Leach is #1!!!

[wulffui]

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.

To me it's not a "you can't hang with THOSE teams", it's a "who plays AT Nevada?" type of deal. Play three patsies at home, win games, stay healthy. Don't travel for MWC opponents- looking at you, Boise State. Play an annual Idaho game, make it a weeklong event for the two universities. Really, if you played Idaho, a bottom tier MWC school and a Big Sky school every year, that's fine with me.

Also, I'm 95% mobile, so if this comment looks weird, I'm blaming the new forum layout.

 

[Fab5Coug]

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.

I agree with your scheduling philosophy, but want to point out, it's not exactly easy scheduling SDSU, Fresno & SJSU. Those schools have BCS schools waiting in line to play them. They're decent competition, a "should be" win for a Pac12 school and they're an extra game in California. Those schools are attractive, and WSU isn't the only program to recognize that.

 

[Coug1990]

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.

Recruiting is only one aspect of the FOB. Training, meetings, food, etc., are all parts of the FOB. Preparing the players and creating a culture is also what the FOB is.

 

[Coug1990]

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.

I see one of your problems and I do not mean any disrespect. But, Nevada and Rutgers have been very good teams for a while now. Much, much better than WSU. So yeah, it is not a surprise that WSU would get pushed around by those two schools. Nevada goes bowling every year (9 out of the last 0) and have played Arizona neck and neck the last two years. Rutgers has also gone to 9 bowls in the last 10 years. They were so good that the previous coach, Greg Schiano, got hired by the NFL. Both teams have regularly put players into the NFL recently.

A large part of your problem, and again no disrespect, is that you have a lack of understanding on how long and what it takes to build a program. So, I can see why you are upset now. But, it really is not based on reality, but your emotion of what you thought would occur when Leach took over.

 

[Coug1990]

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.

I still remember Wulff and his staff not playing Reed Lesuma and playing every tomato can that he recruited. Only at the end of the season when the ran out of bodies and were forced to put in Reed did he play. He ended up grading higher than the rest of the lineman.

 

[SCglory]

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

"recruiting guru" argument one of semantics. He attracts guys (call it passive recruiting if you want) by his exciting system, his bigtime wins, etc. Guys WANT to play for that, so, I call that part of recruiting. A Leach team is an exciting team. I would argue that Leach recruits on Saturdays in the fall, not so much in living rooms.

 

[Fab5Coug]

I see one of your problems and I do not mean any disrespect. But, Nevada and Rutgers have been very good teams for a while now. Much, much better than WSU. So yeah, it is not a surprise that WSU would get pushed around by those two schools. Nevada goes bowling every year (9 out of the last 0) and have played Arizona neck and neck the last two years. Rutgers has also gone to 9 bowls in the last 10 years. They were so good that the previous coach, Greg Schiano, got hired by the NFL. Both teams have regularly put players into the NFL recently.

A large part of your problem, and again no disrespect, is that you have a lack of understanding on how long and what it takes to build a program. So, I can see why you are upset now. But, it really is not based on reality, but your emotion of what you thought would occur when Leach took over.

"Very good" teams might be stretching it. Nevada & Rutgers had a good run of bowl games in the MWC & Big East respectively. We're also talking about Kraft Fight Hunger, Hawaii Bowl, Quick Lane, Russell Athletic and Pinstripe Bowls here too. Hey, I'd take any dang bowl we could get right now, but it's not like we're talking about perennial BCS bowlees here.

And Nevada & Rutgers finished 7-6 & 8-5 respectively last year, without many impressive wins to speak of.

I get what you're saying about them being better than we gave them credit for, but I think you might be overselling their resume a bit.

 

[Coug1990]

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.

Bosch was a walkon who saw little time while under Wulff. In fact, he played less as a sophomore (2 games) than he did as a freshman (6 games) and never started under Wulff. Leach is hired and McGuire makes him a center and installs him as the starter. Eklund was also a walkon. He redshirted his only year under Wulff. Leach and McGuire installed him as a starter from the beginning.

