Story: Bruce Feldman Interview on Leach, Cougars (Part I) + Promotion

[ScottHood]

Spoke with Bruce Feldman of Fox Sports recently to get his thoughts on WSU & Leach heading into the 2015 season: https://washingtonstate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1784317

Also, today we have started a 30-day free promotion: https://n.rivals.com/users/sign_up/164

So, if you are not a subscriber, sign up! If you are, tell your friends and family to sign up too!

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Spoke with Bruce Feldman of Fox Sports recently to get his thoughts on WSU & Leach heading into the 2015 season: https://washingtonstate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1784317

Also, today we have started a 30-day free promotion: https://n.rivals.com/users/sign_up/164

So, if you are not a subscriber, sign up! If you are, tell your friends and family to sign up too!

Good writeup except for the silly quote from Feldman, "When he took over, the offensive line was almost entirely walk-ons". There might have been a few walk-ons playing but it was not "almost entirely" anything other than outstandingly poor. That's the kind of revisionism that most of the people here would attribute to Paul Wulff. Fullington, Rodgers, Jacobsen and Spitz were all scholarship players that were the starters at the beginning of the 2012 season. Bosch was the lone walk-on amongst the starters. Goetz was also on scholarship. Eklund and Brevick were walk-ons that played as well. So 3 of 8 players in the depth chart were walk-ons, which sucks but is not "almost entirely". What's tragic about the OL at that time is that Meighen, Sale, and Forbes were upperclassmen scholarship players that didn't play that year because of injuries or inability to handle the system. We had something like 14-15 scholarship OL players on the team in 2012, but few that were actually capable, mature and/or worthy of being on a Pac-12 starting line.

 

[YakiCoug]

Good writeup except for the silly quote from Feldman, "When he took over, the offensive line was almost entirely walk-ons". There might have been a few walk-ons playing but it was not "almost entirely" anything other than outstandingly poor. That's the kind of revisionism that most of the people here would attribute to Paul Wulff. Fullington, Rodgers, Jacobsen and Spitz were all scholarship players that were the starters at the beginning of the 2012 season. Bosch was the lone walk-on amongst the starters. Goetz was also on scholarship. Eklund and Brevick were walk-ons that played as well. So 3 of 8 players in the depth chart were walk-ons, which sucks but is not "almost entirely". What's tragic about the OL at that time is that Meighen, Sale, and Forbes were upperclassmen scholarship players that didn't play that year because of injuries or inability to handle the system. We had something like 14-15 scholarship OL players on the team in 2012, but few that were actually capable, mature and/or worthy of being on a Pac-12 starting line.

The highest number possible number of those available to play is 11, because Salmonson was grayshirted, and Dahl had to sit out after transferring. And Spitz wasn't on the team in 2012. Sam Jones never qualified for admission, so he also wasn't on the roster. Maybe you can find them on the official roster. I didn't.
But it's true that Feldman unwisely used the phrase "almost entirely walk-ons," however. Bosch and Eklund fell into that category at one point, and Bosch and Rodgers were converted TEs. Of course, everyone knows the story of Rico Forbes. Taylor Meighen wasn't around in '12, and Sale was redshirted.
Leach essentially had only Bosch, Fullington, Rodgers, Eklund, Goetz, Middleton, Flor, and Forbes, unless you want to throw in Villarrubia. Feldman didn't need to resort to the "walk ons" phrase to make the point that Leach was left a mostly empty cupboard on the o-line.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

The highest number possible number of those available to play is 11, because Salmonson was grayshirted, and Dahl had to sit out after transferring. And Spitz wasn't on the team in 2012. Sam Jones never qualified for admission, so he also wasn't on the roster. Maybe you can find them on the official roster. I didn't.
But it's true that Feldman unwisely used the phrase "almost entirely walk-ons," however. Bosch and Eklund fell into that category at one point, and Bosch and Rodgers were converted TEs. Of course, everyone knows the story of Rico Forbes. Taylor Meighen wasn't around in '12, and Sale was redshirted.
Leach essentially had only Bosch, Fullington, Rodgers, Eklund, Goetz, Middleton, Flor, and Forbes, unless you want to throw in Villarrubia. Feldman didn't need to resort to the "walk ons" phrase to make the point that Leach was left a mostly empty cupboard on the o-line.

