4 star Deion Singleton is in DA HOUSE!!!!

[CrimsonDisciple]

Thanks for the tweet Britton! I am so stoked that this kid worked hard and finally got in.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/football/recruiting/player/_/id/170120/deion-singleton


Britton, is there any way we can count him towards this class since his star ranking was stripped from him? Neither of our classes have reflected the star value that he truly represents.


Go Cougs!!!!

This post was edited on 1/11 5:35 PM by CrimsonDisciple

 

[YakiCoug]

Originally posted by CrimsonDisciple:
Thanks for the tweet Britton! I am so stoked that this kid worked hard and finally got in.

https://espn.go.com/college-sports/football/recruiting/player/_/id/170120/deion-singleton


Britton, is there any way we can count him towards this class since his star ranking was stripped from him? Neither of our classes have reflected the star value that he truly represents.


Go Cougs!!!!

This post was edited on 1/11 5:35 PM by CrimsonDisciple

CD, I saw your post on the other site ("Per Singleton's Twitter, ESPN 4 star Safety Deion Singleton made it to Pullman for Spring Semester. Congrats kid! After his Junior year in Florida, Deion was a consensus 4 star Safety. He was dropped down to 3 stars here and 2 stars on Brand X once he left Florida for Washington..... Check out his offer list....."),
So, Wazzuwatch is "brand x," huh?

 

[CrimsonDisciple]

Horrible I know.

Had to spread the good news!


This post was edited on 1/11 8:27 PM by CrimsonDisciple

 

[britton ransford]

Originally posted by CrimsonDisciple:
Thanks for the tweet Britton! I am so stoked that this kid worked hard and finally got in.

https://espn.go.com/college-sports/football/recruiting/player/_/id/170120/deion-singleton


Britton, is there any way we can count him towards this class since his star ranking was stripped from him? Neither of our classes have reflected the star value that he truly represents.


Go Cougs!!!!

This post was edited on 1/11 5:35 PM by CrimsonDisciple

No, simply because after taking time off, it's impossible to accurately rate him for the 2015 class. It's just a Rivals rankings rule. We also don't add transfers, so Priester also does not count towards the 2015 class ranking.

 

[Coug1990]

Originally posted by Britton Ransford:

Originally posted by CrimsonDisciple:
Thanks for the tweet Britton! I am so stoked that this kid worked hard and finally got in.

https://espn.go.com/college-sports/football/recruiting/player/_/id/170120/deion-singleton


Britton, is there any way we can count him towards this class since his star ranking was stripped from him? Neither of our classes have reflected the star value that he truly represents.


Go Cougs!!!!

This post was edited on 1/11 5:35 PM by CrimsonDisciple

No, simply because after taking time off, it's impossible to accurately rate him for the 2015 class. It's just a Rivals rankings rule. We also don't add transfers, so Priester also does not count towards the 2015 class ranking.

Good. Then when WSU kicks ass, it will make our team of underdogs look even better.

 

[wulffui]

These guys, much like your Farrar's and Leniu's, never get mentioned by the 12-10-12 crowd.

 

[YakiCoug]

Originally posted by wulffui:
These guys, much like your Farrar's and Leniu's, never get mentioned by the 12-10-12 crowd.

According to the official WSU site, Jeremiah Mitchell and Shalom Luani are both 4-star recruits. And beyond Farrar and Leniu, there is Sebastian Larue, Kameron Powell, Kyrin Priester, Gabe Marks, Barry Ware, Daquawn Brown (assuming he survives his suspension), Daniel Ekuale, Riley Sorenson, Peyton Bender, Tyler Hilinski, Dahu Green, Noah Myers, Hercules Mata'afa, Ngalu Tapa, Thomas Toki and several others in the 3-star range in position to make some moves. As with any program's recruits, many won't pan out. There's nothing unusual about that, but things are definitely looking up.

 

[Cougsocal]

Originally posted by wulffui:
These guys, much like your Farrar's and Leniu's, never get mentioned by the 12-10-12 crowd.

