Offensive numbers...
- Thread starter Coug95man2
- Start date
Yes , damned funny. Too legit wasn't too legit to quit after an eye blink or whatever that was. Pick on me....I'm a man...I'm like what Corey Sullivan used to be.
That's not what I was thinking. I've followed WSU for too long to expect "blow the doors off" play every week. I was hoping he'd transform us into a formidable, middle tier pac-12 team. Defense and special teams have prevented that, but the offensive progression has been noticeable.
Wow just wow CougEd once again shows up like clockwork once again and true to form spouts his absolutely ridiculous drivel.
To make it absolutely clear for people.
Year 1 new coach new system DOES NOT equal Year 4 of the previous coach.
You have new terminology, new routes, and a new philosophy to learn....and yes it takes 3 days to install, but just like ANYTHING it takes time to master.
Saying well we were this in 2011 and now it's this in 2012 and not understanding a transition to new material is like saying well A Senior taking an exam in a course is as good as a Freshmen taking the same course. It just doesn't work that way. I don't know why it is so hard to comprehend for people to understand but hey if you thought Wulff was a good coach well then you definitely are short on brain cells and critical thinking.
So to spell it out for those who have trouble understanding things here we go.
Erickson
Year 1 ppg 1987 - 21.6 - rank 58 out of 104
Year 2 ppg 1988 - 34.6 - rank 10th out of 105
average ppg (only 2 years) 28.1 average rank 34
Price
Year 1 ppg 1989 - 31.9 - rank 13 out of 106
Year 2 ppg 1990 - 26 - rank 40 out of 107
Year 2 ppg 1991 - 25.5 rank 36 out of 107
Year 4 ppg 1992 - 28.1 rank 23 out of 107
Year 14 ppg 2002 - 33.2 rank 17 out of 117
average ppg (first 4 years) 27.87 average rank 28
Doba
Year 1 ppg 2003 - 30.3 - rank 31 out of 117
Year 2 ppg 2004 - 25.0 - rank 60 out of 120
Year 3 ppg 2005 - 33.5 - rank 21 out 119
Year 4 ppg 2006 - 24.6 - rank 57 out of 119
Year 5 ppg 2007 - 25.7 - rank 74 out of 120
average ppg (first 4 years) 28.35 average rank 42
Wulff
Year 1 ppg 2008 - 12.7 rank 119 out of 120
Year 2 ppg 2009 - 12.0 rank 120 out of 120
Year 3 ppg 2010 - 19.6 rank 106 out of 120
Year 4 ppg 2011 - 29.8 rank 45 out of 120
average ppg (first 4 years) 18.5 average rank 97
Leach
Year 1 ppg 2012 - 20.4 - rank 108 out of 120
Year 2 ppg 2013 - 31.0 - rank 52 out of 120
Year 3 ppg 2014 - 31.8 - rank 48 out of 120
Year 4 ppg 2015 - TBD
average ppg (only 3 years) 27.7 average rank 69
So what does all this tell us....
Not a single coach (save for Erickson) was BETTER than the last year of their predecessor. Not Mike Price, Not Doba, Certainly Not Wulff, and Not Leach either.
Wulff was by far the WORST offensive coach over the first 4 years and had the largest drop off average.
Leach with still 1 year to go is only .1 point below Price's first 4 and .6 behind Doba's ppg average.
So yes the offense still has a ways to go with Leach, but it is not far away from breaking into the same league as Erickson/Price/Doba first 4 years.
And this...once again should make it perfectly clear...to anyone that Wulff set us WAY WAY back in terms of building the program.
To make it absolutely clear for people.
Year 1 new coach new system DOES NOT equal Year 4 of the previous coach.
You have new terminology, new routes, and a new philosophy to learn....and yes it takes 3 days to install, but just like ANYTHING it takes time to master.
Saying well we were this in 2011 and now it's this in 2012 and not understanding a transition to new material is like saying well A Senior taking an exam in a course is as good as a Freshmen taking the same course. It just doesn't work that way. I don't know why it is so hard to comprehend for people to understand but hey if you thought Wulff was a good coach well then you definitely are short on brain cells and critical thinking.
