Offensive numbers...

[Coug95man2]

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.

Yeah, gotta agree 100% with Patrol. Where WSU was back then was pretty dark. Walden gave a lot. Unfortunately, there's a whole generation or two that know him solely as the "Kooky" (you're being generous Patrol) radio guy that cackled when he got giddy and the whole Wulff firing that subsequently turned to a Walden firing and the quotes that came out of that debacle… But as far as a coach, he did quite a bit for WSU. It may not be clear in those years you point out, Tron, but like the point I try to make with Ed, sometimes it isn't JUST about the "W's".

 

[chinookpirate]

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.

You should talk with players from Walden's first team. Four head coaches in four years. Morale through the floor. No bowl games in 50 years. Worst facilities in the conference. Zero head coaching experience. Low recruiting budget.

Walden had it MUCH worse.

 

[CougPatrol]

Walden had 3 good teams in the 1980s. Price had 3 in the 90s and again in the 00s, counting 2003.

Price and Walden were the two best coaches we've had in over half a century. Erickson? Not with a 2 year tenure.

 

[dgibbons]

Yeah, gotta agree 100% with Patrol. Where WSU was back then was pretty dark. Walden gave a lot. Unfortunately, there's a whole generation or two that know him solely as the "Kooky" (you're being generous Patrol) radio guy that cackled when he got giddy and the whole Wulff firing that subsequently turned to a Walden firing and the quotes that came out of that debacle… But as far as a coach, he did quite a bit for WSU. It may not be clear in those years you point out, Tron, but like the point I try to make with Ed, sometimes it isn't JUST about the "W's".

Just a reminder about how dark it was in 2011, Wulff's winning percentage was lower than SMU's from r the four years after the death penalty and lower than Marshall's for the four years after the plane crash.

That's pitch black.

 

[wulffui]

You should talk with players from Walden's first team. Four head coaches in four years. Not as bad as the worst coach ever for four years. Morale through the floor. Did the consensus best player on the team stage a public mutiny hours before a game? No bowl games in 50 years. No bowl games for a decade- in the "Everyone gets a bowl" era, not the "Stay home with 7-4" era, which is dubious in its own right... till year two of Leach. Worst facilities in the conference. OK... Zero head coaching experience. Walden doesn't get points for his own shortcomings. Low recruiting budget. It's still comparatively low, right?

Walden had it MUCH worse.

Survey says- NOT accurate. Leach had it at least as tough coming into the barren, desolate, Wulffscape.

He'll get to his second bowl in four years this year, also better than Walden.

 

[CougPatrol]

Just a reminder about how dark it was in 2011, Wulff's winning percentage was lower than SMU's from r the four years after the death penalty and lower than Marshall's for the four years after the plane crash.

That's pitch black.

No question about it, plus, this is an era where every team in the league is "all in" with their football program. There are no easy wins for WSU now. Walden and Price had some company in the basement.

On the other hand, Leach hasn't won yet in Pullman. It's not pitch black anymore, but losing all of our home games is causing me to black out occasionally.

 

[Coug95man2]

No question about it, plus, this is an era where every team in the league is "all in" with their football program. There are no easy wins for WSU now. Walden and Price had some company in the basement.

On the other hand, Leach hasn't won yet in Pullman. It's not pitch black anymore, but losing all of our home games is causing me to black out occasionally.

um. Apple Cup? It is only one but still… a pretty good win.

 

[CougPatrol]

um. Apple Cup? It is only one but still… a pretty good win.

I meant winning record. That was a great Apple cup win in a stinker of a season.

 

[Coug95man2]

I meant winning record. That was a great Apple cup win in a stinker of a season.

There's been some other wins but to forget about that one, I was a little confused. I get'cha now.

 

[chinookpirate]

Survey says- NOT accurate. Leach had it at least as tough coming into the barren, desolate, Wulffscape.

He'll get to his second bowl in four years this year, also better than Walden.

Walden entered the Apple Cup in the drivers seat for a Rose Bowl birth. Get back to me when (if) Leach does the same.

 

[CougPatrol]

Walden entered the Apple Cup in the drivers seat for a Rose Bowl birth. Get back to me when (if) Leach does the same.

I don't think we've seen Leach's best teams yet, but even if we do, I'm not sure how many times (if any) we'll enter the Apple Cup in the drivers seat for a Rose Bowl birth. That's shouldn't be the barometer for success.

 

[chinookpirate]

Wow. How do I debate that?! Your points are very succinct and clear.

You don't even realize you're the one who injected 'another' comparison of Leach's awesomeness to Wulff by pointing out the supposed progress we're enjoying on the field... those 2 wins in year three that 'prove' it.

