Leach is #1!!!
- Thread starter CougPatrol
- Start date
I see a lot of improvement since Leach took over for Wulff. Without question, Mike Leach is superior in every way to Paul Wulff. Here's the thing, though....Paul (freaking) Wulff is not the barometer for success in the Pac-12.
We didn't pay Leach to simply be better than Paul Wulff. We paid him to turn the program around and reach a point where 7-5 / 6-6 / 8-4 becomes the norm.
I have conclusively determined that Mike Leach is a significant upgrade over Paul Wulff. What I'm not yet sold on is whether or not Leach can turn the corner and post consistent near .500 or better records in Pac-12 games. I think he can, I really do. I'm still 100% behind Leach. If we show progress this season, then his arrow will once again be pointing up. If not, his seat will continue to warm. That seems like a pretty objective opinion, no?
Who exactly tried to hire Mike Leach before us? Mike tried to get the Maryland job and they, not Mike, said no thanks (read). They hired the UConn coach Randy Edsall instead. In other words, Mike Leach was a runner up to Randy Edsall. That's evidence that he was a hot commodity? Really.
Kansas, if true, is just proof how far Mike's stock had fallen. WSU fights Kansas for Mike Leach's services!!! That's embarassing. Kansas is a bad bad football program and only proves the point that we overpaid.
Stop acting like a 13 year old girl defending "One Direction." We weren't in a bidding war with anyone for Mike. But thanks to you I now find out that we hired a Maryland reject, and basically gave him a "no firing" contract. Now, I am depressed.
Maryland rejects Mike for no name.
Interesting you bring up Kansas
You do realize they paid Charlie Weiss 2.5 mill a year
So regardless of outcome, what WSU is paying is NOT outrageous, is actually on par with, as SoCal puts it, "a bad bad football program". I don't think anyone is saying we're happy with the outcome of last year. But there seems to be a tinge of "he's being paid too much for this crap bowl." And he's not. Like it, don't like it
what CML is being paid is average, par, standard, NON-extraordinary, "meh" worthy. You and I may not make anywhere near this but that's neither here nor there. The only aspect of CML's contract that might be construed as a positive for CML is the rollover portion of his contract. Agreed. But if we have another 3-9 season do you think Moos will roll it over?!
Some of us are willing to see where we were and where we are and think it's going to be a long road. Others don't. That's the rub. Patience vs. Now. But pay is irrelevant, like it or not.
Some of us are willing to see where we were and where we are and think it's going to be a long road. Others don't. That's the rub. Patience vs. Now. But pay is irrelevant, like it or not.
Brent...this is an honest question...did you expect 3-8 and 3-8
with a 6-7 in between?
So when you say what did one expect, I think Moos and even the fan base set the expectations higher. Leach is now in territory that he has never been in before.
with a 6-7 in between?
So when you say what did one expect, I think Moos and even the fan base set the expectations higher. Leach is now in territory that he has never been in before.
Southcal, we've had about 60% attrition from Doba, to Wulff and a little bit with Leach. That simply doesn't get fixed in 2 years. Do you honestly believe that Wulff left 10 win teams to Leach? Wulff recruited like 3 offensive linemen his entire career. Honestly, we've trotting out teams tha' probably won't even win 6 games in the MWC. Leach started 50 yards behind the conference. Again, I don't know how he's overpaid when he's getting paid market rate. I think we are getting better, the talent has increased, but again, we are trying to catch up to far more superior teams. Trying to fix 10 years of absolute crap at a school like WSU doesn't happen in 3 years, no matter how much people like Jim Moore wishes.