So to spell it out for those who have trouble understanding things here we go.
Erickson
Year 1 ppg 1987 - 21.6 - rank 58 out of 104
Year 2 ppg 1988 - 34.6 - rank 10th out of 105
average ppg (only 2 years) 28.1 average rank 34
Price
Year 1 ppg 1989 - 31.9 - rank 13 out of 106
Year 2 ppg 1990 - 26 - rank 40 out of 107
Year 2 ppg 1991 - 25.5 rank 36 out of 107
Year 4 ppg 1992 - 28.1 rank 23 out of 107
Year 14 ppg 2002 - 33.2 rank 17 out of 117
average ppg (first 4 years) 27.87 average rank 28
Doba
Year 1 ppg 2003 - 30.3 - rank 31 out of 117
Year 2 ppg 2004 - 25.0 - rank 60 out of 120
Year 3 ppg 2005 - 33.5 - rank 21 out 119
Year 4 ppg 2006 - 24.6 - rank 57 out of 119
Year 5 ppg 2007 - 25.7 - rank 74 out of 120
average ppg (first 4 years) 28.35 average rank 42
Wulff
Year 1 ppg 2008 - 12.7 rank 119 out of 120
Year 2 ppg 2009 - 12.0 rank 120 out of 120
Year 3 ppg 2010 - 19.6 rank 106 out of 120
Year 4 ppg 2011 - 29.8 rank 45 out of 120
average ppg (first 4 years) 18.5 average rank 97
Leach
Year 1 ppg 2012 - 20.4 - rank 108 out of 120
Year 2 ppg 2013 - 31.0 - rank 52 out of 120
Year 3 ppg 2014 - 31.8 - rank 48 out of 120
Year 4 ppg 2015 - TBD
average ppg (only 3 years) 27.7 average rank 69
So what does all this tell us....
Not a single coach (save for Erickson) was BETTER than the last year of their predecessor. Not Mike Price, Not Doba, Certainly Not Wulff, and Not Leach either.
Wulff was by far the WORST offensive coach over the first 4 years and had the largest drop off average.
Leach with still 1 year to go is only .1 point below Price's first 4 and .6 behind Doba's ppg average.
So yes the offense still has a ways to go with Leach, but it is not far away from breaking into the same league as Erickson/Price/Doba first 4 years.
And this...once again should make it perfectly clear...to anyone that Wulff set us WAY WAY back in terms of building the program.
And if people want predictions if the offense improves just 3 ppg under Leach which is feasible it would rank the offense #27 in the country. So thinking about how many missed field goals we had last year... six. That's 18 points or a 1.5 ppg right there alone that we missed. It's not unobtainable to get the other 1.5 elsewhere.
Having an inept kicker impacts the offense more than missed FGs. How many attempts did we pass up because of the zero confidence factor? How many play calls would have been different on 3rd and long from beyond the 25 yard line if we had a trusted kicker?
I think the kicking situation cost us 6 pts/game last season.
Agree with Patrol. The kicking situation cost us in many ways, and 6 pts/game is as good a guess as any.
Tron...I don't disagree with the facts you laid out. But you missed a very important fact. What did Walden, Erickson, Price and Wulff have in common? None ever coached in a "Big 5 conference. As a matter of fact, Erickson was one year removed from Idaho and spent the 1986 in Laramie. while a decent program, did one of the people you mentioned have the credentials Mike Leach had? I would be curious to know how many points Arizona, ASU and UCLA improved during the same time.
"Dude", of course there are scoring expectations. Moos set that up long ago. "an exciting an high scoring offense" is what I recall hearing. And yes, if Mike Leach was in the top 3rd in the Big 12 in scoring, shouldn't that be the expectation in Pullman? And if you are in the lower half of the conference in scoring, and you have the defense we saw in 2014, doesn't it only make sense that you need to outscore teams? Is that the one area that Leach has really shined?
I guess what I should have read into your original post is that you were surprised by the numbers because they are just numbers. But I do have to ask you "why were you surprised?"
Last year we got into the red zone 61 times and scored 39 td's.