Joe Dahl was a transfer from Montana who was never on campus as a Cougar at the same time Wulff was employed at WSU. Wulff offered him the last week of the 2011 recruiting season after losing out on higher rated targets. But, Dahl had already committed to Montana and kept his word. Dahl (A life long Cougar fan from Spokane) decided to transfer and walk on at WSU. He would have transferred to WSU whether Wulff, Leach, your or I were head coach. Nobody except for Dahl gets credit here.

Fullington while athletically talented, was inconsistent in his four years at WSU.

Honestly, I don't even remember who the other starter was.

Wulff does get some credit for Bosch and Eklund. But, how much should he get? Wulff never offered them a scholarship (in fact, it was Leach who gave them scholarships). He barely used Bosch. In my opinion, I do not think any of them would have been as good as they were if Wulff were still coach. And it is not as if they were great players.

 

[Coug1990]

"Very good" teams might be stretching it. Nevada & Rutgers had a good run of bowl games in the MWC & Big East respectively. We're also talking about Kraft Fight Hunger, Hawaii Bowl, Quick Lane, Russell Athletic and Pinstripe Bowls here too. Hey, I'd take any dang bowl we could get right now, but it's not like we're talking about perennial BCS bowlees here.

And Nevada & Rutgers finished 7-6 & 8-5 respectively last year, without many impressive wins to speak of.

I get what you're saying about them being better than we gave them credit for, but I think you might be overselling their resume a bit.

If I am overselling, you are underselling just how hard it is to stay that consistent for a decade. WSU could not do it. WSU barely did it for three years in a row. Also, I never said they were great teams like the Alabama's, USC, OSU's, but they both have been very good for a while. To think WSU should just roll over them because is not giving them enough credit. You are looking at them how other's see WSU.

 

[Fab5Coug]

If I am overselling, you are underselling just how hard it is to stay that consistent for a decade. WSU could not do it. WSU barely did it for three years in a row. Also, I never said they were great teams like the Alabama's, USC, OSU's, but they both have been very good for a while. To think WSU should just roll over them because is not giving them enough credit. You are looking at them how other's see WSU.

And they wouldn't have been nearly that consistent if they were in the Pac12 for those 10 year periods, IMO.

 

[CougEd]

Bosch was a walkon who saw little time while under Wulff. In fact, he played less as a sophomore (2 games) than he did as a freshman (6 games) and never started under Wulff. Leach is hired and McGuire makes him a center and installs him as the starter. Eklund was also a walkon. He redshirted his only year under Wulff. Leach and McGuire installed him as a starter from the beginning.

Joe Dahl was a transfer from Montana who was never on campus as a Cougar at the same time Wulff was employed at WSU. Wulff offered him the last week of the 2011 recruiting season after losing out on higher rated targets. But, Dahl had already committed to Montana and kept his word. Dahl (A life long Cougar fan from Spokane) decided to transfer and walk on at WSU. He would have transferred to WSU whether Wulff, Leach, your or I were head coach. Nobody except for Dahl gets credit here.

Fullington while athletically talented, was inconsistent in his four years at WSU.

Honestly, I don't even remember who the other starter was.

Wulff does get some credit for Bosch and Eklund. But, how much should he get? Wulff never offered them a scholarship (in fact, it was Leach who gave them scholarships). He barely used Bosch. In my opinion, I do not think any of them would have been as good as they were if Wulff were still coach. And it is not as if they were great players.

 

[CougEd]

Bosch was a walkon who saw little time while under Wulff. In fact, he played less as a sophomore (2 games) than he did as a freshman (6 games) and never started under Wulff. Leach is hired and McGuire makes him a center and installs him as the starter. Eklund was also a walkon. He redshirted his only year under Wulff. Leach and McGuire installed him as a starter from the beginning.

Joe Dahl was a transfer from Montana who was never on campus as a Cougar at the same time Wulff was employed at WSU. Wulff offered him the last week of the 2011 recruiting season after losing out on higher rated targets. But, Dahl had already committed to Montana and kept his word. Dahl (A life long Cougar fan from Spokane) decided to transfer and walk on at WSU. He would have transferred to WSU whether Wulff, Leach, your or I were head coach. Nobody except for Dahl gets credit here.