I knew Spitz was there in 2012 but couldn't remember the specifics so I had to look it up. He started the first two games before getting injured in that second game. As you said, the situation was so bad that hyperbole was not needed.

 

[YakiCoug]

I knew Spitz was there in 2012 but couldn't remember the specifics so I had to look it up. He started the first two games before getting injured in that second game. As you said, the situation was so bad that hyperbole was not needed.

It's the same line the previous staff would have had if it had returned for a 5th year, AND many have argued it was the making of a bowl team. Hence, the shock over 3-9!

 

[Cougatron]

Good writeup except for the silly quote from Feldman, "When he took over, the offensive line was almost entirely walk-ons". There might have been a few walk-ons playing but it was not "almost entirely" anything other than outstandingly poor. That's the kind of revisionism that most of the people here would attribute to Paul Wulff. Fullington, Rodgers, Jacobsen and Spitz were all scholarship players that were the starters at the beginning of the 2012 season. Bosch was the lone walk-on amongst the starters. Goetz was also on scholarship. Eklund and Brevick were walk-ons that played as well. So 3 of 8 players in the depth chart were walk-ons, which sucks but is not "almost entirely". What's tragic about the OL at that time is that Meighen, Sale, and Forbes were upperclassmen scholarship players that didn't play that year because of injuries or inability to handle the system. We had something like 14-15 scholarship OL players on the team in 2012, but few that were actually capable, mature and/or worthy of being on a Pac-12 starting line.

Elliot Bosch - Walk On played 2012, 2013
Eklund - Walk on played 2012
Brevick - Walk on
Dahl - Walk on

In 2013 3 Walkons Played Bosch, Dahl, and Eklund making 3/5 of the O-line Walkons.

Source
"That left WSU with Elliott Bosch, John Fullington, Matt Goetz, Wade Jacobson, Taylor Meighen, Jake Rodgers and Dan Spitz. That's seven players, but Spitz was injured in Week 2 and didn't play the rest of the season. I may have blocked many of those memories, but Leach wasn't exaggerating, WSU really went most of a season with six scholarship offensive linemen."

Good ole Flatland trying to prop up Wulff because he "wan't that bad"
ignoring facts such as this:

Marshall University and SMU have had the most notable cratering of their football programs in college football history. Marshall with the plane crash in 1970 and the SMU death penalty of the late 80’s. In the four years after these events Marshall went 9-33 with a 27% winning percentage. SMU went 9-35 with a 25% winning percentage.

In the four years of the Paul Wulff era, WSU went 9-40 with a 22% winning percentage."

 

[YakiCoug]

I knew Spitz was there in 2012 but couldn't remember the specifics so I had to look it up. He started the first two games before getting injured in that second game. As you said, the situation was so bad that hyperbole was not needed.

For whatever reason, his name must have been removed from the 2012 official roster, but he did, in fact, play in the first two games that season.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Elliot Bosch - Walk On played 2012, 2013
Eklund - Walk on played 2012
Brevick - Walk on
Dahl - Walk on

In 2013 3 Walkons Played Bosch, Dahl, and Eklund making 3/5 of the O-line Walkons.

Source
"That left WSU with Elliott Bosch, John Fullington, Matt Goetz, Wade Jacobson, Taylor Meighen, Jake Rodgers and Dan Spitz. That's seven players, but Spitz was injured in Week 2 and didn't play the rest of the season. I may have blocked many of those memories, but Leach wasn't exaggerating, WSU really went most of a season with six scholarship offensive linemen."