I don't think it's a stretch to think we can get to 65 tries and 45 td's in the next year or two with improved/more consistent offensive Line play and a somewhat better running game, is it??
If so, there's 3pts. Per game on average and a little more t.o.p. which helps the defense.
I don't think it's a stretch to think we can get to 65 tries and 45 td's in the next year or two with improved/more consistent offensive Line play and a somewhat better running game, is it??
If so, there's 3pts. Per game on average and a little more t.o.p. which helps the defense.
First, I was surprised because it seemed like we had scored more than that. That's the beauty of statistics. It takes away my personal bias. You should try it some time.
If you even remotely think that the team CML had taken over at WSU is remotely close to the caliber of team he took over at TT, you are delusional. Those numbers will never jive. We can find statistic after statistic to compare but since we are talking about PPG, here ya go.
the average PPG the TT program had prior to CML:
-24.6 average PPG over 4 years.
-18.5 average over 4 years at WSU prior to CML.
-Average national ranking of 62 over 4 years at TT.
-WSU over the 4 years prior to CML? 112th.
Lets compare Oranges to Oranges, Ed. Not some esoteric, "aura of CML is a god and we are now relevant in the PAC, first year with CML" kinda thing, or expectations based on "feelings" instead of hard facts. If you want to compare CML's tenure to WSU's, please give hard facts to make the analogy more accurate. Your "feelings" about your expectations are irrelevant without facts to back them up. If you are just saying, "I'm disappointed", OK.
But the above numbers should quench your disappointment a bit because CML is doing a decent job of digging us out. If you need more numbers to compare, to see how much CML has brought our program, to assuage your pain, let me and others know. We can all come up with more numbers to show how far our program has come since the depths of the "dark years". We can all help you, Ed.
Why do you devolve so many threads into Wulff vs. Leach?
We won 3 games in year 3. Lets just stop it with the "our program has come so far" meme until we actually have a winning season, shall we?
We won 3 games in year 3. Lets just stop it with the "our program has come so far" meme until we actually have a winning season, shall we?
I didn't bring up Wulff. No more than I brought up Dykes at TT prior to CML. So go away. Or is Spike Dykes a touché subject?
When Ed goes away, guess what? The meme does not devolve into the tired Wulff vs Leach. We all get busy at times and are not able to post. When Ed gets too busy or just decides to take a break, it just doesn't. Watch yourself next time he does not post for a week.
Chinook, we could all be wrong, but I don't think so. I see similar things to when Dick Bennett took over a nightmare of a program. There was still a lot of bad (hello Oklahoma State game), but the team was getting better even though the results did not show. I see the same thing happening with the football program. There still is a lot of bad, but this team is getting better.
When Portland State is sold out, "We all" will see what you seem to see.
Until then, I see one statistic, 2 D-1 wins in year three.
Until then, I see one statistic, 2 D-1 wins in year three.
t
Well, most people do not pay attention or understand things as well as some of do on here.
I know. Yur smawrt.
Recruit rankings, don't matter
Wins, dont matter
Empty seats, dont matter.
But, you get "it", so there's that.
Recruit rankings, don't matter
Wins, dont matter
Empty seats, dont matter.
But, you get "it", so there's that.
Frankly, yes I do get it. Thank you Chinook for noticing.
1990...who mentioned Wulff? You did. Not a discussion about Wulff. It was about the "surprise" of the lack of offense by the numbers by WSU and where we fit in the PAc 12. Someone mentioned it was about the offensive line. You seem to think so as many others do. In hindsight you have two players in 2012 that were either on a 53 man roster or recently drafted. The 1997 line didn't have one player drafted. Withrow played a bit in the NFL. How many starters on the 2002 oline got drafted or made a roster. I think in HINDSIGHT saying it is the offensive line based on that fact there alone, and the fact the oline was well coached by McGuire, and the fact that they stayed healthy the entire year speaks to something else.
You get by season three Leach went from 23 points a game to 38 at tech. After year one Tech was in the top three every year in scoring. Even with Halliday leading the nation in passing we finished were in scoring. There have been numerous analysts that say were are way out of balance. Some could say his offense is easier to defense and they simply drop 8 into coverage.