Fullington while athletically talented, was inconsistent in his four years at WSU.

Honestly, I don't even remember who the other starter was.

Wulff does get some credit for Bosch and Eklund. But, how much should he get? Wulff never offered them a scholarship (in fact, it was Leach who gave them scholarships). He barely used Bosch. In my opinion, I do not think any of them would have been as good as they were if Wulff were still coach. And it is not as if they were great players.

I guess that is one area you and I differ. Player acquisition is p;ayer acquisition. Does it really matter if the Seahawks get a player in the first round or free agency if the player contributes. Thenfact a coach gets a walk on to play and be effective is a feather in any coaches cap. That means if they have three walk-ons playing that the coach was able to give those three rides to someone else in the building process.

 

[CougEd]

I still remember Wulff and his staff not playing Reed Lesuma and playing every tomato can that he recruited. Only at the end of the season when the ran out of bodies and were forced to put in Reed did he play. He ended up grading higher than the rest of the lineman.

Do you even know why reed Lesuma didn't play? As I pointed out, you could make the Reed Lesuma comment about every coach that has taken over and kid doesn't fit system or doesn't work hard or whatever the reason may be. Good grief, Cyrus Coen played over CJ Mizel. In your scenario, Mitch Peterson or Coen could be that can of tomato's. Yeah, the last staff must have a decent reason to play a 260 pound walkon from Colfax before Lesuma. But the original point was they had no choice but to play the 245 pound reintour.

 

[Cougsocal]

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.

Leach has brought in better high school QBs than Rypien, Rosie, Bledsoe, Leaf, Pattinson and Gesser already? Rypien was the #1 QB in the country and Bledsoe #2.

We really need to stop the recruiting star power beauty contest crap, and look at what counts, i.e. can the kid actually play well at this level. We can sign 4 star guys left, right and center, but if they are as "talented" as Bruggman, we are in big trouble. A walk on appears to be our starter and Leach should have pulled the plug on the Bruggman offer after his 3-22 playoff disaster, and subpar senior year. The fact we signed Bruggman, the now Louisville washout too, and Falk walked on, isn't a good example of the best recruiting ever.

Sure we have numbers at OL, great, but do we have 5 guys who can block the run a little and protect someone other pitch and catch QB like Halliday? I haven't seen it yet. Falk was sack 21 times in the last 3+ games. 20 bob tail nags does not 5 stallions make.

Biggs don't start sounding like those idiots who constantly found imaginary positives during the Wulff era, they were sadly deluding themselves. We continue to struggle.

I know that I will get heat for this from the leechs, but here is a simple fact, Leach's first two recruiting classes were a bust. Proof: our defense was and, absent a miracle, will still be dreadful. We still don't know if we have 5 OL who are pac-12 calibre, and a QB walk on right now is our likely starter. Our receiver corp is full on scrappy possesion guys, short on athletic difference makers, and our RBs have been non-existant.

We are forced hope that classes 3 and 4 are much better. The spring game is coming, I'm crossing my fingers that the year 3 guys come out and make a statement that the cavalry has arrived.

 

[BiggsCoug]

So Rypien, Rosie, Bledsoe, Leaf, Pattinson and Gesser were all brought in by the same coach? Nope. Leach has signed consistently better rated high school talent than any WSU coach before him.

The walk on you refer to had offers from some big time programs before he got lost in the shuffle. For someone that presents themselves as so smart you should know this. Leaving it out of your argument is BS.

As I've written many times before, it takes time to grow the OL. Kids just don't fill out bodies that are 6'5", 6'6", 6'7", etc overnight. It takes YEARS! Your bench press doesn't go from 280 to 430 overnight. It takes YEARS! If you knew what you were looking at, rather than just complaining, you'd know that the OL will take YEARS to develop for WSU. There are no 5 star OL signing up that are game ready when they step on campus. It's going to take time to see the PAC 12 talent you desire.