I'm not surprised Ed's post sailed right over your head.

 

[Coug95man2]

You don't even realize you're the one who injected 'another' comparison of Leach's awesomeness to Wulff by pointing out the supposed progress we're enjoying on the field... those 2 wins in year three that 'prove' it.

I'm not surprised Ed's post sailed right over your head.

Right. You've got this handled.

 

[chinookpirate]

I don't think we've seen Leach's best teams yet, but even if we do, I'm not sure how many times (if any) we'll enter the Apple Cup in the drivers seat for a Rose Bowl birth. That's shouldn't be the barometer for success.

Context, my friend.

and yes, competing for conference championships should ALWAYS be the barometer that defines success.

I think this team is improving. It's year 4. it SHOULD be. It's why I'm on the wrong side of 1/2 of Vegas predicting 5 wins.

 

[chinookpirate]

Right. You've got this handled.

So... you've re-read your you posts and now admit your hysteria was misplaced?

 

[Coug95man2]

So... you've re-read your you posts and now admit your hysteria was misplaced?

Hysteria… Your funny… not really.

Regarding your question, no I'm not "admitting" anything. Like we're playing a "gotcha" game or something. But Ed is continually missing the point. Then he is veering from the conversation so he could bring up his own points. He won't address my points and when I try to refute or address his points, the conversation goes somewhere else. Like firing CML. He's a moving target and it's tiring. I love debating but that's not what this is. It's a round robin. I'm not playing.

Now you. Your just an idiot that's trying to pick a fight. And you can't even do that well.

 

[chinookpirate]

I have never advocated firing Leach.. To my knowledge, Ed has never advocated firing Leach.

I agreed with the Hiring of Leach, just as Ed (and nearly all others here) did

I believe the team is improving and will win 5... half of Vegas thinks it will be 4 or less. This tells me, I may be too optimistic.

I believe we compete in the Pac-12 conference and should be focused on our relative standing and competitiveness within this conference rather than fighting ghosts.

I am a WSU grad and booster.

It Is my impression and understanding, you have issues with each of these 5 points.

 

[MikeFingLeach]

The O/U for wins is 5, but the over pays -130 (according to 5dimes) while the under is -110.

 

[CougEd]

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.

Which hypocrisy is that

Hysteria… Your funny… not really.

Regarding your question, no I'm not "admitting" anything. Like we're playing a "gotcha" game or something. But Ed is continually missing the point. Then he is veering from the conversation so he could bring up his own points. He won't address my points and when I try to refute or address his points, the conversation goes somewhere else. Like firing CML. He's a moving target and it's tiring. I love debating but that's not what this is. It's a round robin. I'm not playing.

Now you. Your just an idiot that's trying to pick a fight. And you can't even do that well.

I admitted I got your point. You were surprised we didn't score more points and it was merely a post about the data that showed that. Just a "dude" posting data.

The talking about firing the coach, yeah, when you used the word bias that could have several different meanings. Bias against the data, bias against the person who the data is about. I chose the latter because it is some peoples perception I don't either like or care for Mike Leach.

 

[CougEd]

Survey says- NOT accurate. Leach had it at least as tough coming into the barren, desolate, Wulffscape.

He'll get to his second bowl in four years this year, also better than Walden.

Wulffui, you continually write that but facts don't bare that out, not in hindsight.

 

[wulffui]

Wulffui, you continually write that but facts don't bare that out, not in hindsight.

What facts are those? Your "hey, he spent a week on a NFL practice squad, so he was a college stud, right?" are NOT salient.

 

[wulffui]

There are teams who draft BASKETBALL players, because they think they can do something with that- just ending up at the end of a roster is not even a little bit some indicator of the great success you had as a collegian.

 

[CougEd]

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.

Well Mike Price took over a "1998" team that that won ten games the year before and won three in 1998, I believe one conference game in 1999, and was 4-7 with three over time losses in 2000. Why do you think that is?

Just a question, what does your "research" with all your data show you about that time? Well, in 1977 WSU had a qb by the name of Jack Thompson, and he was the third pick in the draft. They had another player by the name of Kenny Greene who was picked in the first round. They had a guy named Dan Doornick at RB who played for the Seahawks, they had a guy named Eason Ramson who was drafted by the 49ers and has a Rose Bowl ring. In the 4th round a safety by the name of Schwartz was taken by New Orleans and he played there for several years. I believe it was 8 players were drafted into the NFL that year. So the cupboard was completely bare.