How dare anyone not be effusive about the 2012, 2013, 2014 recruiting classes. The triumph of our 9-25 record against BCS competition over the last three years demonstrates the game changing quality of those classes.

Don't people realize that the great leader's recruiting has been fanastic, despite our 3-9 record this season. Counterrevolutionary imperialist dogs like Breske are to blame for the losses, not subpar recruiting. Without the great leader's inspired recruiting, we would have gone 0-17.

 

[wulffui]

Keep that laser focus.

 

[Coug1990]

Originally posted by Cougsocal:

Originally posted by wulffui:
These guys, much like your Farrar's and Leniu's, never get mentioned by the 12-10-12 crowd.

How dare anyone not be effusive about the 2012, 2013, 2014 recruiting classes. The triumph of our 9-25 record against BCS competition over the last three years demonstrates the game changing quality of those classes.

Don't people realize that the great leader's recruiting has been fanastic, despite our 3-9 record this season. Counterrevolutionary imperialist dogs like Breske are to blame for the losses, not subpar recruiting. Without the great leader's inspired recruiting, we would have gone 0-17.

Did you happen to follow the Cougar basketball team during the Bennett era? If you had, you would see that the Bennetts' were not very good the first three years. The players that were recruited in their first three classes lost quite a bit. But, guess what happened? Those same players grew up and became very good.

There were people back then who were all doom and gloom like you are about this football team. There were people like me saying, look beyond the scoreboard. Good things are happening. They are beating teams they had no reason to beat or hand not beat in years. The football team has beaten USC and Arizona. They made a bowl last season.

This team is doing fine. Too bad you not.

 

[dgibbons]

Originally posted by Cougsocal:

Originally posted by wulffui:
These guys, much like your Farrar's and Leniu's, never get mentioned by the 12-10-12 crowd.

How dare anyone not be effusive about the 2012, 2013, 2014 recruiting classes. The triumph of our 9-25 record against BCS competition over the last three years demonstrates the game changing quality of those classes.

Don't people realize that the great leader's recruiting has been fanastic, despite our 3-9 record this season. Counterrevolutionary imperialist dogs like Breske are to blame for the losses, not subpar recruiting. Without the great leader's inspired recruiting, we would have gone 0-17.

Your schtick is so old it can't even be called stale.

 

[YakiCoug]

Originally posted by dgibbons:

Originally posted by Cougsocal:

Originally posted by wulffui:
These guys, much like your Farrar's and Leniu's, never get mentioned by the 12-10-12 crowd.

How dare anyone not be effusive about the 2012, 2013, 2014 recruiting classes. The triumph of our 9-25 record against BCS competition over the last three years demonstrates the game changing quality of those classes.

Don't people realize that the great leader's recruiting has been fanastic, despite our 3-9 record this season. Counterrevolutionary imperialist dogs like Breske are to blame for the losses, not subpar recruiting. Without the great leader's inspired recruiting, we would have gone 0-17.

Your schtick is so old it can't even be called stale.

But it is very chinookesque.

 

[CougEd]

Some could make that same claim about many from 2009 to 2011...

Socal at least is consistent where 9-25 is sub .500 and is sub .300, and he said his expectations were different. I wish there was historical back up on this board cause I don't remember anyone saying this was a five year project, or leach would be sub .500.

Where I differ from Socal is that he emphasis recruiting rankings more than I, and I am willing to see where they are at the end of 2016.

 

[dgibbons]

Re: Some could make that same claim about many from 2009 to 2011...

Originally posted by CougEd:
Socal at least is consistent where 9-25 is sub .500 and is sub .300, and he said his expectations were different. I wish there was historical back up on this board cause I don't remember anyone saying this was a five year project, or leach would be sub .500.

Where I differ from Socal is that he emphasis recruiting rankings more than I, and I am willing to see where they are at the end of 2016.

Ed, do you honestly wonder why people post that you don't support the current coach, staked your existence on Wulff, etc.?

Last year sucked. It was highly disappointing. What you may or may not realize is that there are possibilities than your "built" or "rebuilding" scenarios. Open your mind to other possibilities, even if you can't recognize some historical trend.

