Because when people make up BS that is not true, then it needs defending...failure or not.
Paul Wulff's hypothetical return to WSU?
- Thread starter PeteTheChop
- Start date
You've been smoking one too many rocks if you think people invest this much time and money in the program(traveling to games, posting on msg boards etc) to hope that we have a losing season.
Well, defending BS is more your field of expertise. And usually, BS doesn't need defending.
Right. Don't know HOW anyone could misconstrue this fine one, just a couple minutes ago on this very same thread… oh boy...
It isn't that you have to believe we are an 8-9 win team, it's how you completely laugh at the possibility that we might be good. Imagine a conversation. "Sponge?! Good Looking?! That's even more funny!" Is that a real compliment? Nope but that's what you did for our program… Not CML which you've been very clear your no fan of. Now realize we are talking about a program that we, supposedly, should all be holding pom pom's for, even if you don't agree with the specific coach?
Well sure, the numbers will change but the ranking doesn't. For example, (only data I have) is that Mike Leach after year one never finished lower than third in scoring while he was at Tech. If this offense was a oline away, and we now have that oline, I would think that with the oline in place that is where we should finish. If we don't I can list about five reasons as why we won't.
How many years was that an "out of 8" number, though? I'd be fine with fourth or fifth out of twelve. It think it's a 35 PPG offense, without being able to really gauge other teams on D, and with the loss of weapons from other teams (yes, I know who we lost...) it's probably a top-third scoring offense. But you should list why you think we won't. I'm curious what you think are the failings of this team in June.
I can find a situation where WSU's numbers will stay the same on PPG but the ranking can change, easy. Doesn't even take much imagination.
The evidence suggests he's the worst coach in school history, and amongst the worst in regular ole history.
But this isn't binary. It's not like he's a zero in everyone's mind for any and all purposes. For instance, he's at least an average nose picker, with a flair for doing it at times when everyone in the country could see it....
When the OL is getting caved in by three defensive linemen, it's the OL. Last year there were several instances when the freshmen running backs, Morrow in particular, made some freshmen running back mistakes. It's fair to question why the freshmen got as much time as they did with Mason and Caldwell.
I think that, for reasons not really explained, it's wrong to suggest that an awful coach could have a detrimental effect on a good player, and that requires vociferous, constant defense.
Well...here is where I would disagree with you. Wulff or any head coach coaches his coaches. Morton was a very good line coach for example. We can say Wulff sucks all we want, but his position coach was very good. Same with receivers. Are you going to tell me Simmons was a better "position coach" than Levy? Better all around coach, sure, Simmons could sell.
We could go position by position for each staff and tell if they got good coaching. Coaches don't forget how to teach, they simply don't. They may be out schemed every once in awhile. Take Ball for example, his resume tells me he is an outstanding position coach. He simply forgot how to teach for a four year period, then got reenergized at ASU. Personally, I find that hard to believe.
Well, it is a pretty simple question I think to answer, if WSU isn't in the top third in scoring what will be the reason?
Last edited:
1) Injuries up front
2) Falk goes down
3) Lack of a real running game-too predictable
4) No explosive plays from the slots
5) Falk and Bender turn the ball over
6) Lack of a big target in the red zone
7) Encompasses all of the above- defenses simply make WSU go 80 yards without a mistake in either execution or play calling
I laugh at the possibility of going from 3-9 with circus music playing in the background and db's who dont even show up in the TV screens to 9 wins.Right. Don't know HOW anyone could misconstrue this fine one, just a couple minutes ago on this very same thread… oh boy...
It isn't that you have to believe we are an 8-9 win team, it's how you completely laugh at the possibility that we might be good. Imagine a conversation. "Sponge?! Good Looking?! That's even more funny!" Is that a real compliment? Nope but that's what you did for our program… Not CML which you've been very clear your no fan of. Now realize we are talking about a program that we, supposedly, should all be holding pom pom's for, even if you don't agree with the specific coach?
If I was a Kool Aid drinker, I would still subscribe to Brand X and count the days to the annual we've been working harder than we ever have puff pieces in August.
No..he was..but when Wulffui(notice he has Wulff in his handle) says Wulff ruined Gibson, I call BS because its an idiotic statement.
Levy was a great wr coach. We had Kevin Lopina to throw to Gibson. Not hard for even you to do the math there.
If you put great tires, or a new paint job on a car with a defective engine, how much use can you get from the tires?
Wulff was the engine. And he was defective.
Last edited:
And see, we're in disagreement on Wulff ravaging his own returning line, or letting Lopina be in open competition as bad as he was, or that Levy getting demoted for a stooge might have hindered his coaching. We don't actually know, as much as you like treating your conjecture as fact. But we do know the coach was terrible, in part because of the decisions I detailed above, so if there's a doubt, I'll blame the terrible coach, because he earned whatever the opposite of "benefit of the doubt" is.
A point of clarification, so if you and I were on the board circa 2011 and we had a similar dialogue and I said I think with a QB returning, an offensive line with more experience I could see a bowl game with 6 maybe seven wins, and anyone who scoffed at the possibility were not fans of the program and couldn't separate the coach from the program? I just want to make sure I didn't misread or interpret (and legit question cause I could easily misread what you just said.Right. Don't know HOW anyone could misconstrue this fine one, just a couple minutes ago on this very same thread… oh boy...
