Leach is a lot of things … but not sure thick skin is among them . I like Leach a lot, but I found him to be just the opposite of thick skin, or maybe better put his skin got thinner the more time he spent in Pullman .
Defensive recruiting under Leach...
- Thread starter ttowncoug
- Start date
Disagree. SC should be in the hunt for post season talk during most pre-seasons, and should get to that top 4, championship bowl situation at least a time or two per decade, and probably more. They have all they need in terms of money, tradition, recruiting advantages, media attention, etc., to make that happen. All they need is the actual player identification, player development and coaching. The fact that they have not been there since 2008 speaks for itself, and speaks to Helton's overall competence. I'll say it again...Peterson at SC would have gotten it done. Leach at SC might have gotten it done. Helton has not been close.
Don’t agree with that at all. A sauced up Sark was better than Helton.
I think all this stuff with Leach is more complex. Not just in ways flattering to him, but in some ways that aren't. At some point, I may write some of it again, although I've already written most of it at various points. These cross-era comparisons, in particular, are fairly complex.
For now, here's food for thought ... it's intriguing to consider whether he's the smartest guy in the room in the minds of some random guys on a message board when he'll have made something like $70 million, gained national fame, perhaps is a borderline hall of famer (if he does well at Miss. St.), has whatever post-football opps he could care for, outsources recruiting (and half of the ball), shows up in the football offices on his own time and when he feels like it, has Super Dave do most legwork, and still spends half the year in Key West, all while not kissing ass.
Consider the incremental effort he'd have to put in to make more money and achieve "more" with no certainty of reward, and the possibility of having "failed," rather than doing what he does best, which is to take resource-poor programs and have them punch above their weight generally, even if a combo of resource limitations and his own foibles--the contours of which combo get into those complexities I alluded to earlier--ultimately have resulted in him not getting the ring. Don't want to make this a novel, but a key thing with Leach, IMO, is that while it was seductive to view the fixes that would get him over the hump as simple and with his failure to implement them pure stubbornness, those takes ignore the benefits of his "stubborn" approach that let him attain what I described in the first paragraph.
For now, here's food for thought ... it's intriguing to consider whether he's the smartest guy in the room in the minds of some random guys on a message board when he'll have made something like $70 million, gained national fame, perhaps is a borderline hall of famer (if he does well at Miss. St.), has whatever post-football opps he could care for, outsources recruiting (and half of the ball), shows up in the football offices on his own time and when he feels like it, has Super Dave do most legwork, and still spends half the year in Key West, all while not kissing ass.
Consider the incremental effort he'd have to put in to make more money and achieve "more" with no certainty of reward, and the possibility of having "failed," rather than doing what he does best, which is to take resource-poor programs and have them punch above their weight generally, even if a combo of resource limitations and his own foibles--the contours of which combo get into those complexities I alluded to earlier--ultimately have resulted in him not getting the ring. Don't want to make this a novel, but a key thing with Leach, IMO, is that while it was seductive to view the fixes that would get him over the hump as simple and with his failure to implement them pure stubbornness, those takes ignore the benefits of his "stubborn" approach that let him attain what I described in the first paragraph.
425, I think every single point that you mentioned is worthy. I can't argue with a single one.
That said, for all the undeniable fact that what he did worked well for him and got him a consistent 7-9 wins at population area and/or budget disadvantaged schools, that does not mean that he could not have done better. Hindsight is 20/20, and it is a blessing (not a curse) to recognize that and have few regrets for decisions made in the past. Leach has been clear that he carries few regrets, and does not tend to second-guess himself.
I have to agree in particular with your last sentence. The cons were sometimes a foundation for the pros. But that does not mean that the net result was optimal performance. We all have had things in our careers that we could have done better, and while it is a good trait to not lose tons of sleep over them, it is detrimental to pretend they did not happen or be too arrogant to learn from the experience.
Long story short, the idea that Leach's cons are a basis for at least some of his pros is not mutually exclusive with the idea that we all need to learn from those times when we did not succeed. It is not a slam on Mike Leach to be honest about both. And as you started your post, all this stuff with Leach is indeed complex, because Mike Leach is complex...another area where we agree.
I agree with all of that. You make good points. He could have done better. I think some fail--understandably, given the nature of being a fan of a team and not having complete information--to assess proffered fixes completely and to consider their costs, likely impact, and feasibility of implementation accurately. Definitely don't think he did everything optimally, though, or anything approaching that level of perfection.
Would our injured players (Stallworth in particular) have been available for the bowl game in 1989? That was a very good team before he went down. Would our team in 1994 been even better with another 15 practices to work with? We didn't win late season games against Pac-12 competition, but could we have beaten a lower tier team in a bowl game to end on a positive note?
We'll never know, but we do know that 2013 and 2019 would not have been bowl teams during the Price era....so a lot of the talk about how successful Leach was gets diluted when you take those away. Would 2015 had been a good season without the momentum built by making that bowl game in 2013? Anyone who thinks that the extra game and trash bowls didn't benefit Leach is fooling themselves.
Wow- lot to digest in this thread.
With regards to CML strengths and weaknesses, I think his accomplishments are undeniable and well-documented. The weakness that I still can't wrap my head around is his record in games we should have won. It seems to me that for the players, there are 3 games that everyone is going to be PUMPED to play:
1. The season opener.
2. The Apple Cup.
3. The Bowl game.
Somehow we came out so flat year after year for all of these games, and lost game after game we were heavy favorites. I have a buddy at University of Minnesota still talking about the bowl where they came so close to forfeiting because so many starters were suspended, yet still handled WSU easily. And nobody needs to remember the D-2 teams beating us at home or the Apple Cup horror shows. Most of those games we were solid favorites. That is some kind of genetic flaw for CML that science will study for years. In between the first game, last game/bowl game, it was pretty impressive....
With regards to CML strengths and weaknesses, I think his accomplishments are undeniable and well-documented. The weakness that I still can't wrap my head around is his record in games we should have won. It seems to me that for the players, there are 3 games that everyone is going to be PUMPED to play:
1. The season opener.
2. The Apple Cup.
3. The Bowl game.
Somehow we came out so flat year after year for all of these games, and lost game after game we were heavy favorites. I have a buddy at University of Minnesota still talking about the bowl where they came so close to forfeiting because so many starters were suspended, yet still handled WSU easily. And nobody needs to remember the D-2 teams beating us at home or the Apple Cup horror shows. Most of those games we were solid favorites. That is some kind of genetic flaw for CML that science will study for years. In between the first game, last game/bowl game, it was pretty impressive....
Sarcasm report-
DLine recruiting under Leach and assistants
Step 1- Do you want to be a Coug?
Step 2- Are you a heat seeking missile off the edge?
Step 3- Do you currently weigh 180 and over six feet tall?
Step 5- Five years later after lifting and eating, you weigh 200 and have played in 5 total games
There is some value to this type of player, but we also need beef with speed.
DLine recruiting under Leach and assistants
Step 1- Do you want to be a Coug?
Step 2- Are you a heat seeking missile off the edge?
Step 3- Do you currently weigh 180 and over six feet tall?
Step 5- Five years later after lifting and eating, you weigh 200 and have played in 5 total games
There is some value to this type of player, but we also need beef with speed.
Last edited:
That's what I thought. 2019 he was a redshirt sophomore with three years of eligibility. Plus the extra year from Covid. Has two to play? I have no idea on his stats, but I thought it would be fun to bring his name up.
And Thomas Toki was a 4 star WSU commit, recruit, that had a Lot of good offers from good programs, that either washed out, didnt show up, didnt make grades.
So your attempt to naysay Leach by using Toki is a fail. Leach was right to recruit a 4 star Toki. Leach had recruited the most 4 stars in WSU history.
Its not Leach's fault that a lot of the 4 stars that went ro WSU didnt pan out.
I should have started a new thread about an available player. I wasn't naysaying Leach by using Toki as a fail. Thomas Toki is a reflection of my own obsession on recruiting. When Thomas went elsewhere, that was when I knew I spent too much time hoping and thinking about recruiting and landing a 4 star players. Him not coming to WSU, is not a reflection on Leach. Just an interesting name from the past. Toki was beef with some speed, exactly the kind of player you need to compliment the lighter speed off the edge. The heavy diet of extremely light speed off the edge ship seems to have sailed. It seems more desirable to have a base of larger bigger defensive ends.
Last edited:
