KoB2011

https://twitter.com/ballysportsnor/status/1593070635197997058?s=46&t=61vHOtbnlV8jAFkHLyTfZg You can say a lot about Crean but it has always been incredibly obvious the way he loves his players. He’s a good dude.

Sure these things will always have an element of hindsight, but if we get 1-2 years of JHS leading us to top ten teams and then his scholarship is used for a good replacement I’d take that over a 4 year guy like Smith. And I like Smith a lot but he’s years away from being the reason Purdue is a top ten team, if he ever gets that good individually. Also have to factor in that in todays environment with the portal and NIL there’s really no such thing as knowing you’re recruiting a solid 4 year guy.

20 years ago I'd have probably agreed with this, but in today's world if you can replace JHS (because it's an incomplete comparison if you don't factor that in), then I think I'd take the year of JHS every time.

Titans @ Packers (-3) Browns @ Bills (-8.5) Bears @ Falcons (-3) Eagles (-6.5) @ Colts Panthers @ Ravens (-12) Jets @ Patriots (-3) Lions @ Giants (-3) Rams @ Saints (-4) Commanders (-3) @ Texans Raiders @ Broncos (-2.5) Cowboys (-1) @ Vikings Bengals (-4.5) @ Steelers Chiefs (-6.5) @ Chargers 49ers (-8) @ Cardinals

What bar in Indy has a golf sim?

Busts in terms of production, yes, but it is very injury related with most of them.

Just good coaching by Izzo to play that tight of a rotation so early. Woody should learn from that with this crappy 9 man rotation.

Lol autocorrect got me on that one 🤣

Man n cheese for Thanksgiving?

I understand the logic and don't disagree, it's just no what most money pools do.

And of course that Week 1 game that wouldn't have counted in a money pool 🤣

Just came to post this. What a clown.

Agree to disagree. He had no where to step up in the pocket and I don't want him throwing to his check down a half second into the route. Regardless of all of that, you can't dispute that Raiman got beat really bad on that play, he barely got a hand on Chandler Jones. How exactly is that good blocking by him?

This is 1000% Raiman getting his butt kicked. If Ryan climbs the pocket to avoid Jones he is stepping right into Crosby on the ground. I mean if you want him to hit his check down .5 seconds in the route then sure, he should have hit Granson, but if Raiman holds his block at all PC has time to run his route.

I agree the last call was weak (so did Aikman). You don't expect a QB on a pass play to just go down like that so you don't stop as fast, but he was trying to hold up. The way Heineke reacted it was like he was looking for that call.

Also an automatic review in OT on the 12 man call.

I disagree. Ryan had pressure instantly from Chandler Jones because Raimann didn't even get a hand on him. It's easy to said he should have instantly hit the check down as soon as the ball was snapped, but we all know the first read isn't the check down. Crosby got the sack because Jones got the pressure. If Jones is blocked adequately at all we have a first down on that play.

He did but he got whooped on that third and one sack.

This makes so much sense when you have 9 guys playing well. Obviously it doesn't have to be exactly 27 and 15, could have one guy play 10 and another play 30 and another 29, but the point is spot on. Now if you don't have 9 capable guys, or have injuries, discipline issues, whatever, then of course you shorten it. But you want to play 9 guys (or 10 if we had 10 Woody felt deserved it) when you can because those issues will happen, and you don't want to throw someone into the fire that hasn't played if you can avoid it.

This. If injuries, discipline issues, or poor play happen you can adjust, but for now this lineup is what makes sense

@Euroclydon - Interested to see how the rotation works and whether the bench gets shorter. KoB - I'm just curious, why would the bench get shorter? @Euroclydon - Read it again. I don't want the bench to be shorter but I'll be watching to see if it is. KoB - My question still stands, why would the bench get shorter? Who would get cut? @Euroclydon - My response still stands. NOBODY said it should be shorter. Those are all direct quotes from our back and forth, I'm genuinely confused.

That's a really weird statement. Purdue played 10 guys in their December non-con game against NC State last year, and all were over 8 minutes in an OT game so I feel comfortable saying none of this was mop up duty. Anything in the 8-10 range seems like a very normal rotation, just depending on your depth.

It didn't shorten in November last year, it shortened later in the season when injuries and discipline issues happened and you had a freshman (Bates) that was playing inconsistently so he got inconsistent minutes. The question of why would it get shorter right now (from the 9 man rotation we've been playing) is a valid response to your pondering what will happen to the rotation and if the bench will get shorter. It's literally what Mike Woodson is going to have to think through with regards to it. The most likely answer is that we will see the same 9 man rotation but the minute dispersion will change unless we beat Xavier by a lot more points than I think any of us are expecting. If you don't want to discuss why it would or wouldn't get shorter, then why'd you say "Interested to see how the rotation works and whether the bench gets shorter"?

Right you couldn't do it. You'd be giving an NFL team the ball down 2 with a timeout at like the 40 with time and a timeout? That's asking to get beat.

Yeah I saw people at the time say they should have thought about it, but with 45 seconds left and a timeout for Minnesota... no way. You're asking to get beat on a field goal the last play of the game.