I learned something new from Brock Huard today

[Coug1990]

Brock and Salk were talking about what is more impressive given where they have been. The uw has been generally rated in the top 15 by the preseason polls. WSU has been rated not as high, but in the top 25.

Brock said that what the uw did when they were 3-6 last year and then going into this season meant that they were more impressive.

Now, all of you tell me what was wrong with that statement.

 

[kayak15]

I'll bite. The last three games comprised a loss to an average ASU team, a win over a sorry Beaver squad and a win over an injury depleted Cougar squad. Two wins and one loss is fine but considering the competition is hardly "impressive".

 

[Coug1990]

I'll bite. The last three games comprised a loss to an average ASU team, a win over a sorry Beaver squad and a win over an injury depleted Cougar squad. Two wins and one loss is fine but considering the competition is hardly "impressive".

Not what I was referring. You would think a uw fan who is very close to the program would know this, the uw was never 3-6 last season. The worst record they had was 4-6. Since they finished 7-6, Huard thinks they ended the season on a four game winning streak.

That is why he thinks they were better than they actually are.

 

[kayak15]

I missed it too but then I am not a uw fan. Huard is and should have known that. Interesting.

The ewe is always a contender and favorite for off-season titles, aren't they? They are, as usual, off to a good start again.

 

[Coug1990]

I missed it too but then I am not a uw fan. Huard is and should have known that. Interesting.

The ewe is always a contender and favorite for off-season titles, aren't they? They are, as usual, off to a good start again.

Heyyyyyyyyyyy!!! Were you accusing me of being a uw fan since I noticed it?

 

[SaveFerris]

Pretty sure last year the UW were picked higher preseason than WSU and obviously WSU ended up with the better overall record. Seems pretty cut-and-dry. Salk and Feldman thought WSU was the more impressive turnaround and Feldman had a solid rational. Sark was average but I didn't see the UW as a rebuild for Petersen. It was definitely a rebuild for us.

Part of me thinks it's great both programs are on the up. All I will care about at the end of the season is that we finish around where or better than we did last year. I love being in the discussion in mid-May but ultimately it's about what we continue to show on the field.

 

[kayak15]

I can't see the uw as having a turnaround or rebuild either. Yes, Sark was average but did a good job of recruiting. He left Petersen with an underachieving and average team but one with a solid foundation on which to build. Poor ole Leach, on the other hand, spent his first year bulldozing the rotten timbers and crumbling concrete of his fixer-upper and then the next couple years building a new and firm foundation. Also agree that both are on an upward trajectory.

As for the mid-May discussions, preseason polls are pretty weak but what else do we have to discuss? LOI day is long gone. Spring practice is over. Even the next year's recruiting class is in a quiet state. Pretty slim pickins. It's not much but at least the early polls give us something to consider while patiently waiting for September.

 

[Coug1990]

I can't see the uw as having a turnaround or rebuild either. Yes, Sark was average but did a good job of recruiting. He left Petersen with an underachieving and average team but one with a solid foundation on which to build. Poor ole Leach, on the other hand, spent his first year bulldozing the rotten timbers and crumbling concrete of his fixer-upper and then the next couple years building a new and firm foundation. Also agree that both are on an upward trajectory.

As for the mid-May discussions, preseason polls are pretty weak but what else do we have to discuss? LOI day is long gone. Spring practice is over. Even the next year's recruiting class is in a quiet state. Pretty slim pickins. It's not much but at least the early polls give us something to consider while patiently waiting for September.

I agree with everything you wrote. Sarkisian recruited well. Sarkisian also did the heavy lifting for the program to get them turned around from the Willingham mess. His teams were inconsistent, but they knew how to win and could play outstanding at times.

He took over a team that was winless and the very next season won four conference games (In Willingham's last three years he won five total and six in four years). The next four years, Sarkisian's conference record was 5-4.

In both of Petersen's two years, his conference record was 4-5. This is turning the program around?

Teaching a program how to win is one of the hardest things a coach can do. Leach seems to have done this if this coming season turns out like we think it will. Petersen has taken over two programs that were already winning.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I agree with everything you wrote. Sarkisian recruited well. Sarkisian also did the heavy lifting for the program to get them turned around from the Willingham mess. His teams were inconsistent, but they knew how to win and could play outstanding at times.

