Alex Grinch is the new DC per FootballScoup
- Thread starter CrimsonWazzu
- Start date
Re: BH...can I ask you a legit question...what have you seen from
From what I saw on film from them in high school, what observers have seen from them, they are a lot better than what we did have back there then Pitchard, Monroe, Clark and whatever Wulff recruited on the defensive side of the ball. Waseem and Clark would have been our corners this year.
From what I saw on film from them in high school, what observers have seen from them, they are a lot better than what we did have back there then Pitchard, Monroe, Clark and whatever Wulff recruited on the defensive side of the ball. Waseem and Clark would have been our corners this year.
Good grief...if you are going to respond to one of my posts, at least stay on topic.
Again, I said that kid better bring it because I don't think we have the talent had on the young 92 team. I compared the two because we were young in 92...and we were young in 2014
91 has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said...only the fact Whitless brought it up to stray from the point I was making...of which he had no rational reply.
At least he is busy watching the 92 Applecup now.
This post was edited on 1/14 10:03 PM by spongebob11
Again, I said that kid better bring it because I don't think we have the talent had on the young 92 team. I compared the two because we were young in 92...and we were young in 2014
91 has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said...only the fact Whitless brought it up to stray from the point I was making...of which he had no rational reply.
At least he is busy watching the 92 Applecup now.
This post was edited on 1/14 10:03 PM by spongebob11
Re: BH...can I ask you a legit question...what have you seen from
This post was edited on 1/14 11:07 PM by Britton Ransford
These names are not from the '90s, so Ed is a bit awash in confusion and denial. But he and his little bro have the '91-to''92 transition Priceline to which they hang.
This post was edited on 1/14 11:07 PM by Britton Ransford
Re: BH...can I ask you a legit question...what have you seen from
Dumb post.
Its as easy as watching the 92 defense...then watching the 2014 defense and deciding what would be better the following year or two.
Dumb post.
Its as easy as watching the 92 defense...then watching the 2014 defense and deciding what would be better the following year or two.
Re: BH...can I ask you a legit question...what have you seen from
We've seen this MO a gazillion times. Resorting to insults when you can't argue any of the points without looking foolish.
Next up, Yaki reveals places of work and coworkers by name!
We've seen this MO a gazillion times. Resorting to insults when you can't argue any of the points without looking foolish.
Next up, Yaki reveals places of work and coworkers by name!
Re: BH...can I ask you a legit question...what have you seen from
But if you watched the 1991 defense and compared to the 2014 defense you'll be like "wow, those two defense are awfully similar." Which is the point I'm making and you refusing to acknowledge it.
Again Sponge, tell me how did you know that going into 92 season that we were gonna have a decent defense then? What from 1991 told you were gonna have a good defense? Was it the 31 points a game or the 33 points a game in the Pac-10? Answer that, that's all I'm asking. What from 1991 gave you an indication that 1992 was gonna be a decent defense?
I'm refusing to respond to your post because it has absolutely nothing to do with anything I have posted in this thread.
LOL carry on then Sponge, that is all I needed from you. You have no response because you cannot truthfully say that you had any idea that the 1992 defense was gonna be decent based off the results from 1991. The players in 1991, played in 1992 as freshman and they were crap, same with the players that played in 2000 were crap compared to the guys that played in 2003 because they were freshman. Just like the players in 2014 who were all almost freshman.
I see...so the frosh on this team are gonna be like the 92 team next yr...since they sucked liked the 91 team sucked...so we can expect a 92 type D with a D coordinator with no experience...then in 2017 we can expect the Palouse Posse all over again?
That is the argument you are making.
That is the argument you are making.
What made you think that Mike Zimmer a DC from the little old Big Sky with only 3 years of Pac-10 experience was gonna take a defense that was giving up 31 points a game to 25 points a game that gave up 149 points in 3 out of their last 4 games?
And no I don't think we are gonna be the Palouse Posse by 2017, those days are over with. And I'm not saying that this defense is gonna be that good, but I don't think it's outside of the realm of possibilities that defense can go from giving up 38 points a game to about 29 or so next year.