Add to the fact 1/4 of the season was played before the students arrived on campus. Then you had the "most well healed" athletic department taking center stage in the Pac 10 that was located in Seattle. WSU didn't play home games against UW, UCLA or USC until Walden said if we are going to be in the PAc 10 we have to play those team in the Pullman. So UW's first game in Pullman in what 30 some years was in 1982. Why, because Walden pushed it. UCLA played in Pullman in 1979, the first time in 30 years, and I believe USC finally made an appearance after 30 years in 1983. Why, cause Walden pushed that agenda.

Four coaches in four years, no home games, the worse or second worse facilities in the conference and he played for a Rose Bowl birth and the first bowl game in 50 years...yeah he sucked. He was the perfect guy for that job at that time.

 

[CougEd]

What facts are those? Your "hey, he spent a week on a NFL practice squad, so he was a college stud, right?" are NOT salient.

Well first it was more than a week. It was the season. Second, it means they have at least marginal NFL talent. It means they were talented kids on the roster, not a bunch of hacks. So when you say the team was devoid of talent, the facts speak otherwise.

 

[wulffui]

Well first it was more than a week. It was the season. Second, it means they have at least marginal NFL talent. It means they were talented kids on the roster, not a bunch of hacks. So when you say the team was devoid of talent, the facts speak otherwise.

No, they don't. Team has more than two players. Also, when a guy NEVER sees the field, or washes out after half a season, that's not a "marginal NFL player", it's a non-NFL player, or else... and here's the kicker- THEY'D ACTUALLY PLAY- see how that works?

I'm a WSU fan- were any of those UDFA's All Conference players? Because that's what helps WSU, not seventh rounders who get cut before NFL training camp ends.

 

[wulffui]

Well Mike Price took over a "1998" team that that won ten games the year before and won three in 1998, I believe one conference game in 1999, and was 4-7 with three over time losses in 2000. Why do you think that is?

Just a question, what does your "research" with all your data show you about that time? Well, in 1977 WSU had a qb by the name of Jack Thompson, and he was the third pick in the draft. They had another player by the name of Kenny Greene who was picked in the first round. They had a guy named Dan Doornick at RB who played for the Seahawks, they had a guy named Eason Ramson who was drafted by the 49ers and has a Rose Bowl ring. In the 4th round a safety by the name of Schwartz was taken by New Orleans and he played there for several years. I believe it was 8 players were drafted into the NFL that year. So the cupboard was completely bare.

Add to the fact 1/4 of the season was played before the students arrived on campus. Then you had the "most well healed" athletic department taking center stage in the Pac 10 that was located in Seattle. WSU didn't play home games against UW, UCLA or USC until Walden said if we are going to be in the PAc 10 we have to play those team in the Pullman. So UW's first game in Pullman in what 30 some years was in 1982. Why, because Walden pushed it. UCLA played in Pullman in 1979, the first time in 30 years, and I believe USC finally made an appearance after 30 years in 1983. Why, cause Walden pushed that agenda.

Four coaches in four years, no home games, the worse or second worse facilities in the conference and he played for a Rose Bowl birth and the first bowl game in 50 years...yeah he sucked. He was the perfect guy for that job at that time.

Also, Walden got that #3 QB for his first year- he was '79, not '77. So the cupboard was completely bare... except for a top flight QB. So, not actually bare.

 

[CougEd]

Also, Walden got that #3 QB for his first year- he was '79, not '77. So the cupboard was completely bare... except for a top flight QB. So, not actually bare.

correct

 

[wulffui]

correct

That's like opening the cupboard and finding a fully dressed turkey, not the bare cupboard people implied.

 

[CougEd]

No, they don't. Team has more than two players. Also, when a guy NEVER sees the field, or washes out after half a season, that's not a "marginal NFL player", it's a non-NFL player, or else... and here's the kicker- THEY'D ACTUALLY PLAY- see how that works?

I'm a WSU fan- were any of those UDFA's All Conference players? Because that's what helps WSU, not seventh rounders who get cut before NFL training camp ends.

Funny....they have a 53 man roster why? It could be argued if the player has the talent to get a cup of coffee in the NFL, be on a 53man roster, and doesn't perform at the college level that goes to coaching. So if the player wasn't "all conference" is that because of coaching? All it points to is they either got drafted or into a camp, hand they had upper end talent, not scrubs as you point to.

Hey, was Lee Harrison an All Conference player? McEndoo? McShane, Rainville, Withrow? They seemed functional, they seemed helpful. How about 2002? Armstrong. The rest were functional contributors.

 

[CougEd]

That's like opening the cupboard and finding a fully dressed turkey, not the bare cupboard people implied.

Except who was his receivers? His oline? His receivers. Who played defense and ran the ball. It was a good starting piece except the veer aspect that Walden wanted to run. But duly noted. If you have an NFL Qb on the roster, or two, you should win regardless the shape of the receivers and Oline. Hmmm...seems horribly inconsistent.