SoCal: I can see your point. With his salary and length of contract we are in deep doo doo if we have to buy him out. Fine so far. But I disagree that he has a "fantastic deal". I would be fantastic if applied to you, me or the other regular posters but in the realm of college football coaches it rates as normal. Leach didn't bamboozle Moos. He asked for and received the going rate. His contract extension also rates as normal. I would be surprised if all of the other Pac12 coaches did not have similar four or five year extensions if for no other reason than recruiting purpose. Leach is making more money than you can shake a stick at and has a long term contract but that is consistent with all his peers. You want the school to be able to terminate a coach as "cheaply as possible". Unfortunately, this is as "cheaply as possible". We are in the same boat with all the other schools in the Power 5 conferences. Would it be better for society if guys like CML worked for a paltry three or four hundred grand a year and the leftover monies went to subsidize better science teachers in our high schools? I certainly think so. But that is not the world we live in. It is what it is and we have to deal with it or close shop. Take it or leave it.
p.s. This comparison of coaches by salary per win is mildly interesting. It does not, however, rise to the level of apples versus oranges. It strikes me as comparing apples to rutabagas. A pretty week attempt at journalism if you ask me.
p.s. This comparison of coaches by salary per win is mildly interesting. It does not, however, rise to the level of apples versus oranges. It strikes me as comparing apples to rutabagas. A pretty week attempt at journalism if you ask me.
I'm just saying, there are plenty of actual issues with Leach's tenure- you don't have to lie to aid your points. The fact that you call Edsall a no name makes me question your larger football knowledge though- hadn't he taken UConn to a BCS game? You were wise to use only one article to validate, though- later articles about the hire, you'll be shocked to learn, much like your Illinois wisdom, don't necessarily corroborate your point...
This post was edited on 4/20 2:18 PM by wulffui
BH...Maybe what you have said is exactly the problem???
You make the claim that Wulff recruited 3 lineman. While I get that is a slight exaggeration, the fact that Leach didn't get anyone to supplant Bosche or Eckland, or the fact that the line that went bowling in 2013 was recruited by Wulff (some differing reports on Dahl, so lets say 4-5) might reflect why some might be restless.
I think if Leach played his young d line for example and benched Pole and to some extent Cooper, in order to get his young kids playing time. At this point do we really know what any of those kids are capable of? I think some would argue by year four we should really have an idea the direction the program is going in. We lose our starting QB, 2/3's of our starting dline, with not a lot of playing time among the young kids. And I think some are scarred by the numerous punt and kick off returns that haunted that team. It is hard to say we are trending up after last season.
But we shall see.
You make the claim that Wulff recruited 3 lineman. While I get that is a slight exaggeration, the fact that Leach didn't get anyone to supplant Bosche or Eckland, or the fact that the line that went bowling in 2013 was recruited by Wulff (some differing reports on Dahl, so lets say 4-5) might reflect why some might be restless.
I think if Leach played his young d line for example and benched Pole and to some extent Cooper, in order to get his young kids playing time. At this point do we really know what any of those kids are capable of? I think some would argue by year four we should really have an idea the direction the program is going in. We lose our starting QB, 2/3's of our starting dline, with not a lot of playing time among the young kids. And I think some are scarred by the numerous punt and kick off returns that haunted that team. It is hard to say we are trending up after last season.
But we shall see.
Re: BH...Maybe what you have said is exactly the problem???
I respect that Leach was willing to coach guys that both his predecessor, and his in-conference peers at the time, deemed unworthy as PXII players (right? Otherwise, they'd be scholly OL.), worked with those guys, rather than Reitnouering guys out there when they weren't ready and destroying any future they might have had, so he could point to how empty the cupboard was.
This post was edited on 4/20 2:23 PM by wulffui
I respect that Leach was willing to coach guys that both his predecessor, and his in-conference peers at the time, deemed unworthy as PXII players (right? Otherwise, they'd be scholly OL.), worked with those guys, rather than Reitnouering guys out there when they weren't ready and destroying any future they might have had, so he could point to how empty the cupboard was.
This post was edited on 4/20 2:23 PM by wulffui
I don't think that 7 yr. deals with 5 year perpetual roll overs in the norm for new hires. I may be wrong. I think the norm has been 5 year deals with 3 year rollovers for new hires for quite some time. Edsall, who beat out Leach at Maryland, was given a 6 year $2 million per deal with no rollover. Charlie Weis had a 5 year $2.5 million deal no rollover with Kansas, I believe. I bring kansas because according to Wulffui, they want Leach bad.
I have no problem with giving Leach a 7 year deal, or the money. But you don't give a new coach a 5 year rollover. What happens if Leach just can't reproduce Texas magic on the West coast? 5 year rollovers are for incumbent coaches who have proven themselves, like Price, Riley, Tedford. They turned dung into something. If Leach rights the ship, sign him up for life, but before he steps on campus?