Good ole Flatland trying to prop up Wulff because he "wan't that bad"
ignoring facts such as this:

Marshall University and SMU have had the most notable cratering of their football programs in college football history. Marshall with the plane crash in 1970 and the SMU death penalty of the late 80’s. In the four years after these events Marshall went 9-33 with a 27% winning percentage. SMU went 9-35 with a 25% winning percentage.

In the four years of the Paul Wulff era, WSU went 9-40 with a 22% winning percentage."

In all seriousness.....f#ck off. I didn't say anything about Wulff or his recruiting and you projecting your insecurities onto people is getting old. The "almost entirely" quote is an exaggerated statement for effect.

Even though they might not have been up to the task of starting, six scholarship linemen is enough to field a line. We had other young scholarship players that were redshirted because it would have been pointless to waste a scholarship trying to fight the inevitable losses that were coming even if they had burned their redshirts. That doesn't mean that they weren't there. If Leach had felt that it was worth the effort, he could have played them. It was a choice (the correct one) to keep their redshirts on. The line was bad and we all know that. It was thin because of bad recruiting and injuries and in some cases, just guys that weren't cut out for Leach's system. Nobody is saying otherwise.

So, instead of being the internet douchebag that you are so good at being, why don't you just let go of all of your angst and hatred of Wulff and not speak his name needlessly. I didn't bring him up, I didn't try and say that the line was anything but bad, yet you can't help but be a complete asshat. Congratulations.

 

[YakiCoug]

In all seriousness.....f#ck off. I didn't say anything about Wulff or his recruiting and you projecting your insecurities onto people is getting old. The "almost entirely" quote is an exaggerated statement for effect.

Even though they might not have been up to the task of starting, six scholarship linemen is enough to field a line. We had other young scholarship players that were redshirted because it would have been pointless to waste a scholarship trying to fight the inevitable losses that were coming even if they had burned their redshirts. That doesn't mean that they weren't there. If Leach had felt that it was worth the effort, he could have played them. It was a choice (the correct one) to keep their redshirts on. The line was bad and we all know that. It was thin because of bad recruiting and injuries and in some cases, just guys that weren't cut out for Leach's system. Nobody is saying otherwise.

So, instead of being the internet douchebag that you are so good at being, why don't you just let go of all of your angst and hatred of Wulff and not speak his name needlessly. I didn't bring him up, I didn't try and say that the line was anything but bad, yet you can't help but be a complete asshat. Congratulations.

So, you seriously believe that Villarrubia, Middleton, Dotson, and Flor could have contributed in 2012? Using the recent diatribe that numbers do not mean talent, there is no question Leach was left short-handed. Again, you said as much up above, which flies in the face of the argument some have made since 2012 that Leach inherited enough talent to go to a bowl. He didn't.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

So, you seriously believe that Villarrubia, Middleton, Dotson, and Flor could have contributed in 2012? Using the recent diatribe that numbers doesn't mean talent, there is no question Leach was left short-handed. Again, you said as much up above, which flies in the face of the argument some have made since 2012 that Leach inherited enough talent to go to a bowl. He didn't.

I don't feel that they could have made a meaningful difference in 2012 and I said that in my post. It would have been stupid to burn their redshirts and that's why Leach didn't do it.

 

[YakiCoug]

I don't feel that they could have made a meaningful difference in 2012 and I said that in my post. It would have been stupid to burn their redshirts and that's why Leach didn't do it.

"But that doesn't mean they weren't there," you said.
There for what purpose? It's like you want it both ways. The bottomline is this, and you're on record in agreeing: Leach inherited a big hole on the O-line.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Leach inherited a terrible OL that was far too thin because of bad recruiting by Wulff. It's one of the reasons that Wulff needed to be fired. We all know that. That doesn't mean that the statement "almost entirely walk-ons" is an accurate statement about WSU football in 2012. It's a nuance, but the statement should have been more along the lines of, "Because of the lack of experienced scholarship linemen, Leach had to play more walk-ons than any coach would ever like" or "because of injuries, recruiting misses and attrition of the Wulff era, the number of healthy, mature scholarship OL players was far below any acceptable standard that any coach would accept". Leach had a choice to burn redshirts and he didn't. It would have been a bad choice but it was still there.

