Fair enough. You bring decent stats. Too bad you only do the "stats thing" when it favors your emotional argument.
For the first time in awhile
- Thread starter Brent H.
- Start date
Fair enough. You bring decent stats. Too bad you only do the "stats thing" when it favors your emotional argument.
If we go 3-9 again, I would agree.
But you are missing the point. The point is, this equating Mike Leach to Mike Price at this juncture is ridiculous.
Yeah, cuz that will help our program… Holy cripes… I can't believe you've actually stated this. Not a "hot seat". Not a "better prove himself quickly". Just fire him. Wow. You're cred is officially gone man. You are just trying to get responses, stirring the pot, not thinking logically, I don't know what. Don't know your motivations to such comments but where I personally tried pretty hard to talk to you like a true person, respectfully… You've just made it very hard. You're just a loud mouth, now.
Equating Mike Leach's first three years at WSU with anything other than other coaches first three years at WSU is ridiculous. Not other coaches best three years, or their decade long resume.
Price also faced some good teams in the Pac...but also a lot of bad teams.
Look at the teams that are competitive right now
Oregon, Stanford, Washington, Utah, Arizona, Arizona State, UCLA, and USC
Price didn't have to face that many strong teams. Part of the reason why it's been slower for us to gain a lot of ground quickly is because of this. We were already behind, but everyone upgraded also so we have to fight against that AND are behind.
For example in 1992 when we won 9 games (his 4th year) here are the records for the Pac 12 teams he played
'92 Record ....2014 Record for comparison
6-5-1 Arizona ... 10-4
1-9 Oregon State....5-7
6-5 UCLA.......10-3
6-6 Oregon......13-2
6-5 Arizona State.....10-3
10-3 Stanford.....8-5
9-3 UW......8-5
6-5-1 USC.....9-4
Utah Copper Bowl 6-6....9-4
Just look at the difference. The Pac-12 is by far one of the most competitive and strongest conferences out there.
4 - 10+ win teams, 2-9 win teams, and 2 8 win teams. vs 1- 10 win and 1 - 9 win and 5 - 6 win teams
Leach is making us competitive again but he's no miracle worker, and Price didn't face a conference like we have now...
Yet it's clear that Leach is beating these teams and getting us somewhere. When Leach was hired Price himself said it was a good hire, and he'll do well.
Leach is our next Price, and just like it took Price awhile to get us to the Rose Bowl. It will take Leach awhile as well, Leach should get us to our 2nd bowl game in 4 years. Considering what we are up against, and how far behind we were that's a a great step forward.
Calm the F*ck Down!
Geezus.
For the record, I don't think he'll go 3-9. But if he does, he doesn't need a hot seat. We would have been 4 yrs in.
At some point, you have to produce. This is big boy football. It's what everyone wanted.
I don't consider quoting the amount of games to stat crunching.
Here is a perfect example of why I don't like stats. I was having a convo with an Oregon guy the other day. He's a stats guy.
I told him I'm not sure Mariotta will succeed because I have seen him sail routine throws on more than one occasion.
He countered with he's has the highest completion rate of any Oregon QB. I countered with his system is set up to make extremely easy throws due to all of the extreme misdirection...and which is why gimp Qb's have done fairly well under Kelly in the league.
So we'll see.
Closer to home is our offensive stats. People want to throw out how good our offense is, and how we're number one in the nation in passing etc etc. We are also dead last in rushing.
An A grade plus and F grade equals C which is what our scoring production is...both in conference and nationwide.
Finally, the mantra is we can't run the ball. When I saw Mason run the ball, he ran well...and his rushing avg bears that out.
Don't tell me to calm down… I don't need calming. You are beginning to prove my point about the loud mouth thing, though.
And you're right. This is Big Boy football. That means he has to produce. That doesn't mean being reactionary. Logic helps in all things. You are being reactionary and a loud mouth.
By the same account, with the system the way it is, there's less effort to schedule a strong non conference- you want AT LEAST two sure wins, and one you're likely to win. Most of those '92 schedules represent the old A/B/C school of scheduling, as opposed to the B/C+/C- non-cons you've seen a lot of for the last decade. Its probably a win or two of inflation.
