ADVERTISEMENT

...And that's ANOTHER Seattle Times hit piece!

Hit piece? I think the article is spot on. Sorry, but we don't deserve juice boxes and participation ribbons after that performance.
 
CougPatrol said:
Hit piece? I think the article is spot on. Sorry, but we don't deserve juice boxes and participation ribbons after that performance.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I don't see what was wrong with it. It was actually more well reasoned and fair than a lot of fan reaction I've read.
 
Newspapers are a slow (and sadly) dying breed. Headlines sell newspapers. I don't read the ST (haven't read a good newspaper in a long time), but I know the writer does have it out for CML. As do many in the Portland area.

Now, whether the article is spot on this time (as a few have stated above) would be surprising, but it sounds like it was a fair shake this time. So I'm applauding good journalism if that is the case.

FWIW, local writers are always going to have something against Leach - he doesn't give them any material they "need." The PDX area writers howl all the time about him on Twitter, etc. when he says something "outrageous" (players not playing in bowl games for draft prep, recently). It's apparent that MC at the Times doesn't like him either, per some past articles - but CML probably doesn't care what any of them think.
 
I should have said that the article was deserved or on point rather than spot on. We earned that article by our play on the field Tuesday, and the article simply pointed out that we didn't beat any good teams outside of Stanford all season. Can't argue with that.
 
CougPatrol said:
Hit piece? I think the article is spot on. Sorry, but we don't deserve juice boxes and participation ribbons after that performance.
Click to expand...

Agree. I had no problem with the article.

I was surprised to read that we only beat one team with a winning record (Idaho). Really? wait that's not right. beat Stanford too........?
 
it was a thoughtful article which seems to sum up the season correctly It seems like leach thinks that his system will beat teams. He needs to factor in emotion and trying to put his best players on the field. He kept playing a bunch of small possession type receivers in all the games. His bigger more athletic receivers sit on the sidelines. He needs to give more reps to his more athletic players more reps to prepare for the better teams on his schedule. The same with giving his backup QB s more reps during the season in case his regular QB starts to stink up the joint.
 
The problem that I have with this article is that MC wants to pick on our wins against losing teams, yet this newspaper does not want to acknowledge simlar comparisons with their "return to glory" team. We did essentally play the same banged up Pac 12 teams, usually about 1 week apart. And yes, they did beat Utah ( with 3 no call block in the backs for winning score) and beat Buffs that used their injured do it all qb. This was a very strange year in the Pac, Times should be, but won't be consistent when they evaluate it.
 
Loyal Coug said:
Agree. I had no problem with the article.

I was surprised to read that we only beat one team with a winning record (Idaho). Really? wait that's not right. beat Stanford too........?
Click to expand...

"But other than the Cardinal, the only team WSU beat with a winning record was Idaho, which will join the FCS in 2018."
 
  • Like
Reactions: froropmkr72
Dusty.Hooper said:
The problem that I have with this article is that MC wants to pick on our wins against losing teams, yet this newspaper does not want to acknowledge simlar comparisons with their "return to glory" team. We did essentally play the same banged up Pac 12 teams, usually about 1 week apart. And yes, they did beat Utah ( with 3 no call block in the backs for winning score) and beat Buffs that used their injured do it all qb. This was a very strange year in the Pac, Times should be, but won't be consistent when they evaluate it.
Click to expand...

Who cares? UW beat Utah, beat CU and beat us, the latter 2 they won handily. They also walloped ASU & OSU, teams we struggled to beat. They also did not lose to their FCS opponent. If there's "inconsistencies" in coverage, it's warranted, because UW is a much, much better team than we are right now. Their resume is far better and they more than proved that on the field.
 
CougPatrol said:
Hit piece? I think the article is spot on. Sorry, but we don't deserve juice boxes and participation ribbons after that performance.
Click to expand...

And the teams with winning records the mutts beat? Stanford with a banged up McCaffery. Utah - just barely and with a kick return TD made possible by three illegal blocks. WSU without Cracraft and distracted by student conduct board shenanigans. The only other quality team it faced was USC, which kicked dawgie arse.
So, the same argument that UW didn't play a tough schedule can be applied to the mutts, but Calkins' cheerleader skirt won't allow it. To be fair, one can argue that both the UW's and WSU's ascension this season can be attributed to quarterback problems throughout the conference. Had USC gone with Sam Darnold from the beginning, the Trojans would have won the Pac-12, and likely will in 2017.
 
It's only a 2-game sample, but Minnesota and Indiana, the Big12's #7 & 8 seeds, sent a physical message by the way they played vs. WSU and Utah. We'll see if UW can withstand the physicality of Alabama.
 
CougPatrol said:
It's only a 2-game sample, but Minnesota and Indiana, the Big12's #7 & 8 seeds, sent a physical message by the way they played vs. WSU and Utah. We'll see if UW can withstand the physicality of Alabama.
Click to expand...

Your point is well taken. Utah has been considered one of the more physical teams in the Pac-12, but Indiana easily and brutally counterpunched (that hit by Gooch at the beginning let Utah know Indiana came to play). Minnesota's back-up DBs and its front seven physically dominated the WSU offense. Of course, Falk's field vision was more like this guy's ...
peter_falk.jpg
 
CougPatrol said:
It's only a 2-game sample, but Minnesota and Indiana, the Big12's #7 & 8 seeds, sent a physical message by the way they played vs. WSU and Utah. We'll see if UW can withstand the physicality of Alabama.
Click to expand...

They couldn't handle USC, so ...
 
YakiCoug said:
And the teams with winning records the mutts beat? Stanford with a banged up McCaffery. Utah - just barely and with a kick return TD made possible by three illegal blocks. WSU without Cracraft and distracted by student conduct board shenanigans. The only other quality team it faced was USC, which kicked dawgie arse.
So, the same argument that UW didn't play a tough schedule can be applied to the mutts, but Calkins' cheerleader skirt won't allow it. To be fair, one can argue that both the UW's and WSU's ascension this season can be attributed to quarterback problems throughout the conference. Had USC gone with Sam Darnold from the beginning, the Trojans would have won the Pac-12, and likely will in 2017.
Click to expand...

You're reaching. We were as close to full strength as you should expect to be going into the AC and the game was over by the end of the 1st quarter. They were also down 2 starters on D. They also soundly whooped CU the following week.

I wouldn't expect to get "equal" coverage from the Times because, a) we weren't equal to them on the field, not even really close, and b) it's the local, Seattle newspaper. If they're waving the pom poms for UW right now, that's what they should be doing. Their team in the semis for Christ's sake.
 
And regardless, this article isn't about UW. It's about WSU, their performance in the Holiday Bowl and season in general. I'm having a hard time finding any fault in it.
 
Fab5Coug said:
You're reaching. We were as close to full strength as you should expect to be going into the AC and the game was over by the end of the 1st quarter. They were also down 2 starters on D. They also soundly whooped CU the following week.

I wouldn't expect to get "equal" coverage from the Times because, a) we weren't equal to them on the field, not even really close, and b) it's the local, Seattle newspaper. If they're waving the pom poms for UW right now, that's what they should be doing. Their team in the semis for Christ's sake.
Click to expand...

No, that isn't what real journalists do. In fact, a few weeks ago, a Times sports columnist actually argued the UW didn't deserve to be in the playoffs because of its extremely weak non-conference schedule and because the Pac-12 appears to be in a down year (see my point about all the QB problems throughout the conference). If Alabama drills the UW as it should, this will only cement my and that particular writer's point.
 
Fab5 Coug said:
And regardless, this article isn't about UW. It's about WSU, their performance in the Holiday Bowl and season in general. I'm having a hard time finding any fault in it.
Click to expand...

I guess I have a problem with it because I believe the article is disingenuous. It's not like the WSU season happened, ended poorly, and then a random writer decided to comment on it. This guy (as I have noticed) has taken every opportunity that his time allows to take a shot at WSU when the gettins good. It's very scummy/leech like. Hence, TMZ.
 
YakiCoug said:
No, that isn't what real journalists do. In fact, a few weeks ago, a Times sports columnist actually argued the UW didn't deserve to be in the playoffs because of its extremely weak non-conference schedule and because the Pac-12 appears to be in a down year (see my point about all the QB problems throughout the conference). If Alabama drills the UW as it should, this will only cement my and that particular writer's point.
Click to expand...

Sure it is, when the journalists are columnists, and not beat reporters.
 
CPtheCoug said:
I guess I have a problem with it because I believe the article is disingenuous. It's not like the WSU season happened, ended poorly, and then a random writer decided to comment on it. This guy (as I have noticed) has taken every opportunity that his time allows to take a shot at WSU when the gettins good. It's very scummy/leech like. Hence, TMZ.
Click to expand...

