Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

agreed, but he would also have more wins and that obviously helps in the voting

These things usually go by stats.

Bough would do MUCH better if he had Michigan's defense to get him the ball with Field position

I think that cuts both ways.  Also means Patterson had shorter fields, and I assume was out of the game earlier more often.

Well, you can cut that out of the equation by avoiding yards/game in the stats. Whether it's shorter fields or whether it's scheme, Blough had WAY more attempts, completions, and yards than Patterson. 
That's why I didn't rely on total yards. I was pointing out that Blough had a rating just barely behind Patterson, and completion percentage and yards/att higher than Patterson. It's essentially like in basketball, using pace-adjusted stats rather than raw.
Blough was second in the league in completion percentage, second in yards/att, and a very close third in rating. Blough did have a slightly worse interception rate (1 int per 53.1 attempts vs Patterson's 57.8 attempts). He also a slightly lower TD/attempt rate, but then again that might be due to the point you make above where Purdue had longer fields. 
For me, I voted Blough partly because I'm a homer, but also partly because I think he was critical to the team's success. The offense didn't start truly clicking until he took the starting job away from Sindelar. Given that he was not surrounded by a lot of talent, I'm not sure Purdue wins 6 games without Blough. I don't think Patterson was as important to his team.

For me, I voted Blough partly because I'm a homer, but also partly because I think he was critical to the team's success. The offense didn't start truly clicking until he took the starting job away from Sindelar. Given that he was not surrounded by a lot of talent, I'm not sure Purdue wins 6 games without Blough. I don't think Patterson was as important to his team.

I don't know, as frustrating as the playcalling was at time, Michigan's offense was MUCH better this year than last, and really the only difference was adding Patterson.  It's splitting hairs, and honestly I don't get voting for any of the other three, but I'd say Patterson is 2-a and Blough is 2-b.

I don't know, as frustrating as the playcalling was at time, Michigan's offense was MUCH better this year than last, and really the only difference was adding Patterson.  It's splitting hairs, and honestly I don't get voting for any of the other three, but I'd say Patterson is 2-a and Blough is 2-b.

yup, either is the correct choice

I don't know, as frustrating as the playcalling was at time, Michigan's offense was MUCH better this year than last, and really the only difference was adding Patterson.  It's splitting hairs, and honestly I don't get voting for any of the other three, but I'd say Patterson is 2-a and Blough is 2-b.

Honestly, really the only difference. Well Ed Warriner as well. He definitely improved that crap OL and made them an above average unit.
Last year the play calling was just as terrible but the offense was 10x worse because the OL was a sieve and the QB play was god awful.

Voted Purdue. Might just be expectations. I thought Patterson could be better. Didn’t think Brought could be that good. They were kinda even, so maybe that split it for me.