The fact that around half of the OL players that were suiting up for games in late 2012 were walk-ons is a damning indictment of Wulff. I would never deny that. That's completely different than "almost entirely" though. That's all I was saying.

 

[wulffui]

I think it's odd that in an entire article about Leach, you've chosen to make your focus one poorly worded (but still fairly accurate) assessment of what Leach inherited.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I think it's odd that in an entire article about Leach, you've chosen to make your focus one poorly worded (but still fairly accurate) assessment of what Leach inherited.

Fair enough. I'll just say that knowing the context that Bruce Feldman is a personal friend of Leach's, reading that statement made me feel the same way that you feel when I say that Wulff elevating the team to 4-8 by 2011 means that while he wasn't a good coach, he might not be the worst coach in the history of the universe. Whether or not it is a fairly accurate statement doesn't matter because it violates the basic core belief that you have of Wulff and is false to you.

So, while I understand that the OL was bad and we had too many walk-on's playing, the entire article after that statement was slightly tainted by what I considered to be an exaggeration made to support his friend. Everyone tends to do that when they see something they don't agree with. In fact, my mention of Wulff in the previous statement will likely start a firestorm of comments on that tangent rather than people realizing that it was merely a sentence added to demonstrate how emotions taint our reading.

In honor of your criticism of my obsession with the one line, I guess I'll ask, do you really think we will be under center 25% of the time this year or is that just a smoke screen?

 

[wulffui]

Are you comparing your relationship with Wulff to Feldman's relationship with Leach? Can we eagerly await the release of "Swing Your Wulff"? (Joking... I think.)

No, they're not going under center 25% of the time, but it will be more frequent, and the personnel should allow the running game as a whole to improve significantly- it's amazing to me that, given his track record at TT with running the ball, that more people have settled on "Leach has abandoned the run" than "Maybe he didn't have run personnel".

 

[Flatlandcoug]

My thing about Leach on the going under center is that I think he likes the idea of changing things up. I also believe that he is such a believer in simplicity and execution that he has a tendency to stick with the things that he believes the offense can execute well rather than truly adding in wrinkles like the pistol or stepping up under center. He'll talk about it but at the end of the day, I'll be surprised if we go under center more than once or twice per game. I'm probably wrong of course.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Let's start with the ridiculous stuff. Anybody who seriously believes that we will be under center 25% of the time does not deserve to be a published sports writer. What a crock.

Now, the suggestion that there will be more checks to a running play, and probably even a few more run calls in the first place that would have to be checked to a pass, probably has merit. And a suggestion that we will have 25% more running plays than last year is within the realm of possibility, rather than fantasy. Probably on the extreme edge of probability, but at least not ludicrous…like the 25% under center statement. I'm thinking 15% more running plays. I also would not be surprised if we had more 2 back sets, especially a 2 back set that results in one back going in motion as a receiver. Given our set of RB's, I think that is almost a given. The RB in motion will become an inside receiver, with an option for a swing to the outside or cut up the middle, depending upon what the defense is showing.

The rest was OK for summer pablum.

 

[Coug1990]

Leach inherited a terrible OL that was far too thin because of bad recruiting by Wulff. It's one of the reasons that Wulff needed to be fired. We all know that. That doesn't mean that the statement "almost entirely walk-ons" is an accurate statement about WSU football in 2012. It's a nuance, but the statement should have been more along the lines of, "Because of the lack of experienced scholarship linemen, Leach had to play more walk-ons than any coach would ever like" or "because of injuries, recruiting misses and attrition of the Wulff era, the number of healthy, mature scholarship OL players was far below any acceptable standard that any coach would accept". Leach had a choice to burn redshirts and he didn't. It would have been a bad choice but it was still there.

The fact that around half of the OL players that were suiting up for games in late 2012 were walk-ons is a damning indictment of Wulff. I would never deny that. That's completely different than "almost entirely" though. That's all I was saying.