 

[wulffui]

Re: Some could make that same claim about many from 2009 to 2011...

6-40 is sub .150. This isn't the NFL, where you can cut the entire roster and bring in 53 free agents- you get X scholarships per year, period. When you consider the .125 foundation left by his predecessor that NCAA rules force him to work with, his doubling that and getting a bowl game inside of three years both seems like progress, and is better by all quantitative measures.

This post was edited on 1/12 4:11 PM by wulffui

 

[CougEd]

W-Fui...I agree 100%.

You can't cut 100 kids from the program. I believe I made probably similar arguments in exercising patience from what I personally saw as a crap sandwich left by a staff of a guy I loved in Bill Doba.

While I agree that getting to a bowl game is an achievement, it could be argued that the last guy had a better record year four than Leach had year one, and that with a bounce here or there in 2011 they could have gone bowling. And I can make the same statement this year, that they were three plays away from going bowling.

Again, for many people who are extremely dissatisfied they would make the claim that wasn't the expectation that was set. It was the ten bowl games in ten years that resonated.

Here is my personal opinion...I kind of expected 2012 to be better than 2011, which meant with CU on the schedule a bowl game. 2012 I figured somewhere between 5-7 and 6-6, and it was a great bonus to go bowling. Coming into 2014 I figured 5-7 and a bowl game probably would have been a huge bonus because I didn't know how you make up for the secondary that won the USC and Utah games via the turnover, and they graduated four very experienced players.

I guess I didn't expect them to lose to Rutgers or Nevada and start the season 0-2, and I guess I didn't think they would be as horrible as they were defensively especially in the back four where they let so many TD's go uncontested.

Moving forward 2015 for me is a year to get experience, and 2016 a year we are going bowling and there is a solid foundation in place where losing our starting left tackle is not problematic.

 

[CougEd]

No..I guess I actually don't. First, Paul Wulff was fired.

He is gone. He was our coach and I supported him in his endeavor. I think that is the end of story with regards to Wulff.

Again with Leach it goes with expectations. Again, I don't remember anyone, including you who thought sub .300 would be possible after year three. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Coug1990]

Re: W-Fui...I agree 100%.

Originally posted by CougEd:
You can't cut 100 kids from the program. I believe I made probably similar arguments in exercising patience from what I personally saw as a crap sandwich left by a staff of a guy I loved in Bill Doba.

While I agree that getting to a bowl game is an achievement, it could be argued that the last guy had a better record year four than Leach had year one, and that with a bounce here or there in 2011 they could have gone bowling. And I can make the same statement this year, that they were three plays away from going bowling.

Again, for many people who are extremely dissatisfied they would make the claim that wasn't the expectation that was set. It was the ten bowl games in ten years that resonated.

Here is my personal opinion...I kind of expected 2012 to be better than 2011, which meant with CU on the schedule a bowl game. 2012 I figured somewhere between 5-7 and 6-6, and it was a great bonus to go bowling. Coming into 2014 I figured 5-7 and a bowl game probably would have been a huge bonus because I didn't know how you make up for the secondary that won the USC and Utah games via the turnover, and they graduated four very experienced players.

I guess I didn't expect them to lose to Rutgers or Nevada and start the season 0-2, and I guess I didn't think they would be as horrible as they were defensively especially in the back four where they let so many TD's go uncontested.

Moving forward 2015 for me is a year to get experience, and 2016 a year we are going bowling and there is a solid foundation in place where losing our starting left tackle is not problematic.

Ok, so you thought that this team would be better this year, but with even more players returning next season than this, they will be worse. So, if the Cougars have the same type season next year, you will be the voice of reason telling everybody to relax. Am I correct?

 

[YakiCoug]

Re: Some could make that same claim about many from 2009 to 2011...

Originally posted by CougEd:
Socal at least is consistent where 9-25 is sub .500 and is sub .300, and he said his expectations were different. I wish there was historical back up on this board cause I don't remember anyone saying this was a five year project, or leach would be sub .500.

Where I differ from Socal is that he emphasis recruiting rankings more than I, and I am willing to see where they are at the end of 2016.

