I endorse this deal, even though that may be invalid outside the stated 10 minute window.
Great… So glad this is in our rear view mirror
- Thread starter Coug95man2
- Start date
Yeah, everyone goes to the barber and asks for the "male pattern baldness" style- it was really hot that year.
Hey, you're the one imagining me in the mirror...
In general, a discussion of Cougar football. Since I'm not usually the one turning discussions into chatter about user names and profile pictures, maybe you're asking the wrong guy. Most of my interactions beyond your direct family bear that out.
Although I think the creepiness of attacking some as a "psycho nut job stalker" for going on a public website, and then wishing you could be an ACTUAL psycho nut job stalker and start running IP searches on people should be noted. (In fairness, I have no misconceptions that the guy who can't spell the word "bigot", even after reading it multiple times, would be capable of launching a cyber attack- but still, man...)
I'll ask the same of you.
Last edited:
Not sure why you would think it is "Creepy" about posting the truth about a poster who had no business posting the name on this site of someone not remotely involved with Cougar football. It had zero to do with my email, it had nothing to do with WSU football. And posting her name on the website couldn't have been a worse time because of some of the crap she was going through. In terms of why do I stay on the website and instead of run, cause it isn't in may nature. Once everyone was safe, including my kids, then I reposted. I won't let him dictate the terms on which I post on this board.
I simply post my opinions. You don't like them. Most don't like them. Big deal. LTC didn't like my opinion in 1999 when he wanted to fire Price, I said show patience. In 2008-2011 people had their opinion of Wulff and never once did I ever say it wasn't your right. Nor did I ever say you and others weren't Cougs for saying Wulff sucked.
You don't like what I say on a public forum abut Leach, that his defense was bad last year, and it shouldn't have been. You don't like the fact I think they will only win 5 games, or agree on numbers we have had three losing seasons. It certainly wasn't what Moos had in mind. But I would focus on the attendance, and take a peek at the empty seats after empty seats in the stadium. That is much more damning than anything I will say here.
Also, during the Wulff years I didn't say we would win in 2008, or 2009, or 2010, and until they pulled Tuels redshirt I didn't think they would win in 2011. That is what I said in 2007 before the coach was hired.
Last year I asked a simple question....how do we win when we lose a first round draft pick and our entire secondary and giving up 55, 59, and 66 in a three week stretch of 2013 and expect to win with a whole new defensive backfield? Even if I saw those kids as the next Trufant/Coleman etc they didn't have a pass rush to protect them and they would have several long TD's because of communication or mental mistakes. I never dreamed it would be as bad as it was. But it was their play before 2014 that I thought would keep us sub .500.
I just watched several games from 2013 and their special teams play wasn't close to what we saw in 2014. Do I believe coaching suddenly turned bad? I have never believed that.
Go to the paid page, see how many people really want to talk football. The three most popular threads in terms of count are threads about Paul Wulff. Jesus he was fired four years ago. Do I cut Leach less slack for having such a mess in the defensive backfield. A little, sure. If he had no lineman, I mean none, and he had no QB's, and he had no dline, then yeah, I would say we are were we should be. I have never advocated he be fired or on the hot seat, but I will also tell it like it is.... the DB is the second easiest position to fix on the team behind RB. Linebacker then WR. These positions can grow up in a hurry. Should Leach be fired for lack of corners in 2012. Nope. But there was enough time since his arrival to fix it. Dockery and Jackson didn't work out.
And we will see how fast Grinch will get things changed. But to the average fan to lose 3 coaches has to rock the trust in coach Leach. This isn't what the average fan thought was going to happen.
1) Well, apparently you need to read my stuff more often : )
2) Coaches get shut out of a job. If Bone didn't get teh WSU job he would never had been a Pac 12 coach. HE made choices to stay at SPU and when you don't branch out you don't have the connections needed to get those jobs. I have talked with enough people in the industry, people who are well respected and to a person they thought Bone is a very good coach.
3) If Klay doesn'tget booted for the most important game of his tenure ate at WSU and they beat UCLA, they would have gone to the tournament. Not sure how that squares with your definition of not winning.
4) His trendline was down. No way does he win more games with the four recruits than he did with Baynes, Rochestie and Thompson. He knew when to get out.
5) Lacey, Faisal Aden, the kid from Shorewood to name just a few. Sure seemed better than Nic W, Brown, Hartune, but I could be mistaken.
6) Oh he can just take a team that has I don't believe has been to the tourney before, but he isn't a BCS level coach. You know, that is what I love most about Mike Leach. Coaching is coaching, level doesn't matter.
7) I guess we need to ask each others people then.
8) You know this for a fact that Thompson had no respect for Bone? If that is the case, that's Klays problem
9) Yeah, cause his ex boss was up hear. Why was George done? He wasn't successful at USC.
10) Actually no, I am not going to "admit" something I don't believe. Again, I have talked to enough people in the business that have too muchg respect for him.
11) I have always said the smallest amusement is the best amusement.
12) Please do....allows me to "pay back" all the people who have said "no" to me.
2) Coaches get shut out of a job. If Bone didn't get teh WSU job he would never had been a Pac 12 coach. HE made choices to stay at SPU and when you don't branch out you don't have the connections needed to get those jobs. I have talked with enough people in the industry, people who are well respected and to a person they thought Bone is a very good coach.
3) If Klay doesn'tget booted for the most important game of his tenure ate at WSU and they beat UCLA, they would have gone to the tournament. Not sure how that squares with your definition of not winning.
4) His trendline was down. No way does he win more games with the four recruits than he did with Baynes, Rochestie and Thompson. He knew when to get out.
5) Lacey, Faisal Aden, the kid from Shorewood to name just a few. Sure seemed better than Nic W, Brown, Hartune, but I could be mistaken.
6) Oh he can just take a team that has I don't believe has been to the tourney before, but he isn't a BCS level coach. You know, that is what I love most about Mike Leach. Coaching is coaching, level doesn't matter.
7) I guess we need to ask each others people then.
8) You know this for a fact that Thompson had no respect for Bone? If that is the case, that's Klays problem
9) Yeah, cause his ex boss was up hear. Why was George done? He wasn't successful at USC.
10) Actually no, I am not going to "admit" something I don't believe. Again, I have talked to enough people in the business that have too muchg respect for him.
11) I have always said the smallest amusement is the best amusement.
12) Please do....allows me to "pay back" all the people who have said "no" to me.
I think it's creepy that someone would take sincere issue with it, then get hepped up at the idea that they could do it themselves. That IS creepy- don't see it? Take off the blinders.
As for your opinions, whatever- they're wrong most of the time, but they're yours. You'll also note that I haven't attacked your Cougliness, I know it super matters, to the point that "Husky" isn't ok, but "come meet at My Office, you cowardly piece..." is.
It's hard to have an honest discussion about this coach, though, when you're working up justifications for an OL that averaged 260 pounds across to cover the old coaches' failings. There were capital I issues with the team Leach inherited that you consider to be not part of the discussion.
Yes, everyone acknowledged the defense was bad last year. However, your insistence on comparing it to the 2009 defense is, again, if you're showing any football knowledge at all, quite the cheat- there was infinitely more urgency for the opposition to score last year against Leach's offense last year than the 12 ppg game outfit in 2009.
Also, as much as everyone seems willing to admit that the 2012 Jackson-Dockery-Ford 0-fer hurt last year's d, so should it be noted that the DB class in '11 should never be one guy , and that not getting the JC corner in who Leach signed in '13 were also issues.
Your victory for pessimism last year is noted, along with your constant overprojection on Wulff's behalf.
You're also being a bit overdramatic when you turn 52, 55, 62 (against very good teams, and, especially in that OSU game, unusual circumstances) into 55, 59, and 66 in consecutive games. I don't see how they could struggle more than last year with another year of experience and JC attention to the position in the off-season. And there's almost no possible way the ST could be any worse than last year- even halving just their failures makes you a five win team last year.
Again, if you think they'll only win five, that's fine. If you're so concerned about the threads about Wulff, you should probably stop trying to revise his history to throw shade on this coach.
He was 9-40 because of his failings on all levels, and you're trying to find this or that... when, like it or not, Wulff inherited a lot more resumes than Mike Leach did.
Now, Wulff wasn't getting noticeably better players at the end of his tenure than at the beginning, from a ratings standpoint- yet the players who spent time under Leach developed (non-mutiny of lies division), significantly more than the players just coached by Wulff- it speaks to the coaching now.
You keep talking about IF he had no linemen- his best linemen were ok and very inexperienced, and his other linemen were walkons, guys beat out by walkons, and kids he'd already cast off. That's as close to nothing as you can get and still be a Division one team, but you can't accept that. On the DL, they were good, but even less experienced, or prone to discipline issues, and Travis Long. Like it or not, based on what both position groups had done upon Leach's hire, Wulff got a nicer stack of resumes when he walked in, on both sides. Its just that Leach guys kept adding to their resumes, while most Wulff guys stayed static.
And the "losing coaches" thing... the firings, I don't care- don't like it, get it fixed. I noticed you also don't mention the ability for coaches on Leach's staff's to get promoted- a quality lacking entirely from Wulff's teams. But the Simmons deal, and how it was handled- that was junk. That he was gone to anyone with sense, and just essentially sat on it for a week as it became obvious was bad for what had been a high level recruiting class. That's the kind of stuff that's more troubling.
But I feel like Falk brings dimensions to the offense Halliday didn't, and will likely be more receptive to instruction. I like the development and returning almost all contributors from your OL and RB's, with Harrington adding to that mix. You're good at WR, I like just the sheer number of bodies you can throw in the front seven- it seems likely that you'll be able to find a good combination.
And that's before you get into some of the struggles some of the other teams in conference are going through- even after 3-9 last year, the work that has been done in these three years has put them ahead of a few programs from a foundation standpoint (UW, OSU) and likely competitive with teams who've started to lose the foundation built by their predecessors (UO, Stanford) Not to mention a good changeout from a schedule standpoint in conference.
I'm sorry I haven't lost faith after 3-9- a bad season with a few wonky losses was a shot in the gut after a bowl season the year before, but it wasn't the veritable "Mayweather makes a speedbag of your groin" that the Wulff era was. And seeing the major issues (DB, ST, game management) addressed as well as I'd expect them to be, makes me think they'll be a more talented version of the '13 team, rather than something like last year.
still arguing with yourself what EVERYBODY agrees on, I see.
Keep up the guud wurk wulffui.
Keep up the guud wurk wulffui.
Thanks goodness you're here. Who'd lie to slander Leach and Moos otherwise?
Ed likes to base his argument that Leach isn't getting it done on fan expectations, since "fan expectations" after the Leach hire haven't been realized as of yet he is a failure and no better than his icon
Why are you lying, longtime "coug"?
Ed has never said this or implied it. Nobody on this board has EVER questioned Leach's pedigree advantage over Wulff.
Not once. Ever.... as in never.
Some of you continue to respond to what you WISH was said and positions/arguments you HOPED were made.
Ed has never said this or implied it. Nobody on this board has EVER questioned Leach's pedigree advantage over Wulff.
Not once. Ever.... as in never.
Some of you continue to respond to what you WISH was said and positions/arguments you HOPED were made.
Can you read?
I've seen "fan expectations" a dozen times. I've literally heard "well, see, I was supportive while Wulff was here, but people told me I needed to expect more. So I raised my expectations when Leach was hired...(because everyone told me to)"
Two things you should do before calling other people liars:
1. Stop lying so much.
2. Stop lying so much.
No Fishie. Me and Ed have had several "back and forth's" on expectations. Right down to what the definition of "expectation" is. So LongTime, you ain't lyin'. Fishie, you are either lying or ignorant in what you are posting.
Like complaining about shots at Leach's pedigree... when it had never even been brought up?
Doctor, heal thyself.
You're a fvcking moron Wulffui.
You first equate my speculation that MAYBE,which is why I said 50/50, that you and CP Coug are the same to Yaki posting the name of a female coworker on a msg board. What the hell is wrong with you?!
I would have no way to verify it unless I was the board moderator...and that is not even close to the same as posting the name of a female coworker.
Ask her what she thinks of Yaki Creepster
Then, you poke fun at my so called male pattern baldness, which I am not even close to having, which I am sure the people on this board that do have it appreciate.
An even if I did have it, which I don't, the amount of hair on your head isn't the measure of a man.
The women who took that selfie(I didn't take it) sure didn't seem to have an issue with my hair like you do..F'ng creepy is all I can say.
I don't think I've ever come across a bigger moron in my life. Honest to god.
Last edited:
OK, guy who wants to do IP searches to verify conspiracies, and only talk about usernames and profile pics. Other people are the creepy ones. You capitalized maybe, when you should have capitalized the part about YOUR DESIRE TO RUN AN IP SEARCH TO INVADE PEOPLE'S PRIVACY, AND HOW NEAT IT WOULD BE. And not on a public website, either.
You're really sensitive about getting old and bald. But you've obviously been stupid forever, so at least your intellect isn't going. I could take your assertion that I'm "the biggest moron you've ever come across" to MENSA and get gold membership.
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm looking really insecure about going bald in my photo that everyone is obsessed with.
Only in the same brain that names himself after Wulff then slams him every day am I close to being bald.
Again, your ACTUAL fascination with my hair is beyond creepy..far more so than some SUPPOSED IP searches I have lined up in the future.