My point is you had no clue how good Hunter, Eaton, Sasa, Childs were after the 1991 season, just like we have no clue how who might be really good on this defense that are freshman and sophomore this year. Did you see the 2002 defense coming after the 1999? After we went 3-9 and 1-7 in conference? Did you see that coming in 2002? Or the 2003 defense after we went 4-7 and 2-5 in conference in 2000?
I pulled out my 1995 preseason "The Coug"...
Those of you old enough might remember "The Coug", a mid-'90's print magazine that preceded BX. I was chuckling at the vituperative and predictable banter between Sponge & his many admirers, and thought for grins that I would see what the outlook in the summer of '95 was. The Posse had graduated a great group after the 1994 season; lots of 4th and 5th year kids. In hindsight, we all know now that the roots of the '97 season/'98 Rose Bowl were present, but I wondered if anybody really recognized that in August of '95. As one of the posters noted, hindsight is a lot easier than foresight.
I'll share some things from the article:
"The star-studded ensemble defense of 1994 is, of course, gone and won't be forgotten for years. That is, unless WSU's talented young crop of defenders is up to duplicating the feats of the Palouse Posse.
The Cougars are well-stocked at three of the four crucial up-front positions. Tackle Leon Bender could surprise the Pac-10 the way league MVP Mark Fields did last year.
WSU may have to be more patient with the other tackle spot. Two redshirt freshmen, Gary Holmes and Darryl Jones, have different sizes and styles, which Price may use as a sort of change-up pitch to offensive linemen. "They're going to get blown off the ball every once in a while," Price admitted. "that's part of the learning process. We've just got to make sure it doesn't happen too often."
There was then a bunch of discussion that included juniors James Darling & Johnny Nansen, who Price thought could have good seasons. Shane Doyle was a sophomore and on the roster, but didn't rate a mention.
Since we are talking foresight & hindsight, the QB discussion was about incoming returning Jr starter Chad Davis. Leaf was on the roster but didn't rate a mention ditto for other young nobodies (Fr & So) named Rainville, Ottenbreit, Sage, Solomon, Harrison, McShane, Tims & McWashington.
Nobody knew that Dorian Boose would arrive from Walla Walla CC the next year, or that several other guys would appear by the '97 season that were not there in '95 including Steve Gleason...but it happened.
Bottom line, Price had a lot of good kids but had the program numbers and development to the point that Fr and So were not expected to get much playing time. So most of them were relatively unrecognized, from a talent standpoint. I look at the 1st and second year kids on our 2015 roster, and expect that some of them will fit the same mold because foresight is tougher than hindsight, but it isn't impossible.
Those of you old enough might remember "The Coug", a mid-'90's print magazine that preceded BX. I was chuckling at the vituperative and predictable banter between Sponge & his many admirers, and thought for grins that I would see what the outlook in the summer of '95 was. The Posse had graduated a great group after the 1994 season; lots of 4th and 5th year kids. In hindsight, we all know now that the roots of the '97 season/'98 Rose Bowl were present, but I wondered if anybody really recognized that in August of '95. As one of the posters noted, hindsight is a lot easier than foresight.
I'll share some things from the article:
"The star-studded ensemble defense of 1994 is, of course, gone and won't be forgotten for years. That is, unless WSU's talented young crop of defenders is up to duplicating the feats of the Palouse Posse.
The Cougars are well-stocked at three of the four crucial up-front positions. Tackle Leon Bender could surprise the Pac-10 the way league MVP Mark Fields did last year.
WSU may have to be more patient with the other tackle spot. Two redshirt freshmen, Gary Holmes and Darryl Jones, have different sizes and styles, which Price may use as a sort of change-up pitch to offensive linemen. "They're going to get blown off the ball every once in a while," Price admitted. "that's part of the learning process. We've just got to make sure it doesn't happen too often."
There was then a bunch of discussion that included juniors James Darling & Johnny Nansen, who Price thought could have good seasons. Shane Doyle was a sophomore and on the roster, but didn't rate a mention.
Since we are talking foresight & hindsight, the QB discussion was about incoming returning Jr starter Chad Davis. Leaf was on the roster but didn't rate a mention ditto for other young nobodies (Fr & So) named Rainville, Ottenbreit, Sage, Solomon, Harrison, McShane, Tims & McWashington.
Nobody knew that Dorian Boose would arrive from Walla Walla CC the next year, or that several other guys would appear by the '97 season that were not there in '95 including Steve Gleason...but it happened.
