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.
Self-destruction at its finest. hahaha
Paul Wulff's hypothetical return to WSU?
- Thread starter PeteTheChop
- Start date
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.
Self-destruction at its finest. hahaha
I do get the gist of your post, I think. If I can restate is him scoffing at the notion of a winning season doesn't seem like he is supportive to the program yet he claims he wants to have a winning program and supports the program. I think I have it. And I get the argument is void in your eyes.
There's a certain glee to his ability to ascribe failure to this particular coach, though. And his silence when he can't do so- when we were spending last December prepping for a bowl, the tumbleweeds were deafening. Hopefully we spend the next decade watching a good program that gives us plenty of chances to prove that wrong.
I'll make it simple for you. Do I want a winning season? Yes. Do I think we'lll win 9 games after witnessing what I saw last yr? No..and I think anyone that seriously thinks that is drinking too much Kool Aid.
This isn't a cheerleading forum.
Or a crappy Oline. Our online sucked in 2012..so using your argument, that was some crappy coaching.
Connor broke his leg due to bad Oline play against Usc..so more crappy coaching accordung to you. But I thought it was due to qb competition?
So with that argument, Leach ruined Tuel because he gave him competition. Tuel was much better in 2010 than 2012.
So using your arguments if Wulff ruined Gibson, then Leach ruined Tuel.
Last edited:
Using one thing I said and then applying your own comically terrible reasoning to unrelated situations (who did Connor compete against the last two springs?) is not "using my arguments", it's using your arguments... and poorly, I might add.
But you keep defending failure all you want- that's not an argument I make.
Not defending failure. Just calling you out for an incorrect statement.
In your world Wulff=bad coach=ruined Gibson. If you wanna make the argument Wulff didn't recruit the Oline or was a crappy game day coach, fine...but saying he ruined Gibson is flat out wrong...which is why I proceded to blow up your arguments with your own logic.
Self-destruction at its finest. hahahaHa 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.
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.
Well, no matter how many dumb ass memes you produce, it doesnt change the fact he is still the all time leading receiver at WSU
No wonder you've never put on shoulder pads before. Too much time dorkin' out on creating memes.
I literally made my argument using your above words, and considering your "plan" to "blow up my argument" consisted of rattling off other Wulff shortcomings... hahahahaha!
No, I mean... fine work.
You still haven't explained how Wulff can ruin Gibson yet have a record setting WR under his watch.
Yours was an idiotic statement. Plain and simple.
Well, Wilson's quitter mentality probably was a perfect fit for Wulff's "fetal position" offense, so they had that going for them.
We disagree on what Wulff could have done- you think something. Unfortunately, history disagrees with you even more than I do, and it has facts on its side.
Ummm.....since my self imposed ban from repsonding to any posts of yours is up today, he got it from me. Emailing you when Doba was fired, giving you any information at all about me was probably one of my biggest mistakes ever. Keep denying what really happened by the way. You know you went to the company website and brought to this board the name of a coworker who has zero to do with this board. Please, tell me what was so funny about asking me if she was hot and mentioning her name. She is not a Coug, could care less about football. Tell me what was so cute and funny about that?
Now time has passed and you tell everyone how I thought it was funny. Yeah, I played it cool because I didn't know to what lengths you would go. There is more to the story. You would take a simple disagreement over football and go to a website and raise the name of an innocent person, who the heck knows where your head is at. Clearly not in a good place.
Gonzales, Jacobsen, Fullington, Spitz, Rodgers, Guerra. Is that the answer you wanted?
Three questions Wulffui... If Gibson played for Price in 1993, and Shawn Deeds was the QB, how do you think his numbers would have fared? Do you believe his stock would have gone up, stayed teh same, or gone down? How about Price in 1998 when Mencke, later moved to WR was at the hlm and his 5 picks against USC.
Second question, do you know who Joe Moore is?
Third, who is Foge Fazio?
Correct, meant to say Taylor Meigen had a couple of starts. Rodgers was redshirted. Rodgers coming off redshirt year. Five players with starting experience.
Foge Fazio is an NFL defensive coach. You tell me why you think Joe Moore is salient to this discussion, and we'll see if I agree.
His stock would have stayed the same at worst (note- putting him in these sets has him starting his career catching passes from Bledsoe and Leaf to start... probably would have had a higher stock in that scenario. Especially by 1998, with a Rose Bowl, if he had those tools and hung numbers in the Leaf year, then slipped under MenckeBaum, the system credibility would have easily justified using the change in QB's to explain the slippage.)
Wulff had no such credibility, and was "annals of history" bad, not Cougar bad, like '98- but wideouts still put out numbers in those offenses that dwarfed the 2008 offense. It also hurts his case that, in a scenario where you're displacing an effective offense, yet keeping the old OC on staff, you'd better be replacing that with a BETTER offense, not one that makes guys wish their WR coach was the OC again, and making a real "competition" between a guy who had made at least a few plays and a guy whose numbers make you wish for MenckeBaum, or Deeds and DeGrenier. Did you know we had a positive TD/INT ratio in '93? I went back and looked at the numbers., and...
My opinion isn't swayed one iota, but those numbers are awful, and affirm my stance- Gibson put up more yards as a sophomore with two other NFL receivers to put up numbers than he did as a senior. He had a monster junior year, so HE didn't fall apart.
And he's had a long lucrative career in the NFL, chock full of actual game action, so he's a good piece to have... The 2008 offense busted through all this programs historical floors, and to say that had no effect on Gibson's draft status (you know- the thing I said was impacted all along, before simpler minds turned it into "He said Wulff ruined Gibson! That's the hill I've gotta die on!") well, it's just nuts. It hurt his draft status immensely.
Last edited:
You clearly miss the point. These guys are coached by position coaches. If you said Niekamp coached Gibson i would buy your argument. But the fact is LEvy coached him, the same gut who coached him two years prior. What hurt him is he did not have a QB to throw to him. That is what changed in the equation.
Joe Moore is a highly successful Oline coach. He coached Mark May, Sean Farrell and Mike Munchak to name a few. He coached under many very good coaches. He also coached for Foge Fazio. His body of work didn't change, even though Fazio was what you would consider the equal of Paul Wulff.
The fact we had no offensive production, and times have shown no experienced QB, no production. That is what hurt his draft status, not having having a QB who could get him the ball on a consistent manner. He had the same position coach, the variable change was the QB,
A lot of variables changed. You're choosing to emphasize a different variable than I am, and since its history, neither of us can be definitively right. Even that position coaches responsibility changed within that equation.
No, Fazio, although he may have... wait, Wikipedia says he was 25-18 in four years at Pitt? And has a decades long NFL coaching career? Why are you comparing him to Wulff? Nothing about that seems Wulff's equal professionally. I assumed he'd have Venturi type numbers to get a Wulff comparison. And even if you're drawing on he and Moore and we accept that, it validates my engine-tires statement I made that started you down this path.
Last edited:
No, Fazio, although he may have... wait, Wikipedia says he was 25-18 in four years at Pitt? And has a decades long NFL coaching career? Why are you comparing him to Wulff? Nothing about that seems Wulff's equal professionally. I assumed he'd have Venturi type numbers to get a Wulff comparison. And even if you're drawing on he and Moore and we accept that, it validates my engine-tires statement I made that started you down this path.[/QUOTE]
But the variable that stayed the same was the position coach. How did his responsibilities change?
Fazio took over a team that came in second in a National Champ voting. He took over a team in the previous three years lost three games. In a five year stretch Pitt was 50-9. So the comparison is appropriate.
But the variable that stayed the same was the position coach. How did his responsibilities change?
Fazio took over a team that came in second in a National Champ voting. He took over a team in the previous three years lost three games. In a five year stretch Pitt was 50-9. So the comparison is appropriate.
I suppose "open competition" is more appropriate than open tryout, but every snap Lopina got was one wasted that should have had Rogers learning the new, bad offense, so he can respond to the OL getting him killed against an FCS team and maybe not get his back broken.
Maybe Tuel got ruined in between 2010 and 2012. Or perhaps wasn't equal to the hype the former staff heaped upon him.
No QB because two of them got spine injuries and one got his knee blown out, during a season where the formerly decent OL dropped off a cliff and the coaching staff was unable to implement an offense.
Wulff ,while he may have had --at least in his mind-- the best of intentions and a terrific plan we all know he was "horrific"...its hard to fathom that even the most objective Coug Fan could ever conceive a place for him in an Athletic Dept that "lost its innocence" .... 'course I suppose if its providing organic matter in Plumbing systems to be certain they will travel the necessary distance without back-up .. well then, maybe ....
That is what I thought you meant. It could easily be argued, which I think is more appropriate, that rogers had more experience in game time. They had probably 5 blowouts in 2007. OSU, USC, Oregon, Arizona and Wisconsin that he could have got probably 20 snaps a game in. His inexperience falls on a previous regime.
And you must be against open competition, something that Leach preaches. Who brought in Lopina, Cole Morgan and JT Levinseller?
Connor got his leg broken under Leach...so that Oline must have been horrible as well.
I thought he got it broken under a USC defender. And not a USC guy from the Big Sky, either.
Again, just using your logic since you blamed Wulff for Gary Rogers getting hurt. And since dgibbons was complaining about the crappy line that got Rogers hurt...so pointing out our line must still be crappy.
Well, his numbers were way better in 2010 than 2012. He was hurt in 2011.
As far as hype goes, I always said he was an NFL player. And he is. **insert token smart remark about him holding a clipboard Here**
It's only your logic thats trying to draw parallels between our previous, distinct failure coach and the current one, and doing an awful job. If it confuses you- and it really seems to- try thinking some more, rather than just making up what people say, like in your Brandon Gibson crusade.
The parallels are there..and are accurate. You just chose to make like an Ostrich and bury your head in the sand.
Except you're the only person who thinks that.
And if my head is buried in the sand... well, at least the aroma is better than where your head is buried with your Wulff>Leach diatribe.
Never once said Wulff > Leach. Just applying the same ridiculous arguments you make to similar situations with Leach.
This is like when my six year old says he "made food like me", then brings me two pieces of bread with a stick of butter and half a shaker of garlic between.
I guess, if you'd never used logic before (and, that seems possible), you could say you're "using my logic", and that's very cute.
But much like my six year olds sandwich, no one is swallowing what you're serving up, and, even though we appreciate your effort, no one with sense should have to, just to appease your poor work.
Well, you can spin all you want and come up with cute annedotes all day, but they are your own arguments that are blowing up in your face, not mine.
I think that statement leaves a lot to be desired.
I honestly do not know the stats, but how often were our QB's hit (sacks + plays where Tuel ran for his life and actually got positive yardage) during the Wulff era (lets say first 3 years cause Leach has only had 3 years so far), versus how often our QB's were hit during the Leach era?
My gut feeling is that the injuries to the Wulff coached QB's would follow a statistically significant trend of our QB's getting hit constantly, while Connor's leg injury versus USC would fall in as an outlier that... in a statistical study... would be removed from the data.
Data that probably reveals a trend of both coaching and game day performance improvements year over year.
Sponge logic at work.
If two guys get spine injuries in the same game, and a third gets his knee blown out a few weeks later, what does that tell you? You may want to note that Wulff had multiple QBs suffer season ending injuries twice during his four year tenure.