What you want to see at WSU is going to take YEARS to get there. Leach took over a dumpster fire. Kids left, kids came in, some kids made it and some kids didn't. How much fun do you think it is to play under Leach when the team is losing? I bet he rode kids pretty hard. May have even been mean to kids that didn't put forth the effort. Im not surprised at all that his first two classes haven't been as successful as you'd have liked.

Im not searching for any imaginary positives. Im honest about what it's going to take WSU to be successful for the long haul and how long it will take to get there.

If WSU football beings you so much angst, why follow it?

Leach has brought in better high school QBs than Rypien, Rosie, Bledsoe, Leaf, Pattinson and Gesser already? Rypien was the #1 QB in the country and Bledsoe #2.

We really need to stop the recruiting star power beauty contest crap, and look at what counts, i.e. can the kid actually play well at this level. We can sign 4 star guys left, right and center, but if they are as "talented" as Bruggman, we are in big trouble. A walk on appears to be our starter and Leach should have pulled the plug on the Bruggman offer after his 3-22 playoff disaster, and subpar senior year. The fact we signed Bruggman, the now Louisville washout too, and Falk walked on, isn't a good example of the best recruiting ever.

Sure we have numbers at OL, great, but do we have 5 guys who can block the run a little and protect someone other pitch and catch QB like Halliday? I haven't seen it yet. Falk was sack 21 times in the last 3+ games. 20 bob tail nags does not 5 stallions make.

Biggs don't start sounding like those idiots who constantly found imaginary positives during the Wulff era, they were sadly deluding themselves. We continue to struggle.

I know that I will get heat for this from the leechs, but here is a simple fact, Leach's first two recruiting classes were a bust. Proof: our defense was and, absent a miracle, will still be dreadful. We still don't know if we have 5 OL who are pac-12 calibre, and a QB walk on right now is our likely starter. Our receiver corp is full on scrappy possesion guys, short on athletic difference makers, and our RBs have been non-existant.

We are forced hope that classes 3 and 4 are much better. The spring game is coming, I'm crossing my fingers that the year 3 guys come out and make a statement that the cavalry has arrived.

 

[Cougsocal]

I see one of your problems and I do not mean any disrespect. But, Nevada and Rutgers have been very good teams for a while now. Much, much better than WSU. So yeah, it is not a surprise that WSU would get pushed around by those two schools. Nevada goes bowling every year (9 out of the last 0) and have played Arizona neck and neck the last two years. Rutgers has also gone to 9 bowls in the last 10 years. They were so good that the previous coach, Greg Schiano, got hired by the NFL. Both teams have regularly put players into the NFL recently.

A large part of your problem, and again no disrespect, is that you have a lack of understanding on how long and what it takes to build a program. So, I can see why you are upset now. But, it really is not based on reality, but your emotion of what you thought would occur when Leach took over.

1990 yourdevotion to Leach is surpassed by your lack of knowlege of college football history

Riley turn OSU around in 3 seasons, Tedford turned Cal around over night (more talent but they went from 1-10 to 7-5), Synder turned KSU around in 3 seasons, Briles turned Baylor around in 3 seasons. Mason turned kansas around in year 4. So the answer is, for the worst programs in the NCAA, it takes 3 to 4 seasons, if the coach does it right. And yes, OSU, Kansas and KSU were every bit as bad as WSU when /Mason/Riley/Synder took over. Baylor had losing records in every year from 1995 until 2010, but I don't think it is fair to say they were as bad as us, but not far off.

The fact is very few coaches have turned programs around after year 4 (assuming there is no miracle in store for the Cougs in 2015), there have been a few in history, granted. OSU was very patient, they gave 5 straight coaches 5 years or more (Pettibone got 6), each failed. KSU gave Gibson and Dickey 8 and 7 years, before firing them.

1990, I know how long it takes. History says major turnaround occur early, if at all, 9 times out of 10. That is the sad fact. Absent a 2015 miracle, Leach starts needing to buck history.