Or, did you have a problem with it because you wanted to have a problem with it before you even read it? Cause there was really nothing wrong with it.
 
Last edited:
YakiCoug said:
They couldn't handle USC, so ...
Click to expand...

I guess we don't know how good the SEC is yet. So far, the Big10 has looked tough and imposing with Northwestern, Minnesota, and Indiana (7, 8, 9 seeds).

Would be kind of funny if UW upset Alabama and started their Natty celebration prematurely, only to get pounded by Ohio State the following week. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: earldacoug
Fab5Coug said:
Or, did you have a problem with it because you wanted to have a problem with it before you even read it? Cause there was really nothing wrong with it.
Click to expand...

Huh? What? Maybe I had a problem with it before Matt had a problem with Leach resulting in problematic articles containing problematic problems I have a problem with. Did you ever think of THAT????

I actually did read it and it's the same crap he always writes, regardless of the state of the program. You... do.... understand that right?
 
Fab5Coug said:
Sure it is, when the journalists are columnists, and not beat reporters.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with what sports columnists do, but I care little for those who can't hold two or more opposing thoughts in their minds. He's a hack.
 
CPtheCoug said:
Huh? What? Maybe I had a problem with it before Matt had a problem with Leach resulting in problematic articles containing problematic problems I have a problem with. Did you ever think of THAT????

I actually did read it and it's the same crap he always writes, regardless of the state of the program. You... do.... understand that right?
Click to expand...

Yes...I...understand. What I'm trying to figure out, is what about that article, in particular, you thought made it a "hit piece". Not Calkins, in general, but this specific article. You called it a "hit piece". I'm just calling you out on that, because I thought it was perfectly fair and reasonable.
 
ElComanche said:
it was a thoughtful article which seems to sum up the season correctly It seems like leach thinks that his system will beat teams. He needs to factor in emotion and trying to put his best players on the field. He kept playing a bunch of small possession type receivers in all the games. His bigger more athletic receivers sit on the sidelines. He needs to give more reps to his more athletic players more reps to prepare for the better teams on his schedule. The same with giving his backup QB s more reps during the season in case his regular QB starts to stink up the joint.
Click to expand...
I agree with most of what you wrote, especially giving the backup QB more playing time and allowing him to develop through game situations. There were plenty of times when Falk could have been pulled with a huge lead (halftime vs. Arizona?) and Hilinski given the opportunity for growth. Leach doesn't do that. The one exception to your comments I might take is about the bigger, more athletic receivers sitting on the sidelines. I'm sure you are referring to Dimry, who has plenty of limitations (poor footwork on that key pass the other night), but who else? I must be missing some of the other WRs on the roster.

Glad Cougar
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orecoug
Fab5Coug said:
Yes...I...understand. What I'm trying to figure out, is what about that article, in particular, you thought made it a "hit piece". Not Calkins, in general, but this specific article. You called it a "hit piece". I'm just calling you out on that, because I thought it was perfectly fair and reasonable.
Click to expand...

Tone and style.
 
If there were other physically talented receivers i would have mentioned them. I have long wondered why the cougs seemingly cannot recruit 4 star receivers who are big,fast, and talented.
 
ElComanche said:
If there were other physically talented receivers i would have mentioned them. I have long wondered why the cougs seemingly cannot recruit 4 star receivers who are big,fast, and talented.
Click to expand...
Well, you did say "He kept playing a bunch of small possession type receivers in all the games. His bigger more athletic receivers sit on the sidelines", which implies there are more than one sitting on the sideline. Regardless of my nitpicking, you are 100% correct about the need to recruit those kinds of players.

Glad Cougar
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M-I-Coug

Schulz responds shocked and upset...

Replies
10
Views
5K
The Cougar Lair
cougarmike
C
M-I-Coug

AC in the news...

Replies
2
Views
527
The Beasley Baseline
Loyal Coug1
L
M-I-Coug

Dave Riley...

Replies
9
Views
2K
The Beasley Baseline
Coug1990
Coug1990
M-I-Coug

What are the odds of a reverse merger? Also, the broken NIL...

Replies
106
Views
4K
The Cougar Lair
Coug90
C
M-I-Coug

Good read ~ How Dickert minimized roster turnover...

Replies
11
Views
989
The Cougar Lair
Wazzubrooz
W
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back