Great… So glad this is in our rear view mirror
- Thread starter Coug95man2
- Start date
I don't know how to react to the concept that you don't trust the numbers… might be off an offer or two, since it is the whole, "KNOWN offers" thing. Maybe off a couple. That doesn't change my point.
Regarding the idea that 3 said yes early… OK… So? When they back out or don't make it, do you stop offering? You see whats available, get on the horn and make some calls to see what some of the other players you've offered have to say, as CML has done numerous times. Even if it's after signing day. Notice I said, "other players you've offered"… cold calling ain't gonna cut it. You offer 20 or 25 or whatever your situation requires so WHEN someone drops out, you have a relationship built and you can call!
Regarding the analogy of a kicker and the Oline… Could you have found a worse applicable analogy that a multiple people needed on the line vs. 1 dude needed every once in a while? Such a horrible analogy, I don't know how to respond to that one, either.
So there are 2 counter points to your 2011 point (don't think I haven't noticed you dropping 2009 and now you bring up another year prior to us resolving that point… but I understand. You can't refute it except by saying you don't believe the numbers… riiiiiight) Regarding a player decommitting 8 days, then another 2 days prior to signing… Ed, this happens all the time. As you've pointed out, as we've all pointed out. Cripes there are players that will surprise us that we think they are signing for WSU and all the sudden they are somewhere else… and we find out on signing day. This happens. The point is, to be prepared for it. Wulff rarely was. Instead he complained about poaching every year instead of doing something about it. What should he have done? What we've said time and time again and you keep bringing up different situations and oddly our solutions are still applicable.
Point #1:That's why you don't offer 9!!! Or whatever number you want to use… That way, when 2 guys bow out, you have others that you've offered, cut bait on months ago but still have relationships with them to see if they want to be a Coug! This is not rocket science. This is people skills. BASIC people skills.
Point #2: Honestly, I think he did OK that year. Won't get into the quality of the players, just the quantity. He got 5-6 verbals so WHEN (not IF) a player(s) decommitted, he was covered. Probably not the way he looked at it but it should have been, IMHO. He was counting on all those guys to be there. THAT was naive. The problem is, Ed this was the only year he did this. It's almost like he got to 2011 and realized, "Holy crap! I haven't been recruiting my old position well! I better get 6 Oline to fill this gap ASAP!" Hence the JC's. But too little too late, ed. Oline is the hardest position because of the need for size development. You know this! So he was trying to fill a hole immediately with a something that takes time to develop. Regardless, you bring up the one year, IMHO, he did it ok. You offer until you get the commits you want and expect 1, maybe 2, to drop. And that's what he did. To be clear, I don't think he was THINKING of it that way… His first 3 years… He did not.
This is Such a Perfect snapshot of Ed.
Again he's someone who's EGO of his own intelligence far out weighs his true knowledge. His poor co-workers must face this reality day-in-day out.
You can't win with JT levy as a QB. Y
You stop "offering" when you don't think they can play at this level. Ask any coach that question. Ask Leach if he lost a lineman last minute would he offer a kid that he didn't think could play, or would that scholie go to a position that he knew a player could play.
Also, just a side note, when Doba got poached he would never poach another's teams verbals. It was a code of ethics for him. I like Leach's ethics better.
I moved to 2011 to illustrate a point. We didn't get enough DB's in that class, which caused a problem down the road. Why did Leach not address the problem in 2012 and 2013? Should I rip the guy for not addressing it then by not having the right bodies and experience bodies to offset what happened in 2014? What about the kicker? So we got one poached in 2014. Why no back up plan? Should I rip him for that? It is one position and he did not have it manned by a person capable of hitting an extra point to win a game. No, I am sure there was something that happened, either in terms of numbers, or players who may have committed verbally or backed out, or various other reasons we may not have inside knowledge of.
We don't know what happened behind the scenes. He knew he needed lineman. By not getting players to bridge the gap left behind by Doba, it was almost impossible for him without PAc 12 cache to make up that ground immediately. Like Price, as years went by his line recruiting eventually got better.
Despite the fact he didn't have nearly the depth a coach would want, I am not sure how you can deny the fact he left a functional line for 2012, 2013, and 2014 and 2015. Leach's first JC signing Sale couldn't replace all the "weak" undersize lineman that were on campus. The oline was functional enough and stayed healthy in 2013 to go bowling. And in 2014 three lineman that were recruited by Wulff, or they walked on to his program or changed their mind in the fall of 2011 were on campus when the first semester started and Leach did not have to recruit or use a scholie that first year. Then last year when Sorenson got hurt Flor, another Wulff early pledges from the 2012 class was first man off the bench.
It is unbelievable we are even talking about this. I have said depth was an issue. But the starting pieces were good enough for him to build on, and what he did in terms of that position was not all that different that Price or Doba. They too struggled getting and keeping those bodies.