I do find it interesting that you picked that out to criticize. You wanted Feldman to write an entire paragraph to convey what but a brief few words did. You took his poetic license literal. If I am in the gym and I say, "That guy can lift a ton". I do not really mean the guy can lift 2000 pounds. It just means the guy is strong.

Sure, there were more scholarship lineman than walkon lineman. But, in this instance just saying the number does not really tell the correct story either.

 

[Cougatron]

Let's start with the ridiculous stuff. Anybody who seriously believes that we will be under center 25% of the time does not deserve to be a published sports writer. What a crock.

The 25% under center thing people failing to miss out the important context of that quote.

Source:
"Early indications in spring practice, however, are that it will be hard for frequent watchers of Cougar football to not notice the quarterback lining up under center, which Mike Leach says could happen as much as one-quarter of the time."

Meaning that we will line up to center more and it COULD be as much as 25%. 25% being the max.

Will we line up under center more. Yes. How often? Anywhere from 1 to as much as 25% of the time with 25% being the max.

out of 1014 plays on offense that's a maximum of 250 plays. Or a max of 20 plays per game. At MAX. Not that much even at maximum.

 

[Coug1990]

The 25% under center thing people failing to miss out the important context of that quote.

Source:
"Early indications in spring practice, however, are that it will be hard for frequent watchers of Cougar football to not notice the quarterback lining up under center, which Mike Leach says could happen as much as one-quarter of the time."

Meaning that we will line up to center more and it COULD be as much as 25%. 25% being the max.

Will we line up under center more. Yes. How often? Anywhere from 1 to as much as 25% of the time with 25% being the max.


out of 1014 plays on offense that's a maximum of 250 plays. Or a max of 20 plays per game. At MAX. Not that much even at maximum.

Good point. He didn't say definitely 1/4 of the time. He just said max, which probably means 10% of the time. That 10% of the time is probably in specific areas of the field, like in the red zone or short yardage after they have passed midfield.

 

[YakiCoug]

I do find it interesting that you picked that out to criticize. You wanted Feldman to write an entire paragraph to convey what but a brief few words did. You took his poetic license literal. If I am in the gym and I say, "That guy can lift a ton". I do not really mean the guy can lift 2000 pounds. It just means the guy is strong.

Sure, there were more scholarship lineman than walkon lineman. But, in this instance just saying the number does not really tell the correct story either.

This reminds of a statue of Abe Lincoln with big hammer smashing the chains loose from a slave's feet. Now, did Abe actually do such a thing? Of course not. Did he lead the charge to end slavery? Of course he did.
But Feldman wasn't waxing metaphorical in that piece. He did imply the line was almost entirely walk-ons. Does 60 percent or 3 of 5 starters constitute "almost entirely"? It's a high number for certain. What matters is that Leach and staff, as they did with Bucannon and Cooper, have pushed Eklund and Dahl to greater heights.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I do find it interesting that you picked that out to criticize. You wanted Feldman to write an entire paragraph to convey what but a brief few words did. You took his poetic license literal. If I am in the gym and I say, "That guy can lift a ton". I do not really mean the guy can lift 2000 pounds. It just means the guy is strong.

Sure, there were more scholarship lineman than walkon lineman. But, in this instance just saying the number does not really tell the correct story either.

This reminds of a statue of Abe Lincoln with big hammer smashing the chains loose from a slave's feet. Now, did Abe actually do such a thing? Of course not. Did he lead the charge to end slavery? Of course he did.
But Feldman wasn't waxing metaphorical in that piece. He did imply the line was almost entirely walk-ons. Does 60 percent or 3 of 5 starters constitute "almost entirely"? It's a high number for certain. What matters is that Leach and staff, as they did with Bucannon and Cooper, have pushed Eklund and Dahl to greater heights.

Maybe you should read the response that I wrote to wulffui instead of just saying the same thing again? I admitted that it was a fair criticism and explained why the statement bothered me. It was posted almost four hours prior to your posts. Your posts are an example of one of the biggest issues with message boards in general. Too many people don't take the time to read what other people have already said.