I have no problem with giving Leach a 7 year deal, or the money. But you don't give a new coach a 5 year rollover. What happens if Leach just can't reproduce Texas magic on the West coast? 5 year rollovers are for incumbent coaches who have proven themselves, like Price, Riley, Tedford. They turned dung into something. If Leach rights the ship, sign him up for life, but before he steps on campus?
When Bill Moos was hired as our Athletic Director, he said one of the first things he wanted to instill was that WSU and our fans should expect to be winners. That we're not just along for the ride.
What I (we) expect out of Leach is considerably less than most any Big-5 conference program. We expect to be a consistent .500 program with the occasional good season.
I hear what you're saying, and you're right. No way was the pirate going to right our sinking ship after just 3 years, but despite what some others have said, you don't get 8 years either. Unfortunately, WSU may very well be an 8 year rebuild, but no Big-5 conference athletic department is going to give a coach 8 years of sub .500 ball. Not even WSU.
The good news is that I really do believe that this year, and especially 2016, are shaping up to be good seasons.
Without defending I do have to ask..who was he going to play?
Which guys that were recruited from 04-07 was that staff going to play? I don't think he did it to point out the cupboard was bare, but rather he played who he could play.
Which guys that were recruited from 04-07 was that staff going to play? I don't think he did it to point out the cupboard was bare, but rather he played who he could play.
Last edited:
Re: Without defending I do have to ask..who was he going to play?
Either Lesuma brothers was more physically mature (and, when bound by tradition to play then on Senior Day for a series or two, far more competent) than Reitnouer, who- whether he would've been good or not- was ruined by playing at 245. He chose to jerk Hannam, an honors recipient prior to Wulff, all over the line, to allow constant playing time for Tyson Pencer, a player whose immobility remains unmatched.
Even given limited options, he constantly chose the wrong one.
Either Lesuma brothers was more physically mature (and, when bound by tradition to play then on Senior Day for a series or two, far more competent) than Reitnouer, who- whether he would've been good or not- was ruined by playing at 245. He chose to jerk Hannam, an honors recipient prior to Wulff, all over the line, to allow constant playing time for Tyson Pencer, a player whose immobility remains unmatched.
Even given limited options, he constantly chose the wrong one.
I just think it's good to bring KU up as another power five school, who found Leach's success in their conference appealing. But they wound up paying Weis MORE than Leach, so they definitely got valu... Wait, Weis has AT LEAST done better than Leach, right? No? And now they're paying him not to coach? Yeah, they're probably thrilled that they didn't move on Leach.
Interesting thing is, had Leach gone 3-9, 3-9, 6-7, we'd probably all be singing a different tune.
Instead, we endured the growing pains of a coaching change (3-9), then a glimmer of hope (6-7), only to inexplicably faceplant with another 3-9.
Last year's season is still one of the most puzzling Coug seasons I think I've ever seen. Senior QB, experienced & healthy OL, NFL talent on the DL. How the heck does that team go 3-9? And that question was rhetorical. I know it was because we had the worst special teams & secondary in the conference (maybe the nation), which is also perplexing, because in theory, that should be the easiest units to recruit to.
Now, we're coming off a 3-9, replacing our QB, replacing most of our DL, and lost some experienced pieces in the LB corps & secondary. Oh, and our punter left, and we don't have a reliable kicker. 4-8 would not surprise me in the slightest this year.
Instead, we endured the growing pains of a coaching change (3-9), then a glimmer of hope (6-7), only to inexplicably faceplant with another 3-9.
Last year's season is still one of the most puzzling Coug seasons I think I've ever seen. Senior QB, experienced & healthy OL, NFL talent on the DL. How the heck does that team go 3-9? And that question was rhetorical. I know it was because we had the worst special teams & secondary in the conference (maybe the nation), which is also perplexing, because in theory, that should be the easiest units to recruit to.
Now, we're coming off a 3-9, replacing our QB, replacing most of our DL, and lost some experienced pieces in the LB corps & secondary. Oh, and our punter left, and we don't have a reliable kicker. 4-8 would not surprise me in the slightest this year.