Oh no...not again. Which part. That he came in at semester, or that his scholie rolls back to 2010?
Oh, let me get this straight. You are ok with my opinions? Tron is? Whitless? Really? Interesting?
Well from the WSU official website..."JUNIOR (2011): Enrolled in January, 2011 and participated in spring drills...appeared in three games...played against Idaho State and UNLV...started at San Diego State."
Yeah. He, like the few who came to spring practice from JC this recruiting class, was part of the 2011 recruiting class and enrolled at semester, as he was fully qualified academically. As part of the 2011 recruiting class.
Thank you for verifying your error.
If your opinion was reasonable, based on a reasonable interpretation of facts, than we are "okay".
But the only thing I am positive about is that you and two others are more concerned with arguing becuase you think you are right, rather than caring about ACTUALLY BEING RIGHT.
There is a solid group on here who have more than enough combined energy to not let factually incorrect and poisenous opinions ruin this Coug board. You can try and keep on arguing, but they won't let you have the last word...
The aPaultergeist geisha just had to show up. You go, girl!
I am sorry, where is my error? Yes, he was part of the 2011 class. But what you apparently don't know because he came in semester his scholie counts as a 2010 recruit in terms of numbers. Thus, he didn't take Dahl's scholie.
When your "opinion" isn't actually an opinion, but factually inaccurate information you're holding up as an "opinion", well, you're entitled to it. But it's not an opinion- it's somewhere between a mistake and a lie.
Read the number at the top, then direct me to your info.
https://rivals.yahoo.com/washingtonstate/football/recruiting/commitments/2011/95-66
(In fairness, I genuinely looked for your "assessment" of scholarship use- there's not a lot of TM info on the internets. One article on BX behind a paywall is the only one that MIGHT say that, while the others are about his joining the class of '11, and one about how he was the weak link in the OL for the SDSU game.
By page two? This thread features prominently... So, not much info.)
https://rivals.yahoo.com/washingtonstate/football/recruiting/commitments/2011/95-66
(In fairness, I genuinely looked for your "assessment" of scholarship use- there's not a lot of TM info on the internets. One article on BX behind a paywall is the only one that MIGHT say that, while the others are about his joining the class of '11, and one about how he was the weak link in the OL for the SDSU game.
By page two? This thread features prominently... So, not much info.)
Last edited:
So what you need to see is that semester transfers count against the previous years scholarship is that what you need to see? Or you want to use just the rivals info that is a 2011 commit?
You say this like its a 100% hard and fast rule, when it isn't. So, what you need is an article specifically saying they back counted Meighen- one article said they'd backlog... but for Eli Edwards, not Meighen. Yes, until shown otherwise, I'll use the Rivals info rather than your unfounded assertions.
So all of the Pac 12 teams that found more players than WSU did… They weren't good enough for us? I'll give you a little wiggle room and say that those numbers aren't 100% but realize how many Arizona offered that year… No way our numbers are that far off.
You moved to 2011 because 2009 blew up your point. So now you move to 2011 and the DB's… OK.
Regarding our DB's… how did he NOT address it? Let's look at numbers, shall we?
2008: 10 offers
2009: 16 offers
2010: 22 offers
2011: 18 offers
2012: 24 offers
2013: 32 offers
2014: 44 offers
Do you see a difference? You keep offering. Did it help? Well, think what kind of numbers we'd have if we hadn't offered 44 DB's in 2014!!!!! We'd be eating a REAL crap sandwich, right now. You again proved my point. You offer as many as you can. It's not a guarantee which it seems like you are trying to illustrate here. But ultimately you proved my point. You keep offering, as CML did. Notice, 2014 was quadrupled the offers in 2008… wow. And to the point, you can't force a player to sign an LOI, you just have to work as hard as you can.
Regarding how I can argue the quality of the Oline… Holy cow, Ed. Should we quote you or Sponge on how crappy the past 3 seasons have been? And much of that being placed on the fact our QB has to release so dang quick before he breaks a leg, or liver or something… I don't have to argue anything. Look up any post you or Sponge has put up here on the awesome thread below. I can look up stats like number of sacks and such… But I know you don't believe in stats… they are poppycock to you, I know…
Don't' take my word? OK. You are so behind CML, right? Didn't CML say that the Oline he inherited was questionable with a couple that weren't even worthy of schollies? Remember that? So are you behind CML or are you saying he doesn't know how to evaluate Olines? The guy that put how many Olinemen into the NFL…
Things that make you go… hmmmmmm.
I eagerly await your answers.
Why say ok? You accuse someone of being intolerant, you give the definition of the word and you are the one who is displaying the behavior. It seems rather hypocritical versus simply saying ok. Now, if you said Ed it is my opinion you are a dick, that would illicit an response "ok that is your opinion".