 

[Coug1990]

1990 yourdevotion to Leach is surpassed by your lack of knowlege of college football history

Riley turn OSU around in 3 seasons, Tedford turned Cal around over night (more talent but they went from 1-10 to 7-5), Synder turned KSU around in 3 seasons, Briles turned Baylor around in 3 seasons. Mason turned kansas around in year 4. So the answer is, for the worst programs in the NCAA, it takes 3 to 4 seasons, if the coach does it right. And yes, OSU, Kansas and KSU were every bit as bad as WSU when /Mason/Riley/Synder took over. Baylor had losing records in every year from 1995 until 2010, but I don't think it is fair to say they were as bad as us, but not far off.

The fact is very few coaches have turned programs around after year 4 (assuming there is no miracle in store for the Cougs in 2015), there have been a few in history, granted. OSU was very patient, they gave 5 straight coaches 5 years or more (Pettibone got 6), each failed. KSU gave Gibson and Dickey 8 and 7 years, before firing them.

1990, I know how long it takes. History says major turnaround occur early, if at all, 9 times out of 10. That is the sad fact. Absent a 2015 miracle, Leach starts needing to buck history.

You know someone does not know what he thinks he knows and everything else he writes is suspect when he gets his very first sentence WRONG. Mike Riley left for the San Diego Chargers after TWO years.

 

[BiggsCoug]

You know someone does not know what he thinks he knows and everything else he writes is suspect when he gets his very first sentence WRONG. Mike Riley left for the San Diego Chargers after TWO years.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

[Cougsocal]

So Rypien, Rosie, Bledsoe, Leaf, Pattinson and Gesser were all brought in by the same coach? Nope. Leach has signed consistently better rated high school talent than any WSU coach before him.

The walk on you refer to had offers from some big time programs before he got lost in the shuffle. For someone that presents themselves as so smart you should know this. Leaving it out of your argument is BS.

As I've written many times before, it takes time to grow the OL. Kids just don't fill out bodies that are 6'5", 6'6", 6'7", etc overnight. It takes YEARS! Your bench press doesn't go from 280 to 430 overnight. It takes YEARS! If you knew what you were looking at, rather than just complaining, you'd know that the OL will take YEARS to develop for WSU. There are no 5 star OL signing up that are game ready when they step on campus. It's going to take time to see the PAC 12 talent you desire.

What you want to see at WSU is going to take YEARS to get there. Leach took over a dumpster fire. Kids left, kids came in, some kids made it and some kids didn't. How much fun do you think it is to play under Leach when the team is losing? I bet he rode kids pretty hard. May have even been mean to kids that didn't put forth the effort. Im not surprised at all that his first two classes haven't been as successful as you'd have liked.

Im not searching for any imaginary positives. Im honest about what it's going to take WSU to be successful for the long haul and how long it will take to get there.

If WSU football beings you so much angst, why follow it?

You do realize that our quality OLs, historically, from Utley to Armstrong, have been in the starting line up as freshmen. As for the bench press thing, if the kid is a Pac-12 calibre athlete, it takes a few months to a year. Only if the kid is athletically challended does it take years. He is fast twitch deficient. You know that. Footwork is the far bigger problem, without if you can't gain leverage. I've spent just as much time in the weight room as you. Athletes are able to perform everywhere, weight room to dance floor, bob tail nags, not so much. We have had too many bob tail nags, it needs to change. Man can't get out what nature hasn't put in.

This fact may explain why Price had so few OLs. He might not have been ignoring the position, but understood that throwing time and money stable of fatties, reaped too few benefits. It was better to use DL and TE rejects and hope for the best.

 

[BiggsCoug]

You do realize that our quality OLs, historically, from Utley to Armstrong, have been in the starting line up as freshmen. As for the bench press thing, if the kid is a Pac-12 calibre athlete, it takes a few months to a year. Only if the kid is athletically challended does it take years. He is fast twitch deficient. You know that. Footwork is the far bigger problem, without if you can't gain leverage. I've spent just as much time in the weight room as you. Athletes are able to perform everywhere, weight room to dance floor, bob tail nags, not so much. We have had too many bob tail nags, it needs to change. Man can't get out what nature hasn't put in.