Bottom line, Price had a lot of good kids but had the program numbers and development to the point that Fr and So were not expected to get much playing time. So most of them were relatively unrecognized, from a talent standpoint. I look at the 1st and second year kids on our 2015 roster, and expect that some of them will fit the same mold because foresight is tougher than hindsight, but it isn't impossible.
OK..I'll play.
First off, I didn't watch the 91 season except for the Apple Cup...and only 1/2 because I was working that day.
92 was my first yr in Pullman.
My whole statement that set this whole thing off, which I think is hilarious, btw is the following:
"Kid has his work cut out for him because personnel wise the 92 defense we are not."
That is the statement that made everyone fly off the handle. Too funny.
Anyhow, doesn't matter how young a team is, you can see speed. I haven't see any speed that just jumps out at me of the players you mentioned that have seen PT.
Could the players you mentioned who haven't played be the next 92 defense? Well sure...and I can win the lottery. Both are possible.
They could also all end up being the next Cory Evans, Xavier Hicks, and Jason Stripling.
Not super impressed with his recruiting so far...and you couple that with the fact he has never really had anything above avg on D...and it is concerning.
Sorry that isn't rainbows and unicorns, but that is how I see it.
And yes, I did see the 2000 squad being good and going bowling. Cashed in a lot of bets on that one.
This post was edited on 1/15 1:23 AM by spongebob11
First off, I didn't watch the 91 season except for the Apple Cup...and only 1/2 because I was working that day.
92 was my first yr in Pullman.
My whole statement that set this whole thing off, which I think is hilarious, btw is the following:
"Kid has his work cut out for him because personnel wise the 92 defense we are not."
That is the statement that made everyone fly off the handle. Too funny.
Anyhow, doesn't matter how young a team is, you can see speed. I haven't see any speed that just jumps out at me of the players you mentioned that have seen PT.
Could the players you mentioned who haven't played be the next 92 defense? Well sure...and I can win the lottery. Both are possible.
They could also all end up being the next Cory Evans, Xavier Hicks, and Jason Stripling.
Not super impressed with his recruiting so far...and you couple that with the fact he has never really had anything above avg on D...and it is concerning.
Sorry that isn't rainbows and unicorns, but that is how I see it.
And yes, I did see the 2000 squad being good and going bowling. Cashed in a lot of bets on that one.
This post was edited on 1/15 1:23 AM by spongebob11
I make a point of not choosing sides in threads like this, but I have to ask...
Why is the Palouse Posse defense even being discussed; particularly at this stage of our programs development? Step back and ask yourselves how it reads (or sounds) when Husky fans are comparing their program to the Don James era, circa 1990-1992.
We're at the point where we need a coordinator who can develop and field a defense capable of slowing (not stopping) 2/3 of the teams in the Pac-12. We need to get to the point where we're winning 3-5 conference games every year and occasionally challenging for a Pac-12 North championship.
Sorry, but I don't understand the point of evaluating any new coach before we see what he can do. Fans would have done cartwheels if Clancy would have been hired, just as they did when we signed Leach. Why? Because they had success previously? Lots of coaches have success at one gig, only to fall flat on their faces at their next job.
If Grinch can coach the back-7, and BigJoe can recruit/coach the DL, we'll be in good shape. No guarantees, no promises, just as there aren't any assurances that Leach is going to duplicate the success he had at Texas Tech.
Sorry for the rant, but holding new coaches to a standard that occurred as frequently as Halley's Comet over the past 100+ years (literally), is ridiculous. Hell, if you really want to be fatalistic, look at it this way. If Grinch fields the next Palouse Posse, he'll be out of town faster than Tony Bennett. How about we set a realistic bar for our defense, such as not giving up 80 yard TD passes on the first play from scrimmage and not falling behind 30-0 in seemingly all of our conference home games?
Why is the Palouse Posse defense even being discussed; particularly at this stage of our programs development? Step back and ask yourselves how it reads (or sounds) when Husky fans are comparing their program to the Don James era, circa 1990-1992.
We're at the point where we need a coordinator who can develop and field a defense capable of slowing (not stopping) 2/3 of the teams in the Pac-12. We need to get to the point where we're winning 3-5 conference games every year and occasionally challenging for a Pac-12 North championship.