But nice try turning a discussion of points and lack thereof compared to his resume into a Wulff discussion.
What "personal bias"? Did I say to fire Leach? Have you ever once heard me say that? did you ever hear me say fire Mike Breske? Did you ever hear me say Leach should not get his five years in? I like Mike Leach, a lot. Next time Biggs comes on this "station" ask him how many times we texted during 2010, when Wulff was coach, that if Mike Leach was available and we had the money we should hire him. I think Mike Leach represents WSU well, he is smart, has a sense of humor and cares about the kids education. So tell me again where my "personal" bias would be.
I too am surprised that our numbers aren't better. I simply disagree with the rationale as to why since now I have "data" that is different than I had in 2012 and 2013. That "data" may suggest the oline with NFL caliber players, not great mind you but apparently at least on par with the Corey Withrows and the Jason McEndoo's of the world may not have been as bad as we believed.
So I would tend to look elsewhere based on that data. For example do we get enough "explosives" from our slot receivers. Cracraft is great, and is so valuable, so that is one end of the equation, but what about the guy who takes a five yard slant 60 yards? Has that guy really emerged yet. Do I think receivers are a problem. Nope, but one more big play is the difference between 29 a game and 36 a game. But maybe as important, because the linebackers have no running game read at all, they are dropping 8 guys into the areas the slots "make their living". That could be as viable a reason as others have pointed to the offensive line.
But what I have learned from this exercise is that you are a numbers guy. Love stats, and you simply post the stats to repost them, and saving us the energy of looking them ourselves. Next time you post stats I will understand this and the stats were not meant as a discussion point, just a post about stats.
Here is a state or two...In Leach's third year he took a team from scoring 23 a game to 38 a game. Another stat in I believe 2007 (don't quote me on the year ) he was in the top 2 in Big 12 scoring at over 40 a game. He was always in the top three in scoring. What "surprised" me Tech was in the bottom half of the Big twelve that year in red zone scoring.
I too am surprised that our numbers aren't better. I simply disagree with the rationale as to why since now I have "data" that is different than I had in 2012 and 2013. That "data" may suggest the oline with NFL caliber players, not great mind you but apparently at least on par with the Corey Withrows and the Jason McEndoo's of the world may not have been as bad as we believed.
So I would tend to look elsewhere based on that data. For example do we get enough "explosives" from our slot receivers. Cracraft is great, and is so valuable, so that is one end of the equation, but what about the guy who takes a five yard slant 60 yards? Has that guy really emerged yet. Do I think receivers are a problem. Nope, but one more big play is the difference between 29 a game and 36 a game. But maybe as important, because the linebackers have no running game read at all, they are dropping 8 guys into the areas the slots "make their living". That could be as viable a reason as others have pointed to the offensive line.
But what I have learned from this exercise is that you are a numbers guy. Love stats, and you simply post the stats to repost them, and saving us the energy of looking them ourselves. Next time you post stats I will understand this and the stats were not meant as a discussion point, just a post about stats.
Here is a state or two...In Leach's third year he took a team from scoring 23 a game to 38 a game. Another stat in I believe 2007 (don't quote me on the year ) he was in the top 2 in Big 12 scoring at over 40 a game. He was always in the top three in scoring. What "surprised" me Tech was in the bottom half of the Big twelve that year in red zone scoring.
WSU has dealt with all of those issues in 90% of our football seasons. I guess we could fire Leach and start over, and maybe we will down the road, but now?
All personal biases aside, that sounds like a horrible business move.
When you have "expectations" but have no facts behind them, that's called personal bias… aka emotion. You expected a certain number (still have no clue what that is) but have no facts to back that up. You brought up CML's time at TT but I gave you numbers to refute your analogy. Basically, your numbers sucked.
I didn't say anything about firing CML… where the hell did that come from?! Wow. Not even coming out of left field, you're not even in the same ball park I'm in.