This fact may explain why Price had so few OLs. He might not have been ignoring the position, but understood that throwing time and money stable of fatties, reaped too few benefits. It was better to use DL and TE rejects and hope for the best.

This is more misinformed then your comment about Mike Riley and his 3rd year out of 2 at OSU.

A 6'6" kid shows up at WSU bench pressing 280... In a year he's over 400? No f*cking way. Even with pharmaceuticals. Fall camp and in season you aren't lifting for gains, even if you're redshirting. Winter conditioning and spring ball they bury you. Summer time you get after it. And in a year you put 100 pounds on your upper body strength? Nope. You're talking out of your arse. Im speaking from experience of having done it and having watched some of the most DNA gifted athletes that have walked thru the doors at WSU not do what you're saying is so easy.

You are wrong. Again.

 

[kayak15]

This is more misinformed then your comment about Mike Riley and his 3rd year out of 2 at OSU.

A 6'6" kid shows up at WSU bench pressing 280... In a year he's over 400? No f*cking way. Even with pharmaceuticals. Fall camp and in season you aren't lifting for gains, even if you're redshirting. Winter conditioning and spring ball they bury you. Summer time you get after it. And in a year you put 100 pounds on your upper body strength? Nope. You're talking out of your arse. Im speaking from experience of having done it and having watched some of the most DNA gifted athletes that have walked thru the doors at WSU not do what you're saying is so easy.

You are wrong. Again.

Have to agree with Biggs here on a couple of points.

As far as quarterbacks are concerned, the salient word is consistently. Leach is consistently bringing in excellent prospects at the QB position. Have any been of the regard of Rypien or Bledsoe? No, but overall I see the potential as higher than any previous WSU coach I have familiar with. Whether any rise to the performance of a Leaf, Bledsoe or Jack Thompson remains to be seen. All he or any other coach can do is raise the probability as high as possible by attracting good recruits and coach the hell out of them.

Concerning the O-line: "20 bob tail nags do not 5 stallions make." Well done; I like it. At least we now have twenty and whether any end up classified as "bob tailed nags" remains to be seen. The current first five certainly appear to be adequate if not all-leaguers. I agree with Biggs that their improvement and that of the reserves will take time. And considering that the old days when PEDs were dispensed like m&ms are thankfully behind us, it will take longer than it did twenty years ago.

Someone- can't remember who- mentioned Falk's sack numbers in the last part of last season. I don't put much stock in that one way or the other. Remember that the right side of the O-line was decimated by injury and illness during that time. Look back at Mariota's performance in Martin last year. Oregon had similar problems with their O-line at the time. Mariota, certainly one of the top two college quarterbacks and an experienced one, playing on one of the top college teams ended running for his life. That was possibly the best performance our defense had last season. Let us judge the OL abilities when they are healthy and see how many sacks they give up then.

Record turn around time: 3, 4, 5 years? Nine times out of ten it happens early? Does it not depend on why the previous staff failed? Was there a dearth of talent or was it just poor coaching? Orgeron had the Trojans playing pretty damn well within weeks of Kiffin's termination. Good coaching can do it relatively quickly when the tools/talent are there. In cases where the previous staff failed on the recruiting trail it obviously takes a lot longer for equally obvious reasons.

 

[wulffui]

You know someone does not know what he thinks he knows and everything else he writes is suspect when he gets his very first sentence WRONG. Mike Riley left for the San Diego Chargers after TWO years.

After two years where he peaked at 5-6, no less. Too bad Leach didn't leave after last year, when he'd "turned it around"- by some standards, at least.

 

[wulffui]

Also, Google Dan McCarney. Since Wulff is a Walden guy, it would make sense that only he could put a program into a ditch as hard as his mentor. Also, ISU is a decent analogue for WSU. They gave him five years, cause that's what it took, but it worked- because thats how long it takes to get the Walden (or his acolytes) out of the bloodstream.