I decided to check the game logs- when Mason ran well, he got more carries, (three games at least 1 YPC above average) and when he didn't, he got fewer, by about a carry per quarter (five games at least 1 YPC below season average). It's really a chicken/egg deal. Was his average inflated because Leach didn't use him frequently against defenses that were shutting him down? Or did he need more work to maximize his abilities against those better defenses?
Do you know what you're talking about? Leach's record at WSU is 12-25. Price's record for his first three seasons was 13-20.
Good god. Do you know how to even read?
I said Leach had 25 games through 3 yrs to Prices 20..and Price won one more game with Leach.
Kiss my ass 95.
And yes, you do need calming because you blow a gasket every time me or Ed posts.
They still scheduled a lot of cupcakes back then.
92 for us we played Montana, and 1-10 Temple, and Fresno who actually was pretty good for a WAC team at 9-4
Arizona played Baylor (not the baylor of today), New Mexico State, and Utah State
UCLA played Cal State Fullerton, BYU, San Diego State
Oregon played Wake Forrest, Hawaii, and UNLV
Arizona State played Louisville, and Pacific
Everybody was playing some fluff cupcakes even back then. The conference back then just wasn't what it is today. Ultimately that Pac-12 today is the strongest it probably has ever been, and for a team that had to rebuild coming off the worst consecutive 4 years in 90 years...it's a HARD road to climb out of.
Clearly, I'm the one with comprehension issues. Clearly.
You're missing the word "lost" between had and 25, that would make this a valid statement. Also, your second to last word should be "than", definitely not with.
Last edited:
You are correct.
You repeated what I just said...but in a slightly different way. But you are correct.
Yep...meant to say "than with."
My original statement in which dgibbons tried to correct me, though, was spot on.
You know… I don't mind those with differing world, political, or yes, even football perspectives. Isn't in amazing how, whenever Sponge and Fishie choose to, the thread goes to hell in a hand basket… Truly… AMAZING…
I, for the most part, can handle Ed. Sometimes my head spins a bit with him but he remains civil. These two… complete garbage.
I, for the most part, can handle Ed. Sometimes my head spins a bit with him but he remains civil. These two… complete garbage.
My whole thing is...I don't buy the mantra that we can't run the ball...especially in 2013.
I think we can run the ball effectively to keep the defense honest.
Barry Bolton at brand x thinks we will run the ball more because he thinks Falk will check more to it. I hope so...but again, you are either coaching it or allowing it to happen.
You were unable to list the number of games the team played during the relevant periods. But, sure, I'm the one in the wrong.
A difference of four games played is not equivalent to half a season. But keep up the good work.
Geezus dude...I was simply responding to 96...and you fly off the freakin' handle.
I don't think it is all that reasonable that we should consider another direction IF we go 3-9 for the third time in 4 yrs. Anywhere else where big boy football is played, that is what happens.
YOU are the one who flew off the handle here, not me. So look in the mirror before blaming me or Chinook.
And calm the F down!
To quote coach Norman Dale "Do you have pigeon shit in your eyes?!"
I said Price had 20 and Leach 25 through 3 yrs.
I'll pay for a prescription of your Robert Deniro in Casino bifocals if need be.
As always, you're the special kind of special.
I honestly think, just based on some of the background noise and stories you read (the drive into the brick wall FASTER business against OSU), that Connor might have been a bit tougher nut to crack than most. Falk seemed willing to check to runs, even call designed QB runs, if the defense seemed open- I don't think that was prevalent in Halliday at any point, then coached out of him.
That said, it's more hearing everyone in the program, to a man, say they're more equipped to run this year than in the past, and that they'll do it more frequently. That makes me think they'll do that more, and be better at it.
This thread really brings to light a couple of the major issues that have divided this board. There is no doubt that the schedule that Leach has faced is more difficult overall than anything that Price, Bill Snyder or most other coaches that he's been compared to have faced. It's no wonder that we've struggled at times.