You bring up numbers from TT in 2007. You weren't sure exactly so I'll give you a year or two. But lets say 2006. That was CML's 6th year in the program. We haven't even started CML's 4th here. So what's your point here? And again, a program that started in a completely different place, ed. Do you also realize, in 1998, 2 years prior to CML taking over, TT was ranked as high as 22nd in the nation? So to take your analogy, where was WSU 2 years prior to CML taking over?
That is sort of the point, I don't have a point! As I said I was just posting numbers as you simply posted numbers that surprised you. The fact Tech was second in scoring and 7th in red-zone scoring "surprised me". It wasn't really a discussion point, and apparently yours wasn't either. So we are just two "dudes" posting surprising stats.
In terms of expectations I just told you he finished in the top three in scoring every single year but one at Tech. What you are telling me and others is that his resume doesn't matter, that WSU is a "different" rebuild, one that he has never taken on. Not sure I would disagree with that to be honest. Has he ever rebuilt anything? I believe he supplemented what was there. So maybe he truly is in unchartered territory.
In terms of expectations, his boss came out when he was hired and laid the expectations. Moos didn't come out and say we hired one of the top 10 coaches in the country (and I believe that) but it is a five year project. He didn't come out and say we should expect three losing seasons and then things will turn around. A matter of fact, he said quite the opposite. In sales, he over promised and under delivered.
In terms of where I would have thought Leach would be is in the top three in scoring offense for conference games, and I believe that number should be around be about ten more points a conference game that what WSU did in 2011, if we use history as a reference.
Love the round robin, devolving thing. I never said I don't have a point. YOU said that. Please don't speak for me. And it's very obvious you don't have a point.
Regarding "expectations" and what Moos said.. this is a whole other point and one that hasn't been brought up on this thread, although talked about ad nauseum in others. "I don't know if I'd disagree" that Moos oversold and under delivered but I will also point out, that's what every AD, when hiring every coach, says. So I will always take whatever Moos says with a grain of "salesmanship" salt. You didn't? Your bad. Again, might want to look up actual numbers to get rid of your emotional "expectations".
Does CML's resume matter? Hell yeah. Why wouldn't it? I just don't think that comparing what he did at TT/Big 12 and what he's doing at WSU is as linear as you are trying to point out. It's just a bad analogy.
Has he ever rebuilt anything? Um. No, I guess? He's in "uncharted territory" yet you continue to try to make comparisons to history and the Big 12 and TT and all these others… but I thought this was "uncharted"?
And now to your last paragraph… You expected CML, I'm assuming you expected this to be in 2014, to be in the top 3 offenses in the Pac? While it isn't where we want it to be, you do realize this thread is chock full of statistical points that show how close we are to that, right? Everyone is using last years numbers so it's pretty current. Go ahead and kinda read this thread all the way through and you'll find:
-BrettCraycraft pointing out the great progression in PPG since 2011. Almost 7 PPG.
-You'll notice I posted the Pac12 in order… if we get 10 more PPG, we'll be #2. If we get 6 more PPG, we'll still be in your goal of Top 3 in the PAC.
-Tron has some great numbers that show how close we are and he even states that if we can just improve by 3PPG, we'd be #27 in the NATION in PPG. That's awful good.
-Patrol brings up how a kicker could make all the difference in the world, as well. GREAT point. Others chimed in regarding how a kicker with confidence is a game changer and could up our PPG even more than 1.5-3.
So here's the problem, Ed. You keep posting "without a point" when everyone is showing you numbers that should make you happy? We're very close to your "expectation". Yet you keep posting "without a point". Do you see how that might make it a little confusing for those that don't live in EdWorld?
The only problem with my argument, and it's a big one, is that I don't know if we'll have a better kicker in 2015.
Discussing expectations three years after the fact is just so CougEd. I think someone should pen a new Iron Law.
Walden was totally piece of crap coach. - 9 years he coached at WSU and 6 of them only had 3-4 wins. He was basically 3 times worse than what Leach has done for the people that complain about Leach. They should be looking to put Walden's head on a pike.
Wulff was one of THE worst coaches in the history of FBS. He's coaching the Team USA now as an assistant. Let that sink in to how bad he was. 4 years ago he was a BCS coach. Now he's coaching highschool kids.