 

[spongebob11]

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.

Say what?!!

Price brought in Bledsoe, Leaf, and Gesser. No idea what you are talking about here.

 

[CougEd]

Also, Google Dan McCarney. Since Wulff is a Walden guy, it would make sense that only he could put a program into a ditch as hard as his mentor. Also, ISU is a decent analogue for WSU. They gave him five years, cause that's what it took, but it worked- because thats how long it takes to get the Walden (or his acolytes) out of the bloodstream.

So I do have to ask...since it was in the ditch, how did he go to a bowl with the ditch diggers players in the secondary and yet when he has his own defensive recruits we look like WSU circa 2009?

Also, Google Dan McCarney. Since Wulff is a Walden guy, it would make sense that only he could put a program into a ditch as hard as his mentor. Also, ISU is a decent analogue for WSU. They gave him five years, cause that's what it took, but it worked- because thats how long it takes to get the Walden (or his acolytes) out of the bloodstream.

After two years where he peaked at 5-6, no less. Too bad Leach didn't leave after last year, when he'd "turned it around"- by some standards, at least.

Also, Google Dan McCarney. Since Wulff is a Walden guy, it would make sense that only he could put a program into a ditch as hard as his mentor. Also, ISU is a decent analogue for WSU. They gave him five years, cause that's what it took, but it worked- because thats how long it takes to get the Walden (or his acolytes) out of the bloodstream.

Wulffui...here is a legit question. Since the program was in the ditch and just run a ground by wulff, and for discussion sake I won't argue the point. How is it Leach made it to a bowl game with ditch drivers kids and when his kids are put into battle they look like 2009? Are you saying they forgot how to coach?

 

[CougPatrol]

These, "he got us to a bowl game" posts are so.... Wulffian, as some of you like to say. We finished our mythical bowl season with a losing record, a choke job in the bowl game, and a loss in the Apple Cup.

Yes, it was nice to see us not lose to the tune of 69-0, but again, we've already established that Mike Leach is better than Paul Wulff. If we show signs this year, the arrow points upwards towards a nice 2016. If we stumble our way to a 4-8 record (or worse), Leach's seat starts warming.

 

[CougEd]

These, "he got us to a bowl game" posts are so.... Wulffian, as some of you like to say. We finished our mythical bowl season with a losing record, a choke job in the bowl game, and a loss in the Apple Cup.

Yes, it was nice to see us not lose to the tune of 69-0, but again, we've already established that Mike Leach is better than Paul Wulff. If we show signs this year, the arrow points upwards towards a nice 2016. If we stumble our way to a 4-8 record (or worse), Leach's seat starts warming.

It does really crack me up. I will be always one that believes it takes five years to turn the program around in a positive direction. I remember preaching patience, and it is funny those who told me this is the Pac 10/12 and that I should have higher expectations are now the ones preaching patience.

I won't lie 2014 rattled me a little. There were many conversations between Biggs and myself in the midst of 2010 that if Leach was available you fire Wulff immediately. When Leach was hired I thought winning 6-6 and better was a certainty. There was a time I would have bet the house on it. But 2014 probably shouldn't have happened, at least not to 3-9. Not a 60-59 loss to Cal.

The one position that is the easiest for young players to play is DB, where they can be semi productive. Semi productive would have been 5-7. They weren't that and what I thought was a virtual certainty has become I think he can.

 

[wulffui]

So I do have to ask...since it was in the ditch, how did he go to a bowl with the ditch diggers players in the secondary and yet when he has his own defensive recruits we look like WSU circa 2009?

Man, it's like your Gauta's and Sagote's... cornerstone pieces- were here when he got... No. No, they weren't, or any reasonable facsimile thereof. I've also pointed to about a dozen things that were odd for last year- kicking game, mostly- that turned a season that should have had a 5-7 floor. So, if stupid people want to panic, their issue.



Wulffui...here is a legit question. Since the program was in the ditch and just run a ground by wulff, and for discussion sake I won't argue the point. How is it Leach made it to a bowl game with ditch drivers kids and when his kids are put into battle they look like 2009? Are you saying they forgot how to coach?