 

[Coug1990]

Maybe you should read the response that I wrote to wulffui instead of just saying the same thing again? I admitted that it was a fair criticism and explained why the statement bothered me. It was posted almost four hours prior to your posts. Your posts are an example of one of the biggest issues with message boards in general. Too many people don't take the time to read what other people have already said.

Not sure how to respond. You criticize me for not seeing your post before I posted. Guess what? I sometimes miss posts that people make. Still not a fan of the new format as that happens more now than it used to happen. Mine was an honest mistake. Yours was an intentional trying to call me out. Again, not sure how exactly how to respond.

 

[Coug95man2]

Not sure how to respond. You criticize me for not seeing your post before I posted. Guess what? I sometimes miss posts that people make. Still not a fan of the new format as that happens more now than it used to happen. Mine was an honest mistake. Yours was an intentional trying to call me out. Again, not sure how exactly how to respond.

I gotta agree completely on one point here. This new format, without seeing whom is responding to whom if they don't quote, is sucky. Even if they quote, that quote was in response to another person that we now don't have a clue about… Just not a fan.

I'd hope that seems logical to Flat, too.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Not sure how to respond. You criticize me for not seeing your post before I posted. Guess what? I sometimes miss posts that people make. Still not a fan of the new format as that happens more now than it used to happen. Mine was an honest mistake. Yours was an intentional trying to call me out. Again, not sure how exactly how to respond.

You don't know how to respond? How about not at all?

How was my post calling you out? Where in this thread did I say anything about you until you decided to ignore my prior response to wulffui? Even then, I was polite in my response. So, please look through this thread and find that moment where I was calling you out and show it to me......because I'm not seeing it.

Blaming the new format for taking a chance to take a potshot at a poster makes for a nice excuse, but that's all it is. My post at 2:36 on Monday is pretty clear and easy to see if you aren't just reading the first couple posts and then blasting to the bottom in your hurry to get your internet firefight on.

 

[Coug1990]

You don't know how to respond? How about not at all?

How was my post calling you out? Where in this thread did I say anything about you until you decided to ignore my prior response to wulffui? Even then, I was polite in my response. So, please look through this thread and find that moment where I was calling you out and show it to me......because I'm not seeing it.

Blaming the new format for taking a chance to take a potshot at a poster makes for a nice excuse, but that's all it is. My post at 2:36 on Monday is pretty clear and easy to see if you aren't just reading the first couple posts and then blasting to the bottom in your hurry to get your internet firefight on.

Flat, you have a problem. I DID NOT SEE YOUR POST. If you didn't call me out, then there would have been no need to complain about us not reading entire posts, which I do by the way. You project your own failing upon other people. I am not like you (thank God).

Understand it or not. Whether you posted at 2:36 or not is irrelevant because I DID NOT SEE YOUR POST. Instead of blaming other people, why don't you stop posting dumb things. They you have no need to make corrections.

I do know how to respond now. All you seem to do is complain about people now with giving little in substance. I don't know what is happening or not happening in your life, but there seems to be something going on with you.

 

[Coug1990]

I gotta agree completely on one point here. This new format, without seeing whom is responding to whom if they don't quote, is sucky. Even if they quote, that quote was in response to another person that we now don't have a clue about… Just not a fan.

I'd hope that seems logical to Flat, too.

It doesn't. He is whining again and doubling down on his idiocracy.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Jesus Christ.....90......WTF are you talking about?

Do me a favor.......hit ctl + F on your keyboard at the same time. A search box should appear. Type in your name. See where it shows up. The first mention of Coug1990 is when you start criticizing me for singling out the one comment. I replied that I had already acknowledged that it was a fair criticism and suggested that you should read my prior response. I suggested that the problem with message boards is that people don't time to read threads before they post.