I do find it funny that the same posters that continue to bash my profile pic are the same posters that younger women wouldn't go anywhere near with a ten foot pole.
Maybe ask Yaki if you can take some of his meds or something.
Yeah, me making jokes about your hairline (that given your continued protests, are clearly hitting their receding target) is way creepier than a guy who's concocted in his own brain that the overwhelming majority of people disagreeing with him has to be a product of collusion, and not just comical stupidity, and he needs to go all Virtuosity.
I made a joke about your picture because the guy in it has a receding hairline. Since you say you don't... You continuing to humblebrag it in your posts is is your obsession, not mine. Just like my username.
Am I missing something? Did I incorrectly read what Chinook wrote. I believe he was referring to the pedigree comment. Not about my position of expectation.
With the new format I easily could have missed a post, but what I read it was comparing Leach's pedigree to Wulff's pedigree.
You missed a post- the discussion was entirely about how you claimed "fan expectations" as a marker- there wasn't a word about comparative pedigree until Nookie brought it up.
Big difference between going bald and having a receding hairline.
All men will have a receding hairline. You're obviously still in your 20's to make such an idiotic statement.
Perhaps one day you'll quit being so obsessed with my hair and profile pic(which I'd much rather have than a pic of cookie butter)
I'll continue to point out the incongruence in your user name and your hatred toward Wulff, however, until it finally sinks in.
Well here is what I read by LTC. I highlighted the statement LTC made that Chinook was clearly responding to because he uses the word "pedigree" Ed likes to base his argument that Leach isn't getting it done on fan expectations, since "fan expectations" after the Leach hire haven't been realized as of yet HE (talking about Leach) IS A FAILURE AND NO BETTER THAN HIS ICON.
Chinook didn't use the word once fan expectation, he used the word pedigree, meaning Leach does not equal wulff.
I just hope that, for the sake of medical advancement, and really, the betterment of the world- that the doctors and experts take note of your unique wisdom and don't schedule the baldness and flu symposiums for the same week.
I think if you re-read what LTC wrote it is pretty clear to me Fishie wasn't talking about the "expectations" discussion. Read the very last sentence in LTC's post and he talks about Leach being equal to Wulff in my mind, or that is how it reads. That is why Chinook talks about pedigree.
Before I respond, when you say "resumes" are you talking about high school resumes?
Except no one was talking about pedigree or anything- it was about the role of fan expectations... and Chinook spun a tangent about people claiming you said Leach and Wulff were equals. It has nothing to do with "pedigree"- by definition, the credentials they came with. Even if Leach crashes into a mountain, there's no scenario in which his pedigree (great success in the BCS as opposed to lesser success on the FCS) would suddenly be worse. Not related at all.
I guess LTC really didn't write this "HE (talking about Leach) IS A FAILURE AND NO BETTER THAN HIS ICON." See, there is a comparison in LTC's mind that I see Wulff and Leach as one in the same. I know most of the paragraph was about "expectations", but I know why Chinook used the word pedigree. Logically think about it. Why would he use that word, unless he doesn't know the definition of the word, when talking about expectations.
People get hired and fired because of expectations. When I say fans had different expectations, I think it is shown by all the fans, students, alumni, and typical fans when I watch a replay and the seats are empty. I believe that is a function of expectation. False expectations? Well if he was 3-9, 4-8, and 3-9 again, probably not. Expectations would have been slightly lower.
Well...have LTC edit his last sentence, that is where the misunderstanding is and that is where I am sure Chinook derived his post.
Except LT said you were trying to paint them as equals (and you do a lot of equivocating) and Chinook responded by blasting him, I guess pointing out that, no, you could never see them as equals because of the respect you have for Leach's history? Really, it doesn't make much sense, and I'm trying to interpret it generously.
In other words, you're wimping out of my offer....
I'm surprised, you try and puff your chest and act like the big tough guy on this board, but at the first offer of a reasonable bet you b*tch out.
I am, truly, surprised...
(Now I get to wait for your "I know what you are but what am I?" response...)
That, or the offer of a nice meet-and-greet at My Office for your slapping from the world's toughest internet tough guy.
For the suloooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwww.... oooooooonnneeessss....
Every fan who posts on this board expected Mike Leach to outperform Paul Wulff as coach of the Washington State University Cougar football team as measured by wins.
God forbid if we have higher expectations for Leach than for Wulff.
I mean, he was hired to do better than his predecessor after all. Most here can't grasp that.
Some can't grasp that Leach is doing much better than Wulff.
Good thing he's been here more than two years.
Still much better than his predecessor, which, since you just said that's what he was hired to do, should really please you.
Similar threads