Classic selective memory. I said early on that Wulff clogged the toilet and left a crap program behind. I said it again when Leach pulled offers from at least 10 of Wulff's recruits in a mad dash to assemble something approximating a D1 recruiting class. But I was surprised when Leach managed to get this team to a bowl in only his second season. I've gone on record that he should have gone to the JC ranks for d-linemen and linebackers - particularly linebacker - to replace Gauta and Sagote - and to shore up the defense for '14 and '15. With Mitchell, Moi, Luani, and Broughton, - and the maturation of young d-linemen and LB - we can certainly look to improvement this year.

 

[Coug1990]

Re: Some could make that same claim about many from 2009 to 2011...

Originally posted by YakiCoug:

Originally posted by CougEd:
Socal at least is consistent where 9-25 is sub .500 and is sub .300, and he said his expectations were different. I wish there was historical back up on this board cause I don't remember anyone saying this was a five year project, or leach would be sub .500.

Where I differ from Socal is that he emphasis recruiting rankings more than I, and I am willing to see where they are at the end of 2016.

Classic selective memory. I said early on that Wulff clogged the toilet and left a crap program behind. I said it again when Leach pulled offers from at least 10 of Wulff's recruits in a mad dash to assemble something approximating a D1 recruiting class. But I was surprised when Leach managed to get this team to a bowl in only his second season. I've gone on record that he should have gone to the JC ranks for d-linemen and linebackers - particularly linebacker - to replace Gauta and Sagote - and to shore up the defense for '14 and '15. With Mitchell, Moi, Luani, and Broughton, - and the maturation of young d-linemen and LB - we can certainly look to improvement this year.

In the long run, having more young players now will or should be better for the program. You and I know that good things are happening. Wulff left the worst program to take over in college. The talent was not the worst. Now, it was near the bottom, but mentally, this team was bad. It did not know how to win, yet they took on the arrogance of their coach. They thought they were the shit, yet the only shit was what the coach left at recruits homes.

 

[CougEd]

No...not sure where you goy that...

I said I expected their record to be one game worse this year. They might have better talent next year, we shall see, as we haven't seen it out on the field yet. So you may be correct, they have more physical talent that they recruited. Who knows.

But what I don't believe is they would better next year cause they lose their QB and two defensive tackles.

 

[CougEd]

You said he would be a sub .300 coach at WSU?

Well I appreciate your candor.

 

[CrimsonDisciple]

Re: No...not sure where you goy that...

Originally posted by CougEd:
I said I expected their record to be one game worse this year. They might have better talent next year, we shall see, as we haven't seen it out on the field yet. So you may be correct, they have more physical talent that they recruited. Who knows.

But what I don't believe is they would better next year cause they lose their QB and two defensive tackles.

But you fail to recognize they lost their All American QB mid season. BUT, that doesn't fit with your argument Nookie.

 

[CougEd]

I know when they lost Halliday...

You think Falk is a seasoned QB? Definition of an experienced QB? We simply could have a disagreement over the term experience.

Falk played 3 1/2 games. He played fairly well and under control against USC. Showed to an understanding of the offense and didn't seem to get too rattled. Played really well against OSU her first time out. Then played well the first half against ASU, and then dropped way off, and he played horrible against UW. Seems to me to be a small sample size.

As for the Nookie comment, what's with the childish comment. I have a different opinion than yours. Big deal.

 

[dgibbons]

Why don't you admit that you don't like Leach?

It's obvious that you don't.

 

[Coug1990]

Re: I know when they lost Halliday...

Originally posted by CougEd:
You think Falk is a seasoned QB? Definition of an experienced QB? We simply could have a disagreement over the term experience.

Falk played 3 1/2 games. He played fairly well and under control against USC. Showed to an understanding of the offense and didn't seem to get too rattled. Played really well against OSU her first time out. Then played well the first half against ASU, and then dropped way off, and he played horrible against UW. Seems to me to be a small sample size.

As for the Nookie comment, what's with the childish comment. I have a different opinion than yours. Big deal.

What I do remember is you telling me that Falk was already better than Halliday after the USC game. I said no, not close. You told me Falk had a quicker release, and was better and faster at making his reads. Plus, he was better at presnap reads.