In all honesty, I was going to not respond to your comment until YakiCoug decided that he had to throw his idiotic hat into the ring. Take a couple minutes to really look at this thread and you are going to realize that any attack on you is a fabrication in your own mind. I posted at 2:36 pm in response to wulffui. You posted at 6:01 pm that you can't understand why I'd single one sentence out (the same thing I previously replied to). YakiCoug posted at 11 pm. I responded at 8:13 am the next day that it would be a good idea to read the whole thread. If you thought it was a pesonal attack, you haven't been paying attention to the hateful stuff that goes on around here.

I honestly can't believe that you are acting butthurt because I told you to read before you type.

 

[wulffui]

Fair enough. I'll just say that knowing the context that Bruce Feldman is a personal friend of Leach's, reading that statement made me feel the same way that you feel when I say that Wulff elevating the team to 4-8 by 2011 means that while he wasn't a good coach, he might not be the worst coach in the history of the universe. Whether or not it is a fairly accurate statement doesn't matter because it violates the basic core belief that you have of Wulff and is false to you.

So, while I understand that the OL was bad and we had too many walk-on's playing, the entire article after that statement was slightly tainted by what I considered to be an exaggeration made to support his friend. Everyone tends to do that when they see something they don't agree with. In fact, my mention of Wulff in the previous statement will likely start a firestorm of comments on that tangent rather than people realizing that it was merely a sentence added to demonstrate how emotions taint our reading.

In honor of your criticism of my obsession with the one line, I guess I'll ask, do you really think we will be under center 25% of the time this year or is that just a smoke screen?

For the record, this post is a touch patronizing, and comparing yourself to a best selling author probably isn't the most accurate way to convey the information, nor drawing another throughline between Wulff and Leach. (you'd be shocked to know I wasn't won over by the best, cuddliest, most terrific 4-8 ever) But I'm also not a "TL, DR" guy, so my criticisms are usually from a place of having actually read what you wrote, and to the initial statement I'd say that it's a GOOD thing that our coach (and, by extension, the program) has big time national writers, not just random message board posters, aiding his cause- I can only imagine the excitement had this article been written before season four of the Wulff era.

And if it's not note perfect, it's still a good article with a lot there, not a rumination on the brilliance of Zack Williams, or why the flu isn't a real thing. And that's the bigger issue; there's a lot of good stuff about Leach in Feldman's article. Which you've compared to when people here start pretending the flu isn't really an actual thing.

Your assumption is I wouldn't listen to a good Paul Wulff defense. The reality is there isn't one.

 

[fingerdisco]

I honestly can't believe that you are acting butthurt because I told you to read before you type.

Your attempt to take the high road derailed when you threw in "butt hurt"-- the 7th grade adjectives don't help your cause.

 

[Coug1990]

Jesus Christ.....90......WTF are you talking about?

Do me a favor.......hit ctl + F on your keyboard at the same time. A search box should appear. Type in your name. See where it shows up. The first mention of Coug1990 is when you start criticizing me for singling out the one comment. I replied that I had already acknowledged that it was a fair criticism and suggested that you should read my prior response. I suggested that the problem with message boards is that people don't time to read threads before they post.

In all honesty, I was going to not respond to your comment until YakiCoug decided that he had to throw his idiotic hat into the ring. Take a couple minutes to really look at this thread and you are going to realize that any attack on you is a fabrication in your own mind. I posted at 2:36 pm in response to wulffui. You posted at 6:01 pm that you can't understand why I'd single one sentence out (the same thing I previously replied to). YakiCoug posted at 11 pm. I responded at 8:13 am the next day that it would be a good idea to read the whole thread. If you thought it was a pesonal attack, you haven't been paying attention to the hateful stuff that goes on around here.

I honestly can't believe that you are acting butthurt because I told you to read before you type.

I forgive you.

 

[Cougatron]

Your assumption is I wouldn't listen to a good Paul Wulff defense. The reality is there isn't one.