"The first year, we didn't have anybody," McGuire said. "The second year we had a starting five and zero backups. Last year, we had a starting five with maybe one backup. This year, we have a starting five with four or five quality backups. It's not just the depth in games, it's our depth in practice too.
I have found scholarships to be hard and fast in terms of their rules. It is the reason why junior college transfers who can transfer at semester are like gold. They are gold for two reasons. First, they get spring practice to get acclimated. Second, they count against the previous years scholie count. David Gonzales counted against the previous years scholie count.
He could have enrolled early and used a vacant spot in the 2010 class, or he could have used a spot in the 2011 class. Enrolling early doesn't mean he used a spot from the previous class.
Well the first year he had two players on the line who either got drafted (Rodgers) or got paid for being on a developmental squad (fullington) plus a kid who was recruited and signed by Tech in Goetz, plus Bosch who played for two seasons. If the argument is about depth, totally agree. They had two players with experience, one player in Meighan who could spell a player for a half. Fortunately, and in part because of training in the beach they have been extremely healthy so we haven't had to go to players who for sure weren't ready.
Not true. Or why didn't we oversign like crazy for the five JUCO's we brought in this year?
Why would you not? It allows you more spots for the next class, which also allows room for Dahl.
So, he got four guys with one year COMBINED playing experience? Yup, that cupboard was stocked.
If he couldn't "pry" him from Montana, he wasn't that interested in opening a spot for Dahl.
Stephan Nembot was more interested in opening a spot for Dahl than Wulff was.
Last edited:
Back in 2010, in the third of four years of Paul Wulff’s tenure, Dahl was playing for Bill Diedrick, former WSU and Washington assistant, at University High — and dying to get an offer from the Cougars.
Montana’s came first, and not until about mid-October of that year did WSU follow.
“There was a period when they (the Cougars) stopped talking to me,” Dahl says. “That was when Montana started talking to me. I committed there and just didn’t want to back out on my verbal.”
You can read the whole article here.
So basically Wulff waited until October to offer him, and by that time he stuck with Montana. Even though he really wanted to come to WSU. So Wulff gets ZERO credit for Dahl. He was lazy on the offer. He had stopped talking to Dahl, and then 3 months before signing day offered him of which he stuck by Montana.
So Wulff didn't do a damn thing to try and secure Dahl. The reason Dahl showed up was because he wanted to play for WSU. So where things went wrong initially was with Wulff not even talking to the kid.
Montana’s came first, and not until about mid-October of that year did WSU follow.
“There was a period when they (the Cougars) stopped talking to me,” Dahl says. “That was when Montana started talking to me. I committed there and just didn’t want to back out on my verbal.”
You can read the whole article here.
So basically Wulff waited until October to offer him, and by that time he stuck with Montana. Even though he really wanted to come to WSU. So Wulff gets ZERO credit for Dahl. He was lazy on the offer. He had stopped talking to Dahl, and then 3 months before signing day offered him of which he stuck by Montana.
So Wulff didn't do a damn thing to try and secure Dahl. The reason Dahl showed up was because he wanted to play for WSU. So where things went wrong initially was with Wulff not even talking to the kid.
Unfair criticism: Wulff clearly offered with time for a decision.
Fair criticism: pretty much everything else. Especially the idea that for Dahl, a B option, the recruiters... stopped recruiting him... until they needed him again. I'd imagine that's not an isolated case. Would explain a lot.
Article also makes pretty clear he wanted to play for the NEW staff at WSU- not the one that dropped the ball recruiting him.
There was time, but the wording suggests WSU was talking to him with some sort of frequency. Then they shut down. Then they came back. There's seems to be more to the story, if you read between the lines.
OMG! Trying to talk him away from Montana would of been immature. DON'T YOU PEOPLE GET IT? It's funny how the previous staff would claim immaturity when it came to losing a recruit to someone like Cal and then boast how they won a recruit that might of gone to San Diego State. They were hilarious.
Meaning what? It is rule. It is maneuvering scholies around so you can sign more. Meighan getting a scholie had zip to do with Dahl.
It's not a "set in stone" rule- I've seen JUCO's counted either way- mainly as part of the class they signed with, and since they only had 25 commits- some of whom took spots of last day decommits- there was no need to "maneuver", was there?
I'm simply asking you to show me anything that shows, in spite of the ACTUAL EVIDENCE I've provided to the contrary (and the WSU blurb you provided which verifies that) that Meighen counted against '10, not '11. So far, not yet.
Good grief. So you know it is a rule, you know it is a way to open up scholies, you know there was a scholie available because Meighan's scholie could be counted backwards, but you want proof his was because why? If there are enough spots, they had a scholie for Dahl, what's the question or concern?