It's gonna take time to put all the pieces together in a single season. One year you've got a veteran defense but a young offense. The next year you've got a veteran offense and a young defense. The year after that 8 kids get hurt. Your roster on a college team is always changing. It's crucial to evaluate kids as best you can and then grow them in the program. You just can't lose guys to grades/booze/drugs/home town girlfriend/homesick/etc. You have to get as many of the right guys as possible and then keep them from day 1.
And why WSU doesn't have a great reputation on the West Coast in junior colleges is beyond me.
And why WSU doesn't have a great reputation on the West Coast in junior colleges is beyond me.
I know....and we could say that about every coach...cant we?
Remember Sale who using your analogy and standard was "mishandled" by leach. Jesus, maybe I remember it differently but they had all kinds of injuries in 08 and 09, so playing a kid at 245 seemed like a last resort.
Remember Sale who using your analogy and standard was "mishandled" by leach. Jesus, maybe I remember it differently but they had all kinds of injuries in 08 and 09, so playing a kid at 245 seemed like a last resort.
What analogy?
Leach brought in Sale, he wasn't ready, didn't play, and bombed out.
Wulff brought in Reitnouer, he wasn't ready, he got played anyway, and had a career ending injury.
Unless the analogy you were hoping for is "Sometimes OL don't work out", the situations and handling thereof are starkly different.
Leach brought in Sale, he wasn't ready, didn't play, and bombed out.
Wulff brought in Reitnouer, he wasn't ready, he got played anyway, and had a career ending injury.
Unless the analogy you were hoping for is "Sometimes OL don't work out", the situations and handling thereof are starkly different.
Since your piss-and-moan antics scream for attention, I'll give it to you, puma/nookie. Let's see if you can absorb this point: your whining over Leach begs for a contrast with your slobbering over Wulff, whose abysmal WSU win-loss record will never be matched (unless you're named coach). Some advice for you: until this fall, take some time away from this board, go play with your kids (you know, the perpetual 4 or 5 year olds you say you've taken to Cougar games for the past 20 years or so). Then, come back, and if Leach puts out another 3-9 squad, piss and moan all you want. I'll join you, but right now you're just whining because you're still bitter that Wulff got fired (and I get that you don't like Leach personally, even though,you support the coach).
Btw, it appears this thread may rival your other piss-and-moan diatribes, even the "if Mason runs a 4.4 ..." masterpiece of pissing.
This post was edited on 4/20 5:14 PM by YakiCoug
I was surprised he got this sad program to a bowl game in Year 2. His mistake in Year 3 was not signing any JC players for immediate help on defense (d-line, LB, and safety). Otherwise, we beat Rutgers, Nevada, Cal, and maybe even Oregon. But 6-6 would have fallen short of the 10-win season the Wulffies believed was in the bag.
Here we go with yet another one of your conspiracy theories.
You post more about Wulff than everybody on this boars combined.
In fact, your Wulff obsession is second only to your Ed obsession.
If you can point to where you predicted 3-9, 6-7, 3-9 I'll never lost here again.
"go play with your kids (you know, the perpetual 4 or 5 year olds you say you've taken to Cougar games for the past 20 years or so"
This encapsulates my fears. 4 years in and you have to ask, where is the young Pac-12 calibre talent? Still too few and far between. This is what Leach was supposed to solve by his mere presence. Now we are going into a roll over decision year and it is unlikely that this team will give Moos/Floyd a reason to rollover Leach's contract a second time, and the 5 year lame duck period begins. We are struggling in recruiting to begin with, after12 years of bad football, the FOB proved not to be an 80m recruiting magic bullet we had hoped, and now lame duck status.
The 2014 and 2015 recruiting classes really need to be much better than they were rated by the gurus, or we are screwed. We will find out against Rutgers.