At the same time, we are paying him over $2 million per year because he's considered a coaching genius that is going to raise our program to great heights. Does that mean that he should overcome the obstacles more quickly, despite them being higher, or do we need to be patient because it is going to work out in the long run?
That really (in my opinion) illustrates the divide you see in opinions. Both are subjective and have no real factual basis for support. I think everyone (or most everyone) is still excited with Leach at this moment and feels that good things are possible. At the crux, it seems that there is a group of people (of which I am one of them) that thinks that if Leach is ever going to win a championship in Pullman, a relatively easy season like the one we appear to be facing is one that needs to end in a bowl game. I am rooting enthusiastically for Leach to be successful this year but I will start to withdraw my support if he fails. The group that I am in is representative of college football fans in general. We are probably less patient than we could be.
The other group is of the opinion that we are in a marathon here and we are only 1/2 way done. We have been building towards the finish line and will surprise everyone when we do our kick on the home stretch in a few years.
I don't know if we have a great finishing kick or if we are going to continue to lag if we can't start to close with the field now. For the people that don't agree with my opinion, I hope you understand that I do see your point and agree that it's got its merits, I just feel that for me to be a believer, I'd like to start passing the back of the group this year.
At the same time, we are paying him over $2 million per year because he's considered a coaching genius that is going to raise our program to great heights. Does that mean that he should overcome the obstacles more quickly, despite them being higher, or do we need to be patient because it is going to work out in the long run?
That really (in my opinion) illustrates the divide you see in opinions. Both are subjective and have no real factual basis for support. I think everyone (or most everyone) is still excited with Leach at this moment and feels that good things are possible. At the crux, it seems that there is a group of people (of which I am one of them) that thinks that if Leach is ever going to win a championship in Pullman, a relatively easy season like the one we appear to be facing is one that needs to end in a bowl game. I am rooting enthusiastically for Leach to be successful this year but I will start to withdraw my support if he fails. The group that I am in is representative of college football fans in general. We are probably less patient than we could be.
The other group is of the opinion that we are in a marathon here and we are only 1/2 way done. We have been building towards the finish line and will surprise everyone when we do our kick on the home stretch in a few years.
I don't know if we have a great finishing kick or if we are going to continue to lag if we can't start to close with the field now. For the people that don't agree with my opinion, I hope you understand that I do see your point and agree that it's got its merits, I just feel that for me to be a believer, I'd like to start passing the back of the group this year.
Well, if we run a little more.. Say 12 times a game more or so and the db's show up in the TV screen, I'll be happy.
Provided the special teams don't look special
Last edited:
Good post, Flat. I think you are probably right about the divide. But I will counter what you believe of "the other side" of yours. I don't think we're in too much of a marathon. We are if we ever want to get some sort of North "winner, winner chicken dinner" or Pac12 Championship or beyond. But that's irrelevant of CML, IMHO.
See to me, we were placed in the cellar of cellars. That's what dictates the "marathon". But the only thing that has kept me on the "side" that you perceive is… I see statistical improvement all over the place. Yes, the W column is not what I want. It isn't what anyone wants. But what are the foundational "things" you have to have, to be a successful program? Depth, size, speed, intelligence. Those things… all of them, don't come around in a year. They don't build a successful program in 2! But 3, last year was a disappointment. But I see many of those things improving year to year. THAT is the reason I support CML, right now. If improvement continues in those foundational elements, I believe the W's will come. That's why I don't emphasis the W column, right now… Next year? I'll be placing more and more emphasis on that statistic with every year. But the coach, honestly is irrelevant. It's improvement that I look for and I see it. As some have stated, they don't believe in stats too much or don't like them or whatever. But unfortunately stats are the only measurement of improvement or decline. So I use them, do so with as much clarity as possible and use as many as possible to gain a clearer picture of either improvement or decline. When those stats, when compared to previous years or coaches, head south… That's when I'll be calling for a hot seat. If those stats continue to build… I'm good.
Some here believe those on this side believe in some cult of personality or something. That, IMHO, is incorrect. It's about statistical, foundational improvement.