It isn't that you have to believe we are an 8-9 win team, it's how you completely laugh at the possibility that we might be good. Imagine a conversation. "Sponge?! Good Looking?! That's even more funny!" Is that a real compliment? Nope but that's what you did for our program… Not CML which you've been very clear your no fan of. Now realize we are talking about a program that we, supposedly, should all be holding pom pom's for, even if you don't agree with the specific coach?
But when Leach wasn't able to fill holes *insert position here* there's always the he was just hired in December excuse (which is a valid one)
So I guess Wulff was just supposed to get a Vernon Adams or a Russell Wilson after Rodgers got hurt.
The fact you blame Gibsons poor senior yr on Wulff, once again, shows that you have no clue about the game of football.
Except the facts, where his numbers and draft stock go down when Wulff comes in, implies you're the idiot for so adamantly insisting on something that all the hard numbers don't agree with you on- they're actual stats, not a Kool Aid invention to make your hero look worse.
No, he was supposed to let his clear best QB get the lions share of the reps with his first team line during camp, so he could learn the new, shitty offense, rather than have an open competition with one of the worst QB's, and get his best guy injured against an FCS team because guys are clueless.
Even seven years later, how do you defend the brilliant mind that, given Levy (a great coach, you've said numerous times) and Sturdy, of St. Ambrose fame, as choices for OC, he goes with the Mighty Bee? Your combination of the most simplistic, surface analysis, combined with your criticism of anyone who disagrees with your "kiddie pool" depth insight does keep me chuckling, though.
I'd say they'd need the SDSU game, and that I'd be reticent to sign off because at NO point in the previous three years did an upright QB go start to finish on a season.
His stock went down because he had nobody to get him the f'ng ball!
If he ruined Gibson, then how did Wilson become the all time leading receiver under the same watch?
Fantasy football players unite!...I guess.
Did you read any of what I just said? At all?
We disagree on the whole "didn't have anyone" thing. The coach chose an open tryout style, and it helped get his best QB injured against their worst competition. That's the coaches fault. Not the previous coaches fault. I'd have felt the same way if Halliday got injured against Idaho after competing against Apodaca, too.
Basic reading comprehension escapes you yet again. I never said I think the 2015 team is an 8-9 win team. There is an "if" clause to consider. Perhaps that's what tripped you. Does it still hurt when you fall on your face? It happens so often.
Go away now, little D.
I don't think there's ever been anyone on this board who holds up the "I'm stupid" sign more than Little D, who misses the mark so often. AStep2slow is probably a close second. Both are prime candidates for the Little Dick Baird club.
What are you talking about? Rogers started agaist OK St, Baylor and Portlantld St. Lopina played some against Baylor when the offense stagnated.
The competition you talk about had nothing to do with the O Line blocking air.
Still doesn't support your Wulff ruined Gibson theory. Following that line of thinking, Leach ruined tool.
Last edited:
Stalking at a level never seen before. The fact you post my first name and my last initial on several occasions...and your obsession with my brother shows how sick in the head you are.
Take your f'ng meds Nanook.
[QUOTE="spongebob11, post: 32118, member: 606"If he ruined Gibson, then how did Wilson become the all time leading receiver under the same watch?
Fantasy football players unite!...I guess.[/QUOTE]
Ha Ha Ha.....Did you really just say this?
Wilson's numbers are all Fantasy.
His 4th Qtr Production #'s down 17+ was a bulk of his yards.
Fantasy football players unite!...I guess.[/QUOTE]
Ha Ha Ha.....Did you really just say this?
Wilson's numbers are all Fantasy.
His 4th Qtr Production #'s down 17+ was a bulk of his yards.
Point of clarification, I wasn't on this board during that time so this is complete conjecture.
Also, I want to point out, this is the stuff so many of us get tired of, ed. You are trying to play, "What happened to CPW is what should happen to CML. The "W" column is all that matters because that's what kept being pointed out when CPW was fired." Biggs said that to you? Yaki? OK, 2 people. The rest of us didn't. Like I said above, I wasn't even on this board at the time you are talking about. And so this point of argument/debate that you are starting down, if void in my eyes.
And here's another reason why. CPW and CML are completely different people, they manage differently, they have different results in statistic after statistic both bad and good on both sides, they have different assistant managers that are completely different people, I mean I can go on and on about the differences and thus the reasons for not giving CML the same "treatment" as CPW. So yet another point where this avenue of debate is worthless, IMHO. It's you and Sponge that work this whole angle of "being fair is fair" thing. I've never condoned that, don't believe in that. I treat people differently all the time… It's called individuality. If others said that back then and you bought it, I don't agree with any of you. I'm gonna guess that eliminates the need to actually answer your question...
But also, you are taking what I posted to Sponge, and twisting it. On one post he says that people (him among others) spend too much money and time and investment to wish for a losing season/program. But a couple minutes later, he literally laughs at the idea of winning 8 games. You don't see the dichotomy in that? In one post he wants us to win but in the other doesn't believe we can win and laughs about it… But he's supporting the program by saying that? While there is a hair to be split there, you do get the gist of my post, right? So what I posted and what you interpreted are different. Or maybe your just moving on and not explaining that… Not sure but I just wanting to point that out, as well.
Wulff benched Gibson for ineffectiveness?
This analogy leaves something to be desired.
Stalking? And where did you get "nanook"?
And "little D" has nothing to do with your real name, which you've actually revealed on this board (you've even put up a picture of yourself). But it has every thing to do with "dumb and dumber." Keep posting, dolt. You're always good for a laugh here.