THIS is the part I also disagree with. Look at the link below. From here you can go through each year of Texas Tech's recruiting classes within CML's tenure. Every other year there will be a few 4 star players, then another year, not even one but a whole bunch of 2star (there's 2star scattered throughout EVERY class). 2006 and 2007 were good years but that isn't what he built TT on. CML is known for doing more with less. He's NEVER been some recruiting guru, as you put it. If that's your worry, you're worrying over something that was never there, never expected from many of us, and not realistic. Remember? THIS is why so many people thought CML would fit well in Pullman. Everyone knew he wasn't going to pull a bunch of 4stars. http://sports.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/commitments/2002/texastech-86
Isn't that exactly what he was hired to do? We didn't agree to pay Leach at 15 million dollars over 7 years to continue the losing, did we? No one said it would be easy. In fact, he was given the toughest task of any P-12 coach since Riley and Tedford. I know that. The million dollar question is, when is it put up or shut up time? For me, it isn't year 4, or year 5, but I do want reason to be optimistic going into year 6. If going into year 6 the prospects are as bleak as they are going into year 4, it is time to put the for sale signs out in Moos and Leach's lawn. Ulitimately, it is a business.
I think it has helped. I think WSU has pushed out of the 2 and 3 star kids and is now firmly in with 3 star talent, maybe even a little bit higher. If you thought WSU was going to build the FOB and land 4 star talent you're wrong. 4 star talent goes to 4 star schools. Those schools have stadiums twice as large, filled or not. They have winning seasons. They have more then 10 bowl games in 100 years. They are generally schools that have CHOSEN to be good at football longer then 3 years ago. There is no snap your fingers, build a FOB and here comes 4 star talent. It takes longer then that.
I agree that it is a business. And this business has changed. The PAC 12 plays the toughest conference schedule in the nation. Now even more so because every team has money. Every team is building/built. Every team has spent money for a coach. Every team is paying assistants. The parity has never been higher in the conference. Non conference scheduling has never been more important for WSU. You simply can't lose non conference games. It's tough enough to win league games. Losing non conference only adds another in conference game you must win for bowl eligibility.
The key to WSU going bowling for any length of time isn't going to Auburn for non conference games. It's scheduling 3 non conference games at home against West Coast non BCS schools. Why reinvent the wheel when the SEC has already laid out the blueprint for you? Play 7 or 8 home games per year and tilt the odds in your favor.
You misunderstood me. I don't equate recruiting with "ratings." I equate recruiting with signing kids who can play and win in the Pac-12, nothing more or less. At TT Leach was successful at that. In Pullman, I haven't seen the same. Leach was supposed to sign kids who would make us competitive. I mentioned gurus only because they say Leach's 2014/2015 classes remain bottom rung. I just hope and pray they are flat wrong and Leach has done what he has hired to do. Leach is a Price like coach, known to do more with less, the problem is he hasn't recruited well enough to win with less so far.
I agree, and that's been my question all along. What is the reasonable expectation for our program under Leach. The first 3 years aren't nearly as important as the next 3 years.
Beginning this season (year 4), we play Portland State, Rutgers, Wyoming, Oregon State, Cal, Colorado, and UW. As fans, should we expect to win at least 5 of these games? If that's overzealous, when can we expect it?
I agree, we need to schedule cupcakes. I believe Moos has tried to do that. Who thought we would get pushed around by Rutger and Nevada. Moos did his job, the 15 million dollar man didn't do his, plain and simple. But if you think teams the calibre of Nevada and Rutgers may provide you too much competition, you are conceding that you aren't Pac-12 calibre. Funny isn't it that the best Leach led Coug team has every played was against Auburn.
Rutgers will be tough next year, not because they are good, but because we don't have the depth to hang with a physical team in East coast heat and humidity. If we can't assert Pac-12 dominance over Wyoming at home, heaven help us, we don't belong, yet again.
While ratings are quite good at recognizing elite players. At the level we recruit, they far more hit and miss because far more time is needed to accurately evaluate. The FOB will be successful only if we are able to hang on to more players higher on the conference coaches' ratings boards, not the rating services. We will find out shortly, because we don't have depth and our starters aren't as good as they need to be.
Leach has consistently brought in better QB talent out of high school then any other WSU coach. Whether or not they stay, produce, etc is debatable. But he has at least gotten them on campus to compete for the job.
He has also done more for the OL then any other WSU coach. I'd like to think at some point those two position groups will push forward and be the offense we all hope to see.
