Rivals: Here are 10 things you need to know after Purdue’s 34-13 loss to TCU

[TopFrog]

Ten things you need to know about Purdue's 34-13 loss to TCU

Tom Dienhart • GoldandBlack
@TomDienhart1

PDF: Purdue-TCU statistics

Here are 10 things you need to know after Purdue’s 34-13 loss to TCU.

1. To say Purdue’s offense struggled would be a colossal understatement. In the first quarter, the attack had no first downs and no yards on five drives and trailed 10-3. And, it never got better after that. Purdue finished with 204 yards. And only 23 of those came on the ground. Three games into the season, and Purdue has rushed 72 times for 150 yards (2.1 ypc) and one TD. Is this as good as it’s going to get on the ground?

“On offense, we have to be able to run block and execute better,” said Jeff Brohm. “And special teams. It just kind of a complete lackluster day. Excuse me that’s even too polite. It was a dismal day for all of us. And it’s something that should hurt us. And it will see what we are made of. We have a lot of work to do. We have a lot of good football teams to play the rest of the year.”

Read more at https://purdue.rivals.com/news/purdue-boilermakers-football-10-things-you-need-to-know-1

 

[notyalc]

Funny they compare us to a BIG Ten team cuz stomped'em on defense and ran the ball up the gut. I guess if we were like a Big 12 team we'd have a passing game.

 

[VA Froggie]

I loved the interviews with the Purdue players, “ we missed a couple of tackles, they ran the ball in the third quarter better as we were a little tired”. I guess what are they supposed to say, maybe wow TCU is a great football team and we had our butts handed to us.

 

[Palliative Care]

That would be nice to hear for a change. But Big 10 egos must be be spared the thought that a Big 12 program actually kicked their behinds.

 

[CountryFrog]

I loved the interviews with the Purdue players, “ we missed a couple of tackles, they ran the ball in the third quarter better as we were a little tired”. I guess what are they supposed to say, maybe wow TCU is a great football team and we had our butts handed to us.

I don't think there's anything wrong with players having that perspective. You've got to believe as a player that you can beat anybody you face if you play good football. So when you don't win then you're always going to look at the things you did wrong as the reason for losing.

Now, you can certainly take that too far, i.e. RG3 calling their 40 point loss to the Frogs "a fluke."

 

[Wexahu]

I don't think there's anything wrong with players having that perspective. You've got to believe as a player that you can beat anybody you face if you play good football. So when you don't win then you're always going to look at the things you did wrong as the reason for losing.

Now, you can certainly take that too far, i.e. RG3 calling their 40 point loss to the Frogs "a fluke."

Knee jerk reactions are funny. Now since we beat Purdue everyone should think we are a great football team? Still a lot to prove before anyone should think we have a "great" team. We played a middle-of-the-pack Big 10 West team who was missing about 5 starters, including their QB and best defensive player, and we beat them in convincing fashion. What does that mean? I'm not sure but I'm not willing to call us a great team, or even a "good" team yet until we play a few more games.

BTW, responding to VAFroggie, not you as i agree with your point.

 

[TX_Krötenechse]

In honesty, them saying we played like a Big 10 team is probably the biggest compliment they can give us

 

[WIN]

Yes their quarterback was out so they played a redshirt freshman, but could you imagine us rolling out Duggan as a redshirt freshman?

 

[Froggish]

I don't think there's anything wrong with players having that perspective. You've got to believe as a player that you can beat anybody you face if you play good football. So when you don't win then you're always going to look at the things you did wrong as the reason for losing.

Now, you can certainly take that too far, i.e. RG3 calling their 40 point loss to the Frogs "a fluke."

Football fans everywhere say the same stuff..We all made a million excuses for why we only won 7 games last year..SR picks, to many injuries, and plain bad luck....It’s not that those excuses are wrong, it’s that nobody gives a [ Finebaum ] but the guy making them..

If I’m Purdue I would also be thinking it would have been a whole different game with My QB + 2 other starters and best defender healthy..There’s a good chance we still don’t know if we are any good. Having said that, if we get to face teams all year who aren’t at their best I’ll take it..

 

[Wexahu]

Football fans everywhere say the same stuff..We all made a million excuses for why we only won 7 games last year..SR picks, to many injuries, and plain bad luck....It’s not that those excuses are wrong, it’s that nobody gives a [ steaming pile of Orgeron ] but the guy making them..

If I’m Purdue I would also be thinking it would have been a whole different game with My QB + 2 other starters and best defender healthy..There’s a good chance we still don’t know if we are any good. Having said that, if we get to face teams all year who aren’t at their best I’ll take it..

Yes, I'm 100% sure if we were missing Blacklock, Wallow, Cordel, and had a first-time starter at QB and had been thoroughly beaten by Purdue, we wouldn't be calling them a great team. We'd be saying the game would have been totally different had those players been healthy. It's what college football fans do, ours included.