EDIT: And I will also point out… One side thinks his salary means efficiency or speed towards the elusive 6 and above wins. The other side thinks it just puts us on an even keel with every other D1 school and means literally nothing. IMHO, it's almost like it's financial envy or something. Doesn't matter what his pay is, IMHO.
Last edited:
Leg humping my posts again I see. Do you have any posts that aren't a smartass response to mine?
Smartass response? I was being serious and trying to help you out, cuz lord knows you need it.
What we are paying Leach doesn't matter because we are paying market rate for a Pac-12 coach.
So take Leach out and put someone else in at 2012.
Now walking in the door that person would still have to face the following problems.
- lack of depth on the offensive line
- discipline issues (Mizell, Laurenzi etc.)
- recruiting issues against UW, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Oregon State in the north.
- Arizona, ASU, UCLA, USC in the south
- No post season in a decade
- a roster that was undersized and not on par with other Pac-12 teams
- No initial football ops building yet
- No decent S&C program
- Apathetic fan base
You are paying 2.5 million dollars / year to try and overcome all of this.
- Now you haven't chosen someone with a name like Leach, because nobody with a name that is an active HC would come to Pullman and risk throwing their career givin the deficiencies. 2.5 M is a lot, but at the same time HCs who are already doing well in a P5 won't come because it's more than likely a lateral move and one that carries A LOT of risk.
- That leaves a mid major to come up. You can see how well McIntyre has worked out for CU after two years. Pullman is even further and more remote than boulder. Gary Anderson at Utah State. He's at Oregon State now, but he lasted like 1 year or 2 at Wiscy before he left, and that was an established and built program. He could have been a guy, but we still have no idea how he will do with Oregon State. So really there are very few mid major coaches with west coast ties so you don't have too many options there.
- An up and coming assistant? Okay well the money is enough to get one, but which one? And without HC experience? Look at a guy like Muschamp that was an incredibly heralded DC..in talent rich florida of all places...and look what happened there. Same thing with Orgeron when he was at Ole Miss, and he was a recruiting monster. It's sort of a gamble, and more than likely one that a mid major should take and not a BCS program, and if they come in will they be able to out recruit the other teams and be a great HC, and overcome the deficiencies? As I said. It's a gamble, and with already the failure of Wulff the more of a risk the more of a grave it will be if it doesn't work out.
So while just willing to pay 2.5 million... that doesn't guarantee anything except that we are paying market rate.
What Moos did, and this was actually brilliant was go and get Leach before someone else could.
What made this work is Leach is a guy who likes the remote areas and wildlife. (He grew up in Wyoming)
He had Pacific ties coaching at Cal Poly, going to school at Pepperdine and BYU
He was an offensive guy whose style is very west coast.
He had success beating bigger programs at a disadvantaged remote school (Lubbock)
He had name recognition and an offense that attracts talent that can help win recruiting battles.
He has high academic standards that will help take care of many of the discipline issues we were facing
It was the smartest calculated move our AD department has ever made. Yeah the results aren't there yet, but it's a future thing. Leach is here to elevate us to a competitive program. Here's here to build something out of a school that had been forgotten for a decade, and he's exactly the kind of person that we need.
Ask yourself..
Is the offensive line better? Depth wise, size wise, play wise. Does it look like a Pac-12 offense?
Do we have quality skill players coming to the program. Not just 1 guy here or there, but a serious two deep of skill guys?
QBs? We've always been able to get QBs but is our QB situation good? Do we have guys who can throw?
Defensively.
Were there times where the defense looked good? (Yes I know it looked bad most of the time, but there were bright spots. Apple Cup overtime interception, USC interception for TD, and shutout of Idaho). Yes there is a lot to fix...but it did do some things.
Special teams? - okay that sucked except for furney, but at least he did well, and we did have that JC kicker who would just kick it out for a touchback.
Overall Leach is building us into a competitive team. He's working on the defense now putting a lot of effort into which is clear by 2 new assistants with a lot of energy.
