit admission that we haven't recruited any DBs that can stay with MAC receivers. Or pass rushers that can beat MAC O-Linemen.

Not good.
 
Last edited:
Well BG is 3-0 vs their last three B1G oponents. Just sayin.....I think everyone need to get over this idea that MAC players shouldn't be better than B1G players. Reality is some are and end up in the NFL. The other reality is that some MAC schools also have better Head Coaches than some B1G schools. I can think of one.
 
Well BG is 3-0 vs their last three B1G oponents. Just sayin.....I think everyone need to get over this idea that MAC players shouldn't be better than B1G players. Reality is some are and end up in the NFL. The other reality is that some MAC schools also have better Head Coaches than some B1G schools. I can think of one.

BG beat Maryland. Maryland and Purdue might be the worst teams in the Big Ten. The MAC and smaller conferences have been sending players to the NFL for decades, that's nothing new.

It's still showing how bad a team like Purdue is though. Purdue's lost to 5 MAC teams in the last 10 years. From 1985-2005, Purdue lost to 3 MAC teams (out of 19 games).

Some MAC teams are ok teams, there's no doubt about it. But it's no different than smaller schools in basketball - they have limited talent and little depth. Western Michigan's recent recruiting class was considered the MACs "best recruiting class" since 2000. It was ranked 59th in the country.

So no, that's not a level that should be eclipsing Big Ten schools (and yes, that recruiting class was better than Purdue's!). Pointing out the MAC has some good players and good coaches is wonderful. But the problem is not that - it's that Purdue's gotten so bad that our recruiting classes have been ranked as low as 72nd!
 
BG beat Maryland. Maryland and Purdue might be the worst teams in the Big Ten. The MAC and smaller conferences have been sending players to the NFL for decades, that's nothing new.

It's still showing how bad a team like Purdue is though. Purdue's lost to 5 MAC teams in the last 10 years. From 1985-2005, Purdue lost to 3 MAC teams (out of 19 games).

Some MAC teams are ok teams, there's no doubt about it. But it's no different than smaller schools in basketball - they have limited talent and little depth. Western Michigan's recent recruiting class was considered the MACs "best recruiting class" since 2000. It was ranked 59th in the country.

So no, that's not a level that should be eclipsing Big Ten schools (and yes, that recruiting class was better than Purdue's!). Pointing out the MAC has some good players and good coaches is wonderful. But the problem is not that - it's that Purdue's gotten so bad that our recruiting classes have been ranked as low as 72nd!

Is it bad that when you said 'As low as 72nd' and I thought to myself....damn, we weren't ranked lower than 72nd?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pu1985
There's no one within 5 yards of him."

That's Hudson and hazel saying that because they don't think we can win one on one match ups with Mac receivers deep....

WE ARE WILLING TO GIVE UP EVERYTHING ELSE
We should have rushed one or two then so we would had more DB's and the QB could have had 10 seconds instead of 6-7. WTF? Is the coaching staff that clueless?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Redhotfill
Stacey from GBI stated in the post game radio show that they were NOT using a prevent defense (stated several times) but rather it was the plan all week to give them everything underneath and protect against the long ball.
Sorry - but isn't that a prevent defense?

I never said it was an "ok were up ten with 1:53 left" type prevent.

Basically they think you're dumb and they're willing to do worse, whether they know it or not to keep the facade going.

Look, to the average fan... 90% of people who tune in... You can give up 100 fewer yards, but get beat deep twice and end up on sports center with a BGSU receiver strutting into the end zone and you actually look WORSE.

So of COURSE THEY PLANNED THET AHEAD. Cause they think you (not you personally, mr. Average viewer) are an idiot.

Why not press and make them beat you deep? Well, just like teaching post foot work in basketball... It's harder!
 
Here's the thing though.....you aren't going to lock down that offense. It's just not possible. That QB and offense is just that good.

That said, the scheme WAS good enough to win....it's just that execution and mental errors kept them from winning. If you think our D should come out and pitch a shut out vs. a team like that....you aren't living in reality. Outside of the TD drive to end the half and the drive to end the game, the defense was vastly better than average. They put the team in a position to win. It was the goal line offense, place kicking and several mental lapses by D players that led to this loss....not necessarily the scheme.
 
  • Like
Reactions: njm8845
No that's the coach apologist line of bs. You make teams prove it over the top. If they beat you they beat you at 35 yards not at 5-10 all day.

Michigan had as much talent as osu in 03 but did much better than us by pressing and pressuring. We get pressure. If our corners are any good we should make teams prove it
 
  • Like
Reactions: FLAG HUNTER
No that's the coach apologist line of bs. You make teams prove it over the top. If they beat you they beat you at 35 yards not at 5-10 all day.

Michigan had as much talent as osu in 03 but did much better than us by pressing and pressuring. We get pressure. If our corners are any good we should make teams prove it

No...its fact. We win if the D has discipline on the last drive and the O cashes in on 1 of our 2 missed opportunities. We didn't because we suck...and that's the coaches fault.

There's no pulling punches here. I'm not a coaches apologist. What we were running was working....and would have worked minus ALL of the personal foul penalties. I think BG gained less than 30 yards on that last drive. we gave them 45 in penalties. THAT is what hurt us. Not the scheme.
 
No...its fact. We win if the D has discipline on the last drive and the O cashes in on 1 of our 2 missed opportunities. We didn't because we suck...and that's the coaches fault.

There's no pulling punches here. I'm not a coaches apologist. What we were running was working....and would have worked minus ALL of the personal foul penalties. I think BG gained less than 30 yards on that last drive. we gave them 45 in penalties. THAT is what hurt us. Not the scheme.

What we were running was getting by for portions of the game. The optimal approach was to make them prove it deep. This offense was well timed and well executed, and let's not forget our offense and the fact that run tackling was awful, but this offense was not the BGSU scheme with Braylon Edwards in it. If our corners are good seniors and we don't make them pass the test, what good is it?
 
The part of the scheme that didn't work was when we got them in 3rd and long, we decided to rush 3 guys and put no pressure on the QB.

If hazell and company had recruited some stud D linemen that can collapse the pocket, it would have worked. But obviously they haven't.
 
The part of the scheme that didn't work was when we got them in 3rd and long, we decided to rush 3 guys and put no pressure on the QB.

If hazell and company had recruited some stud D linemen that can collapse the pocket, it would have worked. But obviously they haven't.

Can agree with this. When we rushed 4, the scheme looked vastly better.
 
The part of the scheme that didn't work was when we got them in 3rd and long, we decided to rush 3 guys and put no pressure on the QB.

If hazell and company had recruited some stud D linemen that can collapse the pocket, it would have worked. But obviously they haven't.

But when we rushed four we got enough pressure that long throws against press would have been difficult to connect on too
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT