Danny Etling completed 11-of-24 passes for 149 yards and a touchdown during Purdue's jersey scrimmage Saturday.
Austin Appleby connected on 14-of-18 throws for 129 yards.
By my unofficial calculations, that means Appleby finished training camp with a better completion percentage (66 to 56) and fewer interceptions (one vs. five) during team periods that we watched.
Not that any of that matters.
Etling is Purdue's starting quarterback, has been since the end of the season. Even if Darrell Hazell, John Shoop and anyone else inside the program never wanted to publicly admit it.
Despite being thrown in the fire in 2013, Etling grew up and got better as the season progressed. He may not have won a game, but only so much can be on his shoulders considering the pressure he was under and he was an 18-year-old. And he had his redshirt pulled to do to it. Then, in the spring, Etling had zero interceptions.
He did not do anything to lose that job.
He deserves to start the season opener. And, my prediction, is he will be named the starter.
So why act like this is a race?
Perhaps this is simply about sending a message ? using the team's most important position to show how imperative competition is toward overall team improvement and that no spot on the roster is safe ? and less about it being an actual battle.
Perhaps there was a fear Appleby would react poorly or, even, bolt if he wasn't chosen and leave Purdue without a relatively experienced insurance option.
Here's the rub with the latter: Appleby does not have a personality to concede or let up. He'd strictly consider it a slight, an affront to his talent level, and work even harder to prove coaches wrong. Just like he did last year when Shoop even mentioned he thought Appleby actually got better during the season ? when he didn't play in games ? something Shoop said he hadn't seen before. Appleby thinks he's the best quarterback on the roster ? Etling believes the same thing about himself, by the way, even if he doesn't say it as openly ? and that he will get his turn.
But did he ever have a real chance? If this was an actual competition for the starting spot, what were some of the supposed the factors?
For sake of argument, let's use two that Shoop so highly values from the position: Being completion-driven and taking care of the football. If this competition was seriously close this camp ? as Hazell continually has said, even altering his plan to name a starter by adding an extra week before choosing ? then statistics that support those two factors should matter at least some, right? Not the end-all but any means but at least play a role.
Not only did Appleby have a higher overall completion percentage and fewer interceptions, he fared better with the first-team offense against the first-team defense.
Etling was 29-of-58 (50 percent) with the 1s and 38-of-64 (59 percent) with the No. 2 offense. It's rare ? not sure it happened at all, actually ? that the first team unit goes against the second team unit during team periods in camp. Three of his interceptions were against the No. 2s, two against the 1s. Appleby was 39-of-62 (62 percent) with the 1s and completed 70 percent with the 2s. (If you factor drops into those equations ? use "quarterback stats" as a former coach would say ? both of those numbers for each guy would go up.)
No one would have cared about those numbers if this weren't deemed a competition. They would have simply been able to accept that Etling had a slow start to camp but seemed to finish strong and could take that momentum into the season. Instead, the numbers can serve as overanalyzed talking points, easily dissectible and debatable aspects of a camp that really didn't have a debate.
Based on those numbers and, of course, some intangibles both share ? a seemingly good grasp of the offense, some leadership qualities in terms of toughness and setting examples with work ethic, a willingness to study ridiculous amounts of film, etc. ? Appleby should have a chance to be named the starter when Hazell announces Monday.
Here are just a couple pieces of "evidence" ? also known as things-I'm-reading-too-much-into ? on why he won't be and why I think Etling is the guy:
No. 1) When asked in the second week of camp which quarterback had the best completion percentage, Hazell said he didn't know. If completions were so important in quarterback play, which Shoop appears to think they are, wouldn't Hazell know where the guys stood? Maybe he did and just didn't want to tell reporters, and he could have said just that. He's done it before.
Maybe, though, it didn't matter who had better completion numbers because the decision already had been made.
No. 2) After getting relatively equal first-team snaps the first week of camp by allowing each QB one full practice with that unit, the approach was switched up for Week 2. And it wasn't necessarily equal. If it were a competition, wouldn't you want to see the No. 2 guy get more reps with the 1s? Or at least similar reps, being able to throw it on a third-and-10 drill, for example, or being able to be allowed to make a play instead of blowing the whistle for a premature sack?
No. 3) Least-scientific: It's just a feeling from interviews with Hazell and Shoop that Etling is their choice. They've never explicitly said. It's just the way they talk about Etling and how much they like him, not just as a potentially great quarterback but as a person, the way he carries himself, how much he values film study, how he can have a tendency to be all-football, how important success is to him. (By the way, I agree with all of that: He seems to be a phenomenal young man.)
They don't speak poorly of Appleby, but it's sometimes in what isn't said. It's when Hazell has responded to being asked about Appleby with "they," lumping Appleby together with David Blough. There's even been a "the other guy" reference, which never seems good. Again, not implying they think Appleby is a bad representative of the program or isn't a hard-working, level-headed guy, which he is. Just a feeling is all.
Those are just some of my impressions, anyway, of why it's never really been a true competition.
And, to be clear, in my mind, it should not have been.
Etling deserves another chance to show that he can be better after a year of swimming, sometimes drowning, against big-time competition as a teenager. With a non-conference schedule that's much more manageable, better command of the offense and especially its pass protections, there is little reason Etling should fail in that portion of the season.
If he falters then, if Purdue does not win three of its first four games, well, that's for another time ...
For now, though, Etling is Purdue's guy.
This post was edited on 8/17 1:44 PM by Stacy_GoldandBlack.com
Austin Appleby connected on 14-of-18 throws for 129 yards.
By my unofficial calculations, that means Appleby finished training camp with a better completion percentage (66 to 56) and fewer interceptions (one vs. five) during team periods that we watched.
Not that any of that matters.
Etling is Purdue's starting quarterback, has been since the end of the season. Even if Darrell Hazell, John Shoop and anyone else inside the program never wanted to publicly admit it.
Despite being thrown in the fire in 2013, Etling grew up and got better as the season progressed. He may not have won a game, but only so much can be on his shoulders considering the pressure he was under and he was an 18-year-old. And he had his redshirt pulled to do to it. Then, in the spring, Etling had zero interceptions.
He did not do anything to lose that job.
He deserves to start the season opener. And, my prediction, is he will be named the starter.
So why act like this is a race?
Perhaps this is simply about sending a message ? using the team's most important position to show how imperative competition is toward overall team improvement and that no spot on the roster is safe ? and less about it being an actual battle.
Perhaps there was a fear Appleby would react poorly or, even, bolt if he wasn't chosen and leave Purdue without a relatively experienced insurance option.
Here's the rub with the latter: Appleby does not have a personality to concede or let up. He'd strictly consider it a slight, an affront to his talent level, and work even harder to prove coaches wrong. Just like he did last year when Shoop even mentioned he thought Appleby actually got better during the season ? when he didn't play in games ? something Shoop said he hadn't seen before. Appleby thinks he's the best quarterback on the roster ? Etling believes the same thing about himself, by the way, even if he doesn't say it as openly ? and that he will get his turn.
But did he ever have a real chance? If this was an actual competition for the starting spot, what were some of the supposed the factors?
For sake of argument, let's use two that Shoop so highly values from the position: Being completion-driven and taking care of the football. If this competition was seriously close this camp ? as Hazell continually has said, even altering his plan to name a starter by adding an extra week before choosing ? then statistics that support those two factors should matter at least some, right? Not the end-all but any means but at least play a role.
Not only did Appleby have a higher overall completion percentage and fewer interceptions, he fared better with the first-team offense against the first-team defense.
Etling was 29-of-58 (50 percent) with the 1s and 38-of-64 (59 percent) with the No. 2 offense. It's rare ? not sure it happened at all, actually ? that the first team unit goes against the second team unit during team periods in camp. Three of his interceptions were against the No. 2s, two against the 1s. Appleby was 39-of-62 (62 percent) with the 1s and completed 70 percent with the 2s. (If you factor drops into those equations ? use "quarterback stats" as a former coach would say ? both of those numbers for each guy would go up.)
No one would have cared about those numbers if this weren't deemed a competition. They would have simply been able to accept that Etling had a slow start to camp but seemed to finish strong and could take that momentum into the season. Instead, the numbers can serve as overanalyzed talking points, easily dissectible and debatable aspects of a camp that really didn't have a debate.
Based on those numbers and, of course, some intangibles both share ? a seemingly good grasp of the offense, some leadership qualities in terms of toughness and setting examples with work ethic, a willingness to study ridiculous amounts of film, etc. ? Appleby should have a chance to be named the starter when Hazell announces Monday.
Here are just a couple pieces of "evidence" ? also known as things-I'm-reading-too-much-into ? on why he won't be and why I think Etling is the guy:
No. 1) When asked in the second week of camp which quarterback had the best completion percentage, Hazell said he didn't know. If completions were so important in quarterback play, which Shoop appears to think they are, wouldn't Hazell know where the guys stood? Maybe he did and just didn't want to tell reporters, and he could have said just that. He's done it before.
Maybe, though, it didn't matter who had better completion numbers because the decision already had been made.
No. 2) After getting relatively equal first-team snaps the first week of camp by allowing each QB one full practice with that unit, the approach was switched up for Week 2. And it wasn't necessarily equal. If it were a competition, wouldn't you want to see the No. 2 guy get more reps with the 1s? Or at least similar reps, being able to throw it on a third-and-10 drill, for example, or being able to be allowed to make a play instead of blowing the whistle for a premature sack?
No. 3) Least-scientific: It's just a feeling from interviews with Hazell and Shoop that Etling is their choice. They've never explicitly said. It's just the way they talk about Etling and how much they like him, not just as a potentially great quarterback but as a person, the way he carries himself, how much he values film study, how he can have a tendency to be all-football, how important success is to him. (By the way, I agree with all of that: He seems to be a phenomenal young man.)
They don't speak poorly of Appleby, but it's sometimes in what isn't said. It's when Hazell has responded to being asked about Appleby with "they," lumping Appleby together with David Blough. There's even been a "the other guy" reference, which never seems good. Again, not implying they think Appleby is a bad representative of the program or isn't a hard-working, level-headed guy, which he is. Just a feeling is all.
Those are just some of my impressions, anyway, of why it's never really been a true competition.
And, to be clear, in my mind, it should not have been.
Etling deserves another chance to show that he can be better after a year of swimming, sometimes drowning, against big-time competition as a teenager. With a non-conference schedule that's much more manageable, better command of the offense and especially its pass protections, there is little reason Etling should fail in that portion of the season.
If he falters then, if Purdue does not win three of its first four games, well, that's for another time ...
For now, though, Etling is Purdue's guy.
This post was edited on 8/17 1:44 PM by Stacy_GoldandBlack.com