 

[CougEd]

BS.....you have the wrong cowboy

Halliday had a lightning fast release. I said he was further along at that stage than Halliday was. Halliday turned out to be a very good QB.

What has been my big thing for the last five years. WSU wins when they have an upper classmen QB. You think I would change that for Falk.

I even said when falk had his great game against OSU, and played pretty well against USC, wait until he sees the pressure ASU brings to the QB.

So let me reiterate....Falk did some nice things. He seems to know the offense pretty well. But next year a soph. he will do what Drew, Gesser, Halliday, Brink, Leaf did as soph's that woul dcost them a game or two, the difference between winning and losing.

 

[Coug1990]

Re: BS.....you have the wrong cowboy

Originally posted by CougEd:
Halliday had a lightning fast release. I said he was further along at that stage than Halliday was. Halliday turned out to be a very good QB.

What has been my big thing for the last five years. WSU wins when they have an upper classmen QB. You think I would change that for Falk.

I even said when falk had his great game against OSU, and played pretty well against USC, wait until he sees the pressure ASU brings to the QB.

So let me reiterate....Falk did some nice things. He seems to know the offense pretty well. But next year a soph. he will do what Drew, Gesser, Halliday, Brink, Leaf did as soph's that woul dcost them a game or two, the difference between winning and losing.

This is one of the reasons why it is useless to have conversations with you Ed. You either forget what you write or something else. But, I stand by my original statement on what you wrote to me. In fact, you were quite adamant about Falk > Halliday back then.

 

[Cougsocal]

Originally posted by Coug1990:

Originally posted by Cougsocal:

Originally posted by wulffui:
These guys, much like your Farrar's and Leniu's, never get mentioned by the 12-10-12 crowd.

How dare anyone not be effusive about the 2012, 2013, 2014 recruiting classes. The triumph of our 9-25 record against BCS competition over the last three years demonstrates the game changing quality of those classes.

Don't people realize that the great leader's recruiting has been fanastic, despite our 3-9 record this season. Counterrevolutionary imperialist dogs like Breske are to blame for the losses, not subpar recruiting. Without the great leader's inspired recruiting, we would have gone 0-17.

Did you happen to follow the Cougar basketball team during the Bennett era? If you had, you would see that the Bennetts' were not very good the first three years. The players that were recruited in their first three classes lost quite a bit. But, guess what happened? Those same players grew up and became very good.

There were people back then who were all doom and gloom like you are about this football team. There were people like me saying, look beyond the scoreboard. Good things are happening. They are beating teams they had no reason to beat or hand not beat in years. The football team has beaten USC and Arizona. They made a bowl last season.

This team is doing fine. Too bad you not.

If it happens, I'll be the first to admit I was flat wrong. But, will you and the "cult of personality" crowd ever admit that the recruiting has been an issue with our ongoing struggles? Even Yaki, who wears heart Leach underwear, is on record as saying we need a major influx of JC talent, a Leach devotee, but a realist.

As for doom and gloom, this is the first recruiting class since the Price era, that I'm excited about. Why is that? Because, I see speed and athletic ability. I'm no guru. This class may fall flat like every class since 2002, but so far so good.

The difference between you and I, is I'm not a blind faith guy. I questioned the talent recruited by Doba, even that dreadful 2003 class that so many thought was good, Wulff and Leach. Why? It wasn't personal, it was because I didn't see enough talent. Stud classes make an instant impact in practice and on the field. When Leach recruits are having hard time replacing Wulff holdovers short of demotion due to poor play, it is not some master plan, it is a problem.

 

[Coug1990]

Originally posted by Cougsocal:

Originally posted by Coug1990:

Originally posted by Cougsocal:

Originally posted by wulffui:
These guys, much like your Farrar's and Leniu's, never get mentioned by the 12-10-12 crowd.

How dare anyone not be effusive about the 2012, 2013, 2014 recruiting classes. The triumph of our 9-25 record against BCS competition over the last three years demonstrates the game changing quality of those classes.