He took over a team that was winless and the very next season won four conference games (In Willingham's last three years he won five total and six in four years). The next four years, Sarkisian's conference record was 5-4.

In both of Petersen's two years, his conference record was 4-5. This is turning the program around?

Teaching a program how to win is one of the hardest things a coach can do. Leach seems to have done this if this coming season turns out like we think it will. Petersen has taken over two programs that were already winning.

I'm not really sold that Sarkisian did anything but build the Huskies into an average program . When you look at their peak 2013 season under Sark, they were thumped by Oregon, ASU and UCLA. They hung around with Stanford which I suppose is nice. Outside of WSU, the rest of their wins that year were against teams that were playing below their fans expectations. We were obviously still a flawed team that year. During his tenure, they went 6-20 away from Husky Stadium and 29-9 at home. They were usually crushed when they played teams with 9+ wins. He built them up to a solid 7-8 win type program but I don't know about anything better than that. If anything, Sark didn't get fired from USC because of his drinking problem, he got fired because USC was 12-6 during his tenure as a coach and they expect more than that. Sark was the right guy to get UW out of the mess that they were in, but nothing suggests that he was ready to create a conference contender.

When I look at our team, I'm excited about where things are at but feel that we need to take the next step before Leach can fly the "Mission Accomplished" flag. Sark's best season at UW was the equivalent of our 2015 season. A good season, but one where you realize we still left a lot on the table. The biggest issue that I see with Sark's rebuild job at UW is that he left Peterson with a team that had no viable QB with experience. It can't be that good of a job if you failed at the most important position.

 

[Coug95man2]

I'm not really sold that Sarkisian did anything but build the Huskies into an average program . When you look at their peak 2013 season under Sark, they were thumped by Oregon, ASU and UCLA. They hung around with Stanford which I suppose is nice. Outside of WSU, the rest of their wins that year were against teams that were playing below their fans expectations. We were obviously still a flawed team that year. During his tenure, they went 6-20 away from Husky Stadium and 29-9 at home. They were usually crushed when they played teams with 9+ wins. He built them up to a solid 7-8 win type program but I don't know about anything better than that. If anything, Sark didn't get fired from USC because of his drinking problem, he got fired because USC was 12-6 during his tenure as a coach and they expect more than that. Sark was the right guy to get UW out of the mess that they were in, but nothing suggests that he was ready to create a conference contender.

When I look at our team, I'm excited about where things are at but feel that we need to take the next step before Leach can fly the "Mission Accomplished" flag. Sark's best season at UW was the equivalent of our 2015 season. A good season, but one where you realize we still left a lot on the table. The biggest issue that I see with Sark's rebuild job at UW is that he left Peterson with a team that had no viable QB with experience. It can't be that good of a job if you failed at the most important position.

I'm leaning towards you, a bit.

One lesson I took from my father was to evaluate any job position you are considering and see what amount of success is possible. Meaning, if a football program is already ranked in the TOP 10 nationally, how much further can you go? Certainly you can elevate to TOP 5 but what are the "odds". But if a program is at the bottom, if you make a team mediocre, you've actually done something positive. Look at potential success for yourself. That dovetailed well with a phrase he used quite a bit, "Leave your position in better shape than it was given to you." So evaluation is important. Take the Top 10 job if you think you can do it and elevate the program. But consider that in the light of Ewe.

Where I'm going with this, is… Did he do anything special? When the program is literally winless, did Sark do anything any other coach could have done? Obviously there could have been failures. Someone could have kept the 0 Wins alive but you get my point. Any competent coach could have brought Ewe up from where it was at, IMHO. I just don't see Sark as that good of a coach. He got USC HC because that's where he got his name out. IMHO, he got bailed out by his firing. If he would have stuck around, his mediocrity would have started to shine through.

So to go to Ewe, he realized it to be a perfect job. His first HC job and it wasn't in the Mountain West. The program is in the depths of despair with only up on the horizon. It's a "no lose" situation, really. He "succeeded" no matter what happened there.