Sorry, but I don't understand the point of evaluating any new coach before we see what he can do. Fans would have done cartwheels if Clancy would have been hired, just as they did when we signed Leach. Why? Because they had success previously? Lots of coaches have success at one gig, only to fall flat on their faces at their next job.
If Grinch can coach the back-7, and BigJoe can recruit/coach the DL, we'll be in good shape. No guarantees, no promises, just as there aren't any assurances that Leach is going to duplicate the success he had at Texas Tech.
Sorry for the rant, but holding new coaches to a standard that occurred as frequently as Halley's Comet over the past 100+ years (literally), is ridiculous. Hell, if you really want to be fatalistic, look at it this way. If Grinch fields the next Palouse Posse, he'll be out of town faster than Tony Bennett. How about we set a realistic bar for our defense, such as not giving up 80 yard TD passes on the first play from scrimmage and not falling behind 30-0 in seemingly all of our conference home games?
+1 CougPatrol - this thread - like so many others - "devolved" to an argument of "glorious" past vs. present.
I suppose you'll tell us that back in 1992
And thanks for the update that 24 ppg was much better than last year. True genius right there.
You were telling everyone that Sasa, who played LB in JC, was going to redshirt then develop into a third round draft pick.
And thanks for the update that 24 ppg was much better than last year. True genius right there.
Re: BH...can I ask you a legit question...what have you seen from
Consistency!
And I will add that some of those guys, Barber and Ekuale in particular, were taking snaps from the older guys on the roster, even if you don't want to believe that they actually played last season.
This post was edited on 1/15 8:17 AM by dgibbons
Well, we have you around to tell us that Price's recruiting early on sucked. So guys like Hunter, Mobley, etc. didn't actually exist until later, or something like that.
Consistency!
And I will add that some of those guys, Barber and Ekuale in particular, were taking snaps from the older guys on the roster, even if you don't want to believe that they actually played last season.
This post was edited on 1/15 8:17 AM by dgibbons
There is no reason, other than sponge puking up something stupid, and then trying to rally because he wants to be right on the Internet. Why would anyone bring up the 1992 defense, let alone the 1994 defense, to bring with? Why not bring up the 2994 defense since sponge is so omniscient?
I agree, and I think I've posted on this site, that the key comment so far about Grinch is the one from Chip Kelly about Grinch being a great teacher- that's what the secondary needs right now (and CB coach wouldn't hurt).
Re: BH...can I ask you a legit question...what have you seen from
No, thats your MO dgibbons.
Every single one of your posts is some sort of smart ass comment.
No, thats your MO dgibbons.
Every single one of your posts is some sort of smart ass comment.
The whole comment that set off this firestorm of the fanatics is that I said Grinch better bring his A-game because we don't have the talent of the 92 defense. That is what set this whole thing off.
I think what others are saying though, and the reason they are prickling at your comment, is no one will have that talent. That Defense was exceptional, as we all know. Like you said, #1 D when they matured in 94. WSU is working at growing, and it seems like you are expecting them to have the #1 Defense (in 2016) with the existing talent. That's a pipe dream, IMHO. I think we have some talent, just nothing like that. BUT, like some have said, who really knows. We could be surprised, I guess.
So the reason it's a firestorm and you are getting so much flak, is because you are seemingly setting this guy up for failure because there is no way he has the talent you suggest he needs. We all know that these players aren't the same. So putting my .02 worth into this in an attempt to clarify, so we can move on, it might seem like you are trying to make a dig on the coach before he's even put on the Crimson and Gray.
So the reason it's a firestorm and you are getting so much flak, is because you are seemingly setting this guy up for failure because there is no way he has the talent you suggest he needs. We all know that these players aren't the same. So putting my .02 worth into this in an attempt to clarify, so we can move on, it might seem like you are trying to make a dig on the coach before he's even put on the Crimson and Gray.
Not sure where you got that.
The whole point is I am skeptical of the hire. That doesn't fly around these parts.
I wonder if there are any ruffled feathers from Leach's existing staff, as Leach went outside and brought in a relatively young, no experienced DC. Is there equal or better coaching talent already on the defensive side of the ball that might have wanted an opportunity?
Could just be that some position coaches don't aspire to become coordinators and enjoy working with the players more.