Don't people realize that the great leader's recruiting has been fanastic, despite our 3-9 record this season. Counterrevolutionary imperialist dogs like Breske are to blame for the losses, not subpar recruiting. Without the great leader's inspired recruiting, we would have gone 0-17.

Did you happen to follow the Cougar basketball team during the Bennett era? If you had, you would see that the Bennetts' were not very good the first three years. The players that were recruited in their first three classes lost quite a bit. But, guess what happened? Those same players grew up and became very good.

There were people back then who were all doom and gloom like you are about this football team. There were people like me saying, look beyond the scoreboard. Good things are happening. They are beating teams they had no reason to beat or hand not beat in years. The football team has beaten USC and Arizona. They made a bowl last season.

This team is doing fine. Too bad you not.

If it happens, I'll be the first to admit I was flat wrong. But, will you and the "cult of personality" crowd ever admit that the recruiting has been an issue with our ongoing struggles? Even Yaki, who wears heart Leach underwear, is on record as saying we need a major influx of JC talent, a Leach devotee, but a realist.

As for doom and gloom, this is the first recruiting class since the Price era, that I'm excited about. Why is that? Because, I see speed and athletic ability. I'm no guru. This class may fall flat like every class since 2002, but so far so good.

The difference between you and I, is I'm not a blind faith guy. I questioned the talent recruited by Doba, even that dreadful 2003 class that so many thought was good, Wulff and Leach. Why? It wasn't personal, it was because I didn't see enough talent. Stud classes make an instant impact in practice and on the field. When Leach recruits are having hard time replacing Wulff holdovers short of demotion due to poor play, it is not some master plan, it is a problem.

Are you including me in the Cult of Personality crowd? I could not care less about Leach's personality. That is for people like Jim Moore who doesn't like Leach because of his personality. Hire good coaches and wait. I think people still don't understand the hole that Leach took over. I have not been a fan of Wulff, that is no secret, but even I didn't understand how bad it was. In one of the toughest conferences in football in a place that had not been to a bowl in a decade, people expected miricles. Leach gave us one in the second year.

QB is the most important position on the field, and it appears that WSU will have better depth than they perhaps ever had. The lines are getting better and better. The receivers are stocked. If the Pac 12 were a weak conference, the results would be better. But, the conference is as competitive as it has ever been. Good things are happening. Not mad at you, but you will see soon that things are going to get very good. Now, don't expect P12 championships, but do expect bowls most years.

 

[CougEd]

Good grief...

I could say the same thing...why it is difficult to have conversations with me is cause you misquote me.

Let me tell you what I do recall, I said let's see how he does after the next two games after how well he performed against OSU. I do remember claiming that performance came against a mediocre team and I believe Yaki and maybe Wulffui pointed to the fact OSU was one of the top pass coverage teams in the conference.

There is only one player, ever, who caught my fancy after his first start, and it was Ryan Leaf against UW. I left the stadium and said we are watching the first pick in the 98 draft.

I do know how I felt about Falk, and I feel about Falk. He has much better feet than Halliday, and he also has a better grasp of the offense at this point of his career vs Halliiday when Halliday was a soph. In no way would I ever consider Falk better than a qb (at this juncture) who played a perfect game save one play against Oregon, and threw for 734 yards against Cal. And I am going to make that comment after seeing what he did against USC?

But let me say I was drunk, and I wrote everything you claimed I wrote. (BTW, it has been told to me Falk may not even start next year)...but that is a subject for another day). Even if I feel at this moment with 1/2 of football played against USC and the following three games I thought he was the next great QB, what does that have to do with next year? It doesn't change my reasons for them not winning next year.

 

[CougEd]

Why is it obvious?

Cause I don't think sub .500 is what everyone expected? Like I said, I don't remember hearing that part. Or is it because I get after him about firing coaches, running kids to free up scholies, and his lack of disclosure on injuries. Maybe I have been too critical about the attrition? Funny, I don't remember saying squat about that.