 

[funkytownfrog]

I agree with why they are saying that and, if their starting QB was playing, it would have been a closer game.

However it highlights our depth.

We played a freshman QB, they played a redshirt freshman QB.

CBs out: Lewis, Daniels, Wallace
LBs out: Montreal Wilson, Ben Wilson
WRs out: Taye Barber, Mikel Barkley

That is four starters.

We played a freshman 4 th string CB, a freshman 3rd string LB, and a few guys who are allegedly wide receivers.

 

[jake102]

Yeh... we weren’t missing as much as them, but if you look at where we struggled (WRs), kind of makes sense we were missing our second and third best WR. Not insignificant. And of course missing our starter at CB and his backup.

 

[Wexahu]

I agree with why they are saying that and, if their starting QB was playing, it would have been a closer game.

However it highlights our depth.

We played a freshman QB, they played a redshirt freshman QB.

CBs out: Lewis, Daniels, Wallace
LBs out: Montreal Wilson, Ben Wilson
WRs out: Taye Barber, Mikel Barkley

That is four starters.

We played a freshman 4 th string CB, a freshman 3rd string LB, and a few guys who are allegedly wide receivers.

We wouldn't know what string those guys are unless everyone was healthy. And I don't think Montrel Wilson was ever going to start. Same for Barkley, calling him a "starter" is probably a stretch. Calling any WR a starter besides Reagor and Barber is probably a stretch since they are all kind of interchangeable at this point. And I'd be highly surprised if Stewart is ever anything below 2nd string the remainder of his career so calling him a 4th stringer is a real stretch. Last year we supposedly had 35+ kids hurt or whatever when the most anyone could count was about 18, yada yada yada.

This kind of proves the point, fans always embellish the injury situation to tell a better story.

 

[funkytownfrog]

Maybe I'm mistaken. I thought Montrel, Barber and Barkley were going to start. I also thought Daniels and Wallace were ahead of Stewart.

In any event, I like the depth we are building on defense.

 

[CountryFrog]

Here's the thing about this game. Both teams had injuries. To my knowledge, none of Purdue's significant injuries were on their OL or DL. The lines are where they got their arses handed to them for 60 minutes. That wouldn't have been any different with their QB or other injured guys playing.

I understand why Purdue fans would talk about injuries. It's the most predictable thing in the world, especially since their QB was one of them. If both teams had been 100% healthy, though, there's no reason to think we wouldn't have still won by 3 or 4 TD's.

 

[Moose Stuff]

Yes, I'm 100% sure if we were missing Blacklock, Wallow, Cordel, and had a first-time starter at QB and had been thoroughly beaten by Purdue, we wouldn't be calling them a great team. We'd be saying the game would have been totally different had those players been healthy. It's what college football fans do, ours included.

We had that last year and then some. We were thoroughly beaten twice by a good team and a really good team (WV) and OU) and won 4-5 to end the year. Just some perspective.

 

[Wexahu]

Here's the thing about this game. Both teams had injuries. To my knowledge, none of Purdue's significant injuries were on their OL or DL. The lines are where they got their arses handed to them for 60 minutes. That wouldn't have been any different with their QB or other injured guys playing.

I understand why Purdue fans would talk about injuries. It's the most predictable thing in the world, especially since their QB was one of them. If both teams had been 100% healthy, though, there's no reason to think we wouldn't have still won by 3 or 4 TD's.

Their best D-lineman, Lorenzo Neal, hasn't played yet this year, not sure when he's expected back. They were also missing a starting O-lineman, McCann I believe was his name. Not saying it made much of a difference, I would guess missing their best D-tackle had some degree of effect, but there were more than a few posters on here saying the reason we couldn't run the ball consistently in 2017 was because Patrick Morris was out and the reason we couldn't last year was because we were missing Cordel for a good chunk of the season.

Every single fan base tends to talk up their own injuries and ignore everyone else's, that's just the way it is.

 

[SuperTFrog]

Knee jerk reactions are funny. Now since we beat Purdue everyone should think we are a great football team? Still a lot to prove before anyone should think we have a "great" team. We played a middle-of-the-pack Big 10 West team who was missing about 5 starters, including their QB and best defensive player, and we beat them in convincing fashion. What does that mean? I'm not sure but I'm not willing to call us a great team, or even a "good" team yet until we play a few more games.

BTW, responding to VAFroggie, not you as i agree with your point.

Wexahu with a post defending the Big 10. I DID NOT see that one coming.

 

[Wexahu]

Wexahu with a post defending the Big 10. I DID NOT see that one coming.

Man, what a reach. How in the hell does that post defend the Big 10?

 

[SuperTFrog]

Man, what a reach. How in the hell does that post defend the Big 10?

We won...but against a middle of the road big 10 team that was depleted by injuries.

Imagine what would happen if we had to play a big 10 team at full strength. If this was your first post regarding the big 10, nobody would care. When it is your 1,000th, we all get it.