So for our 2.5 million who would walk in the door and magically do it better? Or even do it as well as he is? I can't think of very many if any.
All we should expect from Leach is someone who is improving the level of our program. Someone who is building us into a competitive program overall. That's what the expectation is for us. Everybody wants to win, but we didn't even have a car ready to go in the race and everyone else revealed their brand new ferraris. And yet...Leach is beating these guys occasionally, and as he goes adding better and better parts. Better pit crew etc.
I see what Leach is doing which is building something on par with everyone else and I like it.
The reason I didn't support Wulff was because I saw what he was doing and it was take apart the car completely and then ask for applause for trotting out a go cart on the last lap.
I don't know how (or why) you guys are comparing Price to Leach. First of all, Price was our most successful coach in our modern day football history. Also, Price (and Don James) had the benefit of coaching during an era where many of the conference schools weren't selling out for football. That's not the case anymore. Lastly, Leach took over a far worse situation than any coach I've seen in my nearly 40 years of suffering through Cougar football. Regardless of whether or not you think Wulff did an OK job, our program was far and away the most anonymous of any of our conference rivals. Wulff had ZERO "name buzz" on the recruiting trail, and our ship that started sinking under Doba was bow to the sky when Leach came on.
Price was fantastic. The best ever. You'll never hear me diss him (anymore), but comparing his era to Leach's is unfair. The coaches who preceded Price, Walden and Erickson, were pretty decent. Walden may not have had a stellar won/loss record or bowl achievements, but some of his teams were considered to be (by the Dawgfather himself) the 1st or 2nd best in our league at the end of the season. Walden also had some heart stopping Apple Cup moments that breathed life into a lifeless program. You can argue that, had it not been for our Apple Cup successes in the 1980's, Drew Bledsoe may not have become a Coug. When he was growing up in Walla Walla, the Cougs were springing upsets right and left against a dominant UW program.
Price was fantastic. The best ever. You'll never hear me diss him (anymore), but comparing his era to Leach's is unfair. The coaches who preceded Price, Walden and Erickson, were pretty decent. Walden may not have had a stellar won/loss record or bowl achievements, but some of his teams were considered to be (by the Dawgfather himself) the 1st or 2nd best in our league at the end of the season. Walden also had some heart stopping Apple Cup moments that breathed life into a lifeless program. You can argue that, had it not been for our Apple Cup successes in the 1980's, Drew Bledsoe may not have become a Coug. When he was growing up in Walla Walla, the Cougs were springing upsets right and left against a dominant UW program.
Last edited:
Great post.
I want to reiterate the reasons why I see this year being so critical. The issue for a fan like me is that I see teams like UW and OSU regressing. I see a team like CU that was every bit as bad as us and should be a step behind in the rebuilding phase. I see a program like Cal that was falling as we had started our rebuilding that we had passed that is working to build like us and is perceived as ahead of us already. For all the talk about how it takes time to build and we need to be patient, I see four Pac-12 programs that we should be ahead of if Leach is the kind of coach that we hope he is. We get to play them all this year.
I get it that only a fool expects WSU to be contending for a title this year or next. I'd like to think that we have four Pac-12 games that we as fans, unreasonable and drunk on the koolaid, should expect to win. I'd like to think that if UW could upset USC in 2009 and 2010, if Arizona can knock off mighty Oregon two years in a row, if OSU could hand USC it's only loss in 2008, if we could beat USC in 2013, and if all of these other upsets can happen every year, I'd like to think that we can get one real upset win over a Pac-12 front-runner. We are long overdue to have a season where we win the games we should and get an upset or two. For a decade, WSU has consistently found a way to lose to an inferior team at least once per year and often a couple times.