So to the OP… I just don't see the Ewe as much. Huard is just being the loyal alumni. He can be good compared to so many other analysts at being comparatively neutral. In the end, he's still a Ewe alum. They have underachieved for almost a decade now. I don't know what their overall record is since Whilly but it can't be THAT good. They can tout all the 4star players they want. They can tout being higher rated recruiting all they want. They still see the flat plateau of mediocrity on an annual basis. When you look at the players they get, the hype surrounding them, they underachieve almost every year.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I'm leaning towards you, a bit.

One lesson I took from my father was to evaluate any job position you are considering and see what amount of success is possible. Meaning, if a football program is already ranked in the TOP 10 nationally, how much further can you go? Certainly you can elevate to TOP 5 but what are the "odds". But if a program is at the bottom, if you make a team mediocre, you've actually done something positive. Look at potential success for yourself. That dovetailed well with a phrase he used quite a bit, "Leave your position in better shape than it was given to you." So evaluation is important. Take the Top 10 job if you think you can do it and elevate the program. But consider that in the light of Ewe.

Where I'm going with this, is… Did he do anything special? When the program is literally winless, did Sark do anything any other coach could have done? Obviously there could have been failures. Someone could have kept the 0 Wins alive but you get my point. Any competent coach could have brought Ewe up from where it was at, IMHO. I just don't see Sark as that good of a coach. He got USC HC because that's where he got his name out. IMHO, he got bailed out by his firing. If he would have stuck around, his mediocrity would have started to shine through.

So to go to Ewe, he realized it to be a perfect job. His first HC job and it wasn't in the Mountain West. The program is in the depths of despair with only up on the horizon. It's a "no lose" situation, really. He "succeeded" no matter what happened there.

So to the OP… I just don't see the Ewe as much. Huard is just being the loyal alumni. He can be good compared to so many other analysts at being comparatively neutral. In the end, he's still a Ewe alum. They have underachieved for almost a decade now. I don't know what their overall record is since Whilly but it can't be THAT good. They can tout all the 4star players they want. They can tout being higher rated recruiting all they want. They still see the flat plateau of mediocrity on an annual basis. When you look at the players they get, the hype surrounding them, they underachieve almost every year.

I almost, but not quite, felt bad for UW in 2008. That team had too much talent to go winless. They had actually tied BYU until the referees made one of the lamest calls in football history by calling an unsportsmanlike penalty on Locker for flipping the ball in the air. They were tied with Stanford in the 2nd quarter when Locker went down with the season ending injury. I'm glad they finished 0-12 but there is an asterisk assigned to it in that respect (much like our loss to UW last year). Sarkisian winning five games in 2009 becomes fairly "meh" when you realize that if Willingham hadn't lost the team, they hadn't got screwed by the refs and if they hadn't lost their starting QB, they might have won that many in 2008. Outside of their 2013 season, they have seriously underachieved on an annual basis.

It is going to be fantastic to see them sitting at #10 in the country at 4-0 and then watching their season implode as they lose 3 out of the next 4 games. I think the mutts are dangerous, but even in their best season in the past 15 years, they couldn't beat a 10 win team. They face five teams with the potential for 10 wins in 2016 and I won't be surprised if they go 0 fer.

 

[Coug1990]

I'm not really sold that Sarkisian did anything but build the Huskies into an average program . When you look at their peak 2013 season under Sark, they were thumped by Oregon, ASU and UCLA. They hung around with Stanford which I suppose is nice. Outside of WSU, the rest of their wins that year were against teams that were playing below their fans expectations. We were obviously still a flawed team that year. During his tenure, they went 6-20 away from Husky Stadium and 29-9 at home. They were usually crushed when they played teams with 9+ wins. He built them up to a solid 7-8 win type program but I don't know about anything better than that. If anything, Sark didn't get fired from USC because of his drinking problem, he got fired because USC was 12-6 during his tenure as a coach and they expect more than that. Sark was the right guy to get UW out of the mess that they were in, but nothing suggests that he was ready to create a conference contender.

When I look at our team, I'm excited about where things are at but feel that we need to take the next step before Leach can fly the "