Erickson was a good coach
Price was a good coach
Where they came from...who cares!...What matters is if they can coach or not. Leach is digging us out of the hole that Wulff put us in. It wasn't a small hole. It was a chasm.
- When you recruit in the bottom of the FBS for 4 years against teams in the top quarter.
- You average 14-15 ppg the first 3 years
- You win 9 games over 4 years
You basically are writing a death penalty for the program. Wulff was our dealth penalty, and for a program like WSU that doesn't have the advantages that others have..someone like him RUINED what it took Price over a decade to build. Yes Doba contributed to the decline, but it was still salvageable when Wulff came in, and essentially it went in the gutter.
And people like you that still cling to his defense are the problem. He should have been canned after year 2 when things got worse instead of better than the horrific 2008 season. We were worse than bad under Wulff.
ASU / Arizona / UCLA weren't in the bottom recruiting of the conference / nation the past 4 years prior. None of them walked into as situation where their program averaged 12 points a game two years in a row. GET IT IN YOUR HEAD. WULFF WAS A BAD COACH, AND HE SUNK THE PROGRAM LIKE A STONE.
Leach is getting us out of this mess.
- Our recruiting is significantly better to where we are competing in conference for players
- We've gone to a bowl game
- Our offensive line looks like an actual offensive line
- We are breaking NCAA records in offense
We have two bad areas. Special Teams / Defense. Like a good coach Leach is making changes to fix the issues.
Ask yourself if WSU had the talent ASU/UCLA/Arizona had when Leach walked in the door do you think our offense would have been better? With an actual offensive line? With a team that wasn't 4 diamonds and an 81 FCS teamers?
"I never said I don't have a point."
A horrible choice of words; my sincerest apologies. What I should have said is your point in the original discussion was you were surprised by the stats of points per game. That seems to be your point. Posting a stat and being surprised by it. Any discussion relative to the stats is just going off point. Thus I posted stats from 2007 at Tech that surprised me. Just two "dudes" posting surprising stats I guess.
"You expected CML, I'm assuming you expected this to be in 2014, to be in the top 3 offenses in the Pac? While it isn't where we want it to be, you do realize this thread is chock full of statistical points that show how close we are to that, right?"
Can't we do that with almost any stat? Yes, I totally agree IF we had a kicker we would have been one game closer to a bowl game. What I am not sure of is how many times Leach would go for a FG vs a first down once inside the 30. He has shown at times he would rather not kick the FG. Maybe that is why in 2007 at tech he was number two in the conference in scoring and he was 8th in red zone efficiency.
Tron has great numbers. I guess where I have “skepticism” that isn’t pointed out in the numbers is we lose our starting QB. Falk had a great game against OSU, he played well for a half against ASU and crapped his pants in the second half, and well we know what happened in the Apple Cup. So yeah, the stats if we had our starting QB coming back would probably mean more to me.
The whole Tech discussion cracks me up. On one hand his resume and all the great work at Tech matters, but when you point to the differences in scoring and winning it can’t be used as a compass of what he could do, and some argue he should do.
“Again, might want to look up actual numbers to get rid of your emotional "expectations".”
Which numbers, the decrease in point production in 2012? Or what he has historically done at his other job where they increased by 13 points in the third year?
“So here's the problem, Ed. You keep posting "without a point" when everyone is showing you numbers that should make you happy? We're very close to your "expectation".”
I don’t see the confusion at all. How did the stats that Leaf ramped up in 1996 and 1997 translate to 1998 and 1999? How did what Gesser do in 2001 and 2002 translate to 2004? Since I have watched WSU football, how many times has a new starter put up better numbers than the junior (Rosie, Bledsoe and Leaf) or seniors like Kegel who just departed? I believe if Falk puts up better number than Halliday, it will be a first since I have been watching WSU football. And if he does, it will be a great boost for the program.
Yet you keep posting "without a point". Do you see how that might make it a little confusing for those that don't live in EdWorld? No more confusing to me than that of Universe according to C-man.