I'd like to think that this is the year we get past that. We need to take the extra depth and maturity we have and combine that with enthusiasm. Mike Leach as three basic goals on gameday: 1) Be a team 2) Be the most excited to play 3) Be the best at doing your job. Too often, our players have failed to do those things. Getting beat on cutbacks happens because you aren't trusting your teammates and being a good teammate. A player is moving out of his position because he doesn't trust his teammates. Playing with enthusiasm moves your game to a higher level and gives you energy. We didn't get blown out in 2008 just because our team sucked. We got destroyed on a weekly basis because Wulff absolutely destroyed any enthusiasm that our players had. Being the best at doing your job means that you make a tackle when it's there, you catch a ball when it hits you in the hands, make that kick when you are called upon and you don't throw an interception because you didn't consider the consequence of a forced pass. If the athletes we have had followed Leach's rules, we would have around seven more wins with Leach as coach and a much happier fan base. The above goals have been the issues that Leach has been fighting as much as any talent deficit.
I agree that Leach was the best coach that Moos could have landed for us. He's done a good job of rebuilding the foundation of our team where we have a better chance of competing. I believe that this year is the litmus test on whether or not he is the man who can take us to the top. I believe he will.
Flat,
You forget that this isn't business, it is personal, for many posters. They are emotionally invested in Leach. (Much like most posters refused to acknowledge that things were going horribly wrong under Wulff, until the very end.) You can't get Cougatron and other Leeches to identify their benchmarks, goals and expectations for Leach, precisely. Why, because if Leach failed to meet a benchmark, it would undermine their near religious "faith." Leeches go so far as to minimize Price's accomplishments (Pac-12 not as good then), not because they dislike Price, but because they fear Leach won't/can't match Price's accomplishments (2 titles).
You are right, Cal has a crap coach, OSU and the UW are down, Colorado is/was as bad off as we were. And why can't we pull off an upset, finally? If not now? When for WSU? However, for Leeches such talk isn't reasoned analysis, it is seen as a threat to their unfettered adoration of everything Leach.
Where you and I differ, I don't think that we have the horses to take advantage of this huge opportunity. I don't think Leach failed us on the chalkboard, but in the recruits' living rooms. The good thing is that if you rely on reason, you can be proven right or wrong, BFD. When you rely on "faith," dealing with reality can be tricky, and full of angst, when it runs contrary to your faith.
You forget that this isn't business, it is personal, for many posters. They are emotionally invested in Leach. (Much like most posters refused to acknowledge that things were going horribly wrong under Wulff, until the very end.) You can't get Cougatron and other Leeches to identify their benchmarks, goals and expectations for Leach, precisely. Why, because if Leach failed to meet a benchmark, it would undermine their near religious "faith." Leeches go so far as to minimize Price's accomplishments (Pac-12 not as good then), not because they dislike Price, but because they fear Leach won't/can't match Price's accomplishments (2 titles).
You are right, Cal has a crap coach, OSU and the UW are down, Colorado is/was as bad off as we were. And why can't we pull off an upset, finally? If not now? When for WSU? However, for Leeches such talk isn't reasoned analysis, it is seen as a threat to their unfettered adoration of everything Leach.
Where you and I differ, I don't think that we have the horses to take advantage of this huge opportunity. I don't think Leach failed us on the chalkboard, but in the recruits' living rooms. The good thing is that if you rely on reason, you can be proven right or wrong, BFD. When you rely on "faith," dealing with reality can be tricky, and full of angst, when it runs contrary to your faith.
That's not really true. I think you take each season year by year. Some like to minimize getting WSU back to a bowl game in 2013. If it were so easy and meaningless, why did it take ten years?
Setting benchmarks means what? I (because it's all about me) want Leach to win the national championship. Every year. Forever. The Rose Bowl has been watered down, so that's not good enough anymore. With the playoff, making the four team field will be forgotten within 2-3 so it has to be the natty or nothing.
In case you missed it, and you could have, WSU has pulled off some upsets during Leach's tenure.
BTW, Price never coached in the Pac-12.
since you are so down on Leach, just what coach should we or could we hav e gotten that would recruit at a level meeting your expectations? which is obviously "recruiting at a level never seen before"
Yeah… I don't know if this "Leech" thing has me included but I want to be clear… I ain't in whatever group your describing. If you think I am, I suggest reading my post about it being about statistics and not "cult of personality". If this is about others, carry on. I don't know anyone that is like that, but carry on anyways.