What is not to like about Leach. Like I said, ask Biggs how many times we discussed hiring Leach in Wulff's third year. And personality wise, what is not to like about him. He is an interesting guy. I have probably said it 100 times, I am closer to people on this staff than anyone ever on the Wulff staff. So yes I want them to succeed. And not just because of the personal stuff, but more important, for the team that represents the school I attended.

When Leach took over it was a certainty to me we would win. It did not occur to me he would struggle, have to do what Wulff did after year three and fire a couple of defensive coaches. I won't lie, where I thought winning was a virtual certainty, the first three years certainly rocked that confidence. But he isn't going anywhere, and if someone were to petition that he get fired over performance, I would do what I did when Wulff was in trouble...email the President and AD stating a case why I think he should be kept.

 

[spongebob11]

You may want to read up on the definition of Cult of Personality. It has nothing to do with Leach's personality.

 

[ElComanche]

Why does Mr Ed want to live in the past? if it was up to him ,we would still have Wulff and the Bonehead. so i guess he wrote letters on both of their behalf s ? Talk about backing the losers.

 

[CougPatrol]

Just to chime in here....

I've also heard from more than a couple of people that the starting QB job is not as firmly in the grasp of Falk as some people here seem to think.

 

[dgibbons]

Re: Why is it obvious?

Originally posted by CougEd:
Cause I don't think sub .500 is what everyone expected? Like I said, I don't remember hearing that part. Or is it because I get after him about firing coaches, running kids to free up scholies, and his lack of disclosure on injuries. Maybe I have been too critical about the attrition? Funny, I don't remember saying squat about that.

What is not to like about Leach. Like I said, ask Biggs how many times we discussed hiring Leach in Wulff's third year. And personality wise, what is not to like about him. He is an interesting guy. I have probably said it 100 times, I am closer to people on this staff than anyone ever on the Wulff staff. So yes I want them to succeed. And not just because of the personal stuff, but more important, for the team that represents the school I attended.

When Leach took over it was a certainty to me we would win. It did not occur to me he would struggle, have to do what Wulff did after year three and fire a couple of defensive coaches. I won't lie, where I thought winning was a virtual certainty, the first three years certainly rocked that confidence. But he isn't going anywhere, and if someone were to petition that he get fired over performance, I would do what I did when Wulff was in trouble...email the President and AD stating a case why I think he should be kept.

Gee, I don't know....

Hoses, sandpits, expectations, linemen meeting the press after the Utah game in 2012, Leach refusing to move athletes to defense, Kyle McCartney, and whatever else I've missed.

And sure, you haven't said squat about that. Just like you haven't said squat about three wins in 2014, despite posting over and over again that you haven't said squat about it, and that expectations were not three wins.

 

[CougEd]

I have said stuff about that....


Just so it is clear...

Sandpit- I have never had an issue with the sandpit. I agree with leach in that it probably helps prevent injuries. ( I think the fact the oline has been together three straight years save Sam Flor speaks to that) Nor do I have a problem rolling in it.

Hoses- the problem was with the S and C coach. Moos thought it was not necessary, as did I. Problem was resolved. Does that mean Moos doesn't like Leach?

McCartney- the whole discussion regarding McCartney was about scholies not being renewed or pulled. You use the "he graduated defense", and Leach doesn't pull scholies. I know that is lawyer BS, that Kyle would have never gone through spring training if he didn't intend to play in the fall. And he already graduated so under the old rules his scholie could be used for a mid year transfer or open one up for a freshman. But the point wasn't about McCartney and any sort of mistreatment, but rather your denial Leach pulled scholies But subsequently it was shown that Leach ran players or he did not renew scholies which was the only reason McCartney was ever brought up. Did I have a problem when Golden left, or Duckett, or Wilson? Nope.

Moving players to defense. I never said that Leach refused to move players to defense. Didn't Caldwell play RB last year? Alex Jackson? What I said is I don't know if he would let the DC have first rights to a player like Doba did in getting Hunter, Mobley, Trufant etc. I asked the question would he be willing to give up for example Robert Lewis who Leach said pound for pound is the toughest kid in the team to the DC if it would make the defense better. The question goes to offensive mentality. That is not a criticism. That may eliminate some DC's was my point. You clearly disagree.