 

[CougPatrol]

Context, my friend.

competing for conference championships should ALWAYS be the barometer that defines success.

I'm all about motivational hand-clapping speeches that fire up the alumni, but if conference championships are the barometer of success, WSU is sunk.

Success at WSU is and always will be a winning record and a trip to a bowl game.

 

[CougEd]

I'm all about motivational hand-clapping speeches that fire up the alumni, but if conference championships are the barometer of success, WSU is sunk.

Success at WSU is and always will be a winning record and a trip to a bowl game.

It sounds good on paper, but there is a reality involved. We have to relearn how to crawl before we can walk. Lets start with a winning season then move from there.

 

[wulffui]

Funny....they have a 53 man roster why? It could be argued if the player has the talent to get a cup of coffee in the NFL, be on a 53man roster, and doesn't perform at the college level that goes to coaching. So if the player wasn't "all conference" is that because of coaching? All it points to is they either got drafted or into a camp, hand they had upper end talent, not scrubs as you point to.

Hey, was Lee Harrison an All Conference player? McEndoo? McShane, Rainville, Withrow? They seemed functional, they seemed helpful. How about 2002? Armstrong. The rest were functional contributors.

THEY'D.

ACTUALLY.

PLAY.

And they don't.

 

[wulffui]

Except who was his receivers? His oline? His receivers. Who played defense and ran the ball. It was a good starting piece except the veer aspect that Walden wanted to run. But duly noted. If you have an NFL Qb on the roster, or two, you should win regardless the shape of the receivers and Oline. Hmmm...seems horribly inconsistent.

So, in your eyes, two UDFA OL constitute a "fuller cupboard" than a top five QB? And "top five pick" and "NFL QB", aren't the same thing, but we see what you did there, and it's very sporting of you, Mrs. Tuel.

 

[CougEd]

THEY'D.

ACTUALLY.

PLAY.

And they don't.

Speak English please.

 

[wulffui]

Speak English please.

Your "marginal NFL players" aren't, because they never play(ed). Hell, it got so bad for one of them, he went back to play more for Wulff. But I bet once he's done there, there's a franchise tag waiting for him. For sure.

 

[CougEd]

So, in your eyes, two UDFA OL constitute a "fuller cupboard" than a top five QB?

Wow...who said was it was full? I said they had one olineman who was on a 53 man roster. Which is the exact amount that the 97 line had. I said they had one recently drafted in Rodgers by Atlanta. That is two. They had a walkon at center who started two years for Leach. That means he thought he was either worthy or couldn't recruit a kid to replace him. That kid was on a bowl team and started. The fourth kid on the line was a kid Leach recruited himself. And Jacobson was the 5th starter. And the most talented kid started but couldn't make the plays. So what you are saying Lee Harrison who was a 260 pound walkon, never started a game before his senior year, Rainville who never was all conference, nor was McShane or another Walkon in Withrow, and Jaon MEcendoo who might have been second team was so vastly superior in awards, draft status and talent as the one in 2012...is that correct?

 

[wulffui]

Anyways, I'm out on this. Just another textbook example of the lengths you'll go to diminishing the current coach, while you're writing storybooks for the one who went 6-40.

 

[CougEd]

Your "marginal NFL players" aren't, because they never play(ed). Hell, it got so bad for one of them, he went back to play more for Wulff. But I bet once he's done there, there's a franchise tag waiting for him. For sure.

Again, we are talking about talent. You said the cupboard was bare on the oline and the NFL apparently disagrees with you.

 

[wulffui]

Wow...who said was it was full? I said they had one olineman who was on a 53 man roster. Which is the exact amount that the 97 line had. I said they had one recently drafted in Rodgers by Atlanta. That is two. They had a walkon at center who started two years for Leach. That means he thought he was either worthy or couldn't recruit a kid to replace him. That kid was on a bowl team and started. The fourth kid on the line was a kid Leach recruited himself. And Jacobson was the 5th starter. And the most talented kid started but couldn't make the plays. So what you are saying Lee Harrison who was a 260 pound walkon, never started a game before his senior year, Rainville who never was all conference, nor was McShane or another Walkon in Withrow, and Jaon MEcendoo who might have been second team was so vastly superior in awards, draft status and talent as the one in 2012...is that correct?

Saying that some good Cougar players also didn't have NFL careers doesn't make lousy players their equal, no matter how much you wish it.

Wasn't Withrow a 10 year NFL pro? Who played actual games? Why are you comparing him to a guy who played two games, then bombed out of the AFL?