A horrible choice of words; my sincerest apologies. What I should have said is your point in the original discussion was you were surprised by the stats of points per game. That seems to be your point. Posting a stat and being surprised by it. Any discussion relative to the stats is just going off point. Thus I posted stats from 2007 at Tech that surprised me. Just two "dudes" posting surprising stats I guess.
"You expected CML, I'm assuming you expected this to be in 2014, to be in the top 3 offenses in the Pac? While it isn't where we want it to be, you do realize this thread is chock full of statistical points that show how close we are to that, right?"
Can't we do that with almost any stat? Yes, I totally agree IF we had a kicker we would have been one game closer to a bowl game. What I am not sure of is how many times Leach would go for a FG vs a first down once inside the 30. He has shown at times he would rather not kick the FG. Maybe that is why in 2007 at tech he was number two in the conference in scoring and he was 8th in red zone efficiency.
Tron has great numbers. I guess where I have “skepticism” that isn’t pointed out in the numbers is we lose our starting QB. Falk had a great game against OSU, he played well for a half against ASU and crapped his pants in the second half, and well we know what happened in the Apple Cup. So yeah, the stats if we had our starting QB coming back would probably mean more to me.
The whole Tech discussion cracks me up. On one hand his resume and all the great work at Tech matters, but when you point to the differences in scoring and winning it can’t be used as a compass of what he could do, and some argue he should do.
“Again, might want to look up actual numbers to get rid of your emotional "expectations".”
Which numbers, the decrease in point production in 2012? Or what he has historically done at his other job where they increased by 13 points in the third year?
“So here's the problem, Ed. You keep posting "without a point" when everyone is showing you numbers that should make you happy? We're very close to your "expectation".”
I don’t see the confusion at all. How did the stats that Leaf ramped up in 1996 and 1997 translate to 1998 and 1999? How did what Gesser do in 2001 and 2002 translate to 2004? Since I have watched WSU football, how many times has a new starter put up better numbers than the junior (Rosie, Bledsoe and Leaf) or seniors like Kegel who just departed? I believe if Falk puts up better number than Halliday, it will be a first since I have been watching WSU football. And if he does, it will be a great boost for the program.
Yet you keep posting "without a point". Do you see how that might make it a little confusing for those that don't live in EdWorld? No more confusing to me than that of Universe according to C-man.
Tron...I will nibble but won't bite. Why did this become a Wulff discussion. It was about a coach who has a reputation of a high scoring offense and Cmans posted "surprising" numbers to the contrary. It was about scoring offense and you veer off on another Wulff tangent.
I simply said Leach has something much different in his back ground than the other coaches who you mentioned.
And BTW, you what to talk about inheriting crap, how about being on the last car on the train of four coaches in four years, with an instate rival that just went to the Rose Bowl and became a dominate player in the Pac 10. Look at facilities and what they have now is the Taj Mahal compared to what went on in the 1980's. Not to mention a facilities upgrade was going to Rima paints and getting two gallons to paint the coaches offices.
And WSU easily could have been voted out of the Pac 10, and Walden made them relevant when he took them to their first bowl game in 50 plus years. Yeah, he sucked.
Walden took over a 6-5 Powers team 3-7, 3-8, 4-7 (total wins first 3 years 10) Leach has 12.
So if you think Walden is a good coach then Leach is God Tier using basic logic. See Ed I see through your bs hypocrisy.
Totally disagree about Walden as a coach. He injected life into a dead program. He won huge games, several against our (at the time) Goliath rival. He brought the Apple Cup back to Pullman. He recruited some legendary players on a shoestring budget with laughably bad facilities. He took us to our first bowl game in decades. He had us one Apple cup win from the Rose Bowl in 1981. In 1983, Don James and the general media/consensus was that WSU was the best team in the league at the end of the season, another where we missed out on the Rose Bowl by a single game. By today's standards, WSU would have been a 3 bowls in a decade program in the 1980s.
Walden wasn't a good radio broadcaster, and he went a bit kooky later in life, but he is a legendary WSU coach.
Walden wasn't a good radio broadcaster, and he went a bit kooky later in life, but he is a legendary WSU coach.
Similar threads