It was so meaningful, you needed it twice? Oh, good. The new format put my answer in the body of your question.

 

[wulffui]

These, "he got us to a bowl game" posts are so.... Wulffian, as some of you like to say.

Nonsense. If there were anything Wulffian about being in a bowl game, he'd still be here, rather than... nothing, right? Is he coaching at all?

 

[BiggsCoug]

Nonsense. If there were anything Wulffian about being in a bowl game, he'd still be here, rather than... nothing, right? Is he coaching at all?

I haven't seen any word on him being hired anywhere. Which is shocking cause he's such an amazing football coach.

 

[CougPatrol]

I haven't seen any word on him being hired anywhere. Which is shocking cause he's such an amazing football coach.

He's the worst coach we've ever had, period. That doesn't, however, buy Leach 8-10 years. We must improve this year, and especially next year.

 

[BiggsCoug]

He's the worst coach we've ever had, period. That doesn't, however, buy Leach 8-10 years. We must improve this year, and especially next year.

If Leach had 4 bowls in 8 years is that good?

 

[CougPatrol]

If Leach had 4 bowls in 8 years is that good?

Fantastic, provided we finish above .500 a couple of times.

 

[CougEd]

It was so meaningful, you needed it twice? Oh, good. The new format put my answer in the body of your question.

Nope....hit a button and lost what I wrote in this new format.

 

[CougEd]

It was so meaningful, you needed it twice? Oh, good. The new format put my answer in the body of your question.

So Wulffui...if it was just those cornerstones why weren't two players replaced. It sure seems like the NFL is more interested in Cooper, ditch diggers guy than the cornerstone of the defense. And I would say not having anyone in the back end that could play two handed touch was the problem, not losing the cornerstones of he defense.

 

[dgibbons]

How bout all that interest in Blair Bomber?

It is rather amazing how you make such a big deal out of Wulff recruiting a guy that was a grade risk and who never actually played a down while Wulff was the coach.

 

[wulffui]

So Wulffui...if it was just those cornerstones why weren't two players replaced. It sure seems like the NFL is more interested in Cooper, ditch diggers guy than the cornerstone of the defense. And I would say not having anyone in the back end that could play two handed touch was the problem, not losing the cornerstones of he defense.

And they like Vince Mayle more than they liked Marquess Wilson. That's why using a one player sample set is asinine.

How much did Cooper play under Wulff, anyways?

 

[wulffui]

So Wulffui...if it was just those cornerstones why weren't two players replaced. It sure seems like the NFL is more interested in Cooper, ditch diggers guy than the cornerstone of the defense. And I would say not having anyone in the back end that could play two handed touch was the problem, not losing the cornerstones of he defense.

Didn't ditch not even offer till after signing day?

 

[Fab5Coug]

So I do have to ask...since it was in the ditch, how did he go to a bowl with the ditch diggers players in the secondary and yet when he has his own defensive recruits we look like WSU circa 2009?





Wulffui...here is a legit question. Since the program was in the ditch and just run a ground by wulff, and for discussion sake I won't argue the point. How is it Leach made it to a bowl game with ditch drivers kids and when his kids are put into battle they look like 2009? Are you saying they forgot how to coach?

Please don't compare teams to 09. Makes your point look ridiculous. Last years team would have beat Wulff's 08 & 09 teams combined by 5 touchdowns.

 

[CougEd]

Please don't compare teams to 09. Makes your point look ridiculous. Last years team would have beat Wulff's 08 & 09 teams combined by 5 touchdowns.

I don't disagree 2014's team would have beaten 2009 team. 2014's team had a qb and some receivers so they could score. I am going to write some numbers down for you, and you tell me which team is which...39, 38, 27, 27, 52, 27, 49, 40, 48, 43, 42, 30 for 462 points, or 41, 24, 21, 38, 27, 60, 34, 59, 44, 32, 52, 31 for 463 points. One team had an offense to kill clock, the other couldn't get a first down.