Yes I have mentioned 3-9 to prove a point that I didn't say anything about coaching or want a coach to be fired, and that he would be given his time to make it right.

Yes, I had issues with him saying they were cowardice, and sending out the offensive and defensive lines after the Utah game. I didn't like that. So what.

I didn't like the fact my wife was out shopping for more and unneeded presents on Christmas eve. Doesn't mean I want a divorce or I don't like her. I disagreed with what she did.

This post was edited on 1/13 3:25 PM by CougEd

 

[Cougsocal]

Originally posted by Coug1990:

Originally posted by Cougsocal:

Originally posted by Coug1990:

Originally posted by Cougsocal:

Originally posted by wulffui:
These guys, much like your Farrar's and Leniu's, never get mentioned by the 12-10-12 crowd.

How dare anyone not be effusive about the 2012, 2013, 2014 recruiting classes. The triumph of our 9-25 record against BCS competition over the last three years demonstrates the game changing quality of those classes.

Don't people realize that the great leader's recruiting has been fanastic, despite our 3-9 record this season. Counterrevolutionary imperialist dogs like Breske are to blame for the losses, not subpar recruiting. Without the great leader's inspired recruiting, we would have gone 0-17.

Did you happen to follow the Cougar basketball team during the Bennett era? If you had, you would see that the Bennetts' were not very good the first three years. The players that were recruited in their first three classes lost quite a bit. But, guess what happened? Those same players grew up and became very good.

There were people back then who were all doom and gloom like you are about this football team. There were people like me saying, look beyond the scoreboard. Good things are happening. They are beating teams they had no reason to beat or hand not beat in years. The football team has beaten USC and Arizona. They made a bowl last season.

This team is doing fine. Too bad you not.

If it happens, I'll be the first to admit I was flat wrong. But, will you and the "cult of personality" crowd ever admit that the recruiting has been an issue with our ongoing struggles? Even Yaki, who wears heart Leach underwear, is on record as saying we need a major influx of JC talent, a Leach devotee, but a realist.

As for doom and gloom, this is the first recruiting class since the Price era, that I'm excited about. Why is that? Because, I see speed and athletic ability. I'm no guru. This class may fall flat like every class since 2002, but so far so good.

The difference between you and I, is I'm not a blind faith guy. I questioned the talent recruited by Doba, even that dreadful 2003 class that so many thought was good, Wulff and Leach. Why? It wasn't personal, it was because I didn't see enough talent. Stud classes make an instant impact in practice and on the field. When Leach recruits are having hard time replacing Wulff holdovers short of demotion due to poor play, it is not some master plan, it is a problem.

Are you including me in the Cult of Personality crowd? I could not care less about Leach's personality. That is for people like Jim Moore who doesn't like Leach because of his personality. Hire good coaches and wait. I think people still don't understand the hole that Leach took over. I have not been a fan of Wulff, that is no secret, but even I didn't understand how bad it was. In one of the toughest conferences in football in a place that had not been to a bowl in a decade, people expected miricles. Leach gave us one in the second year.

QB is the most important position on the field, and it appears that WSU will have better depth than they perhaps ever had. The lines are getting better and better. The receivers are stocked. If the Pac 12 were a weak conference, the results would be better. But, the conference is as competitive as it has ever been. Good things are happening. Not mad at you, but you will see soon that things are going to get very good. Now, don't expect P12 championships, but do expect bowls most years.

Cult of personality is a group mindset, often in totalitarian states on the left and right, having an idealized, worshipful image of someone often heaped with unquestioning flattery and praise. In WSU terms, remember when Wulff was the coach and everything was going to hell, yet people were heaping praise on him, his coaching and recruiting, contrary to every objective measure --- we had a cult of personality issue.

If you can't acknowledge that Leach first three recruiting classes were underwhelming, you to may have some cult of personality issues.

 

[YakiCoug]

Cougsocal and Ed: you're missing your Paul Wulff Anonymous session.

 

[wulffui]

So, you thought Leach would bring enough chicken to the table to turn an uncleaned coop into a chicken salad buffet. Noted.