And this is a very true statement. There is zero evidence to support the last year was a bowl team. There is zero evidence to support that he was recruiting at "levels never seen before" there is zero evidence that shows he could beat a Pac-12 team with a winning record. And there is zero evidence of him winning more than 4 games. Yet.... people still try to pretend like there is...why...I have no idea...

But having these ridiculous ideas will not in anyway change the past. Or change the obstacles WSU/Leach face after that tenure. The damage was real. The damage was done, and now it is about undoing that damage and building something for the future... which...for some reason...people have trouble supporting...

It's just really really weird. The worst coach in our history is praised and defended...and the Coach that took us to the first bowl game in a decade and had multiple players drafted in the NFL, has the largest Apple Cup Comeback, and the first win in the Coliseum in 13 years is criticized? What is wrong with you people.

 

[Cougatron]

Your attempt to take the high road derailed when you threw in "butt hurt"-- the 7th grade adjectives don't help your cause.

In his defense butt hurt is a special Wulff recruiting tactic.

1 part gumbo 1 part doing it the right way.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Your attempt to take the high road derailed when you threw in "butt hurt"-- the 7th grade adjectives don't help your cause.

Sometimes I type at your level to make sure you can understand my point.

 

[fingerdisco]

Sometimes I type at your level to make sure you can understand my point.

You have a point?
If it makes you feel better to act superior to boost your self esteem, by all means, take your shots. I promise I won't get "butthurt".

 

[Flatlandcoug]

You have a point?
If it makes you feel better to act superior to boost your self esteem, by all means, take your shots. I promise I won't get "butthurt".

I've never had a single interaction with you until you started taking pot shots at me. If you want to consider whether someone has a point, click on your name and see what your last seven posts have been about. Hint: you apparently have an infatuation with me because I'm always on your mind.

You haven't had a single independent thought in the past week. Hell, your last post that didn't involve me was an attack on sponge a week ago. For someone wondering whether or not I have a point, maybe you should make one post that actually deals with Cougar football.

 

[YakiCoug]

It doesn't. He is whining again and doubling down on his idiocracy.

Donald Trump has a handle on this message board? Who would have suspected such a thing!

 

[fingerdisco]

I've never had a single interaction with you until you started taking pot shots at me. If you want to consider whether someone has a point, click on your name and see what your last seven posts have been about. Hint: you apparently have an infatuation with me because I'm always on your mind.

You haven't had a single independent thought in the past week. Hell, your last post that didn't involve me was an attack on sponge a week ago. For someone wondering whether or not I have a point, maybe you should make one post that actually deals with Cougar football.

Pot shots? Are you that sensitive that pointing out facts are not subjective as you asserted is a pot shot? Let me buy you an ice cream and assuage your hurt feelings.

 

[YakiCoug]

And this is a very true statement. There is zero evidence to support the last year was a bowl team. There is zero evidence to support that he was recruiting at "levels never seen before" there is zero evidence that shows he could beat a Pac-12 team with a winning record. And there is zero evidence of him winning more than 4 games. Yet.... people still try to pretend like there is...why...I have no idea...

But having these ridiculous ideas will not in anyway change the past. Or change the obstacles WSU/Leach face after that tenure. The damage was real. The damage was done, and now it is about undoing that damage and building something for the future... which...for some reason...people have trouble supporting...

It's just really really weird. The worst coach in our history is praised and defended...and the Coach that took us to the first bowl game in a decade and had multiple players drafted in the NFL, has the largest Apple Cup Comeback, and the first win in the Coliseum in 13 years is criticized? What is wrong with you people.

Because they supported Wulff, an actual Coug ex-player/alum. And true Cougs always support Cougs, even if they're abject failures. It's the Coug Way! Stop drinking the Kool Aid, you Leech!

 

[Cougatron]

Because they supported Wulff, an actual Coug ex-player/alum. And true Cougs always support Cougs, even if they're abject failures. It's the Coug Way! Stop drinking the Kool Aid, you Leech!

I support Cougs as long as they don't start tearing down the house, burning it down, and pissing all over the history and telling me that's the right way to do things.

They can go do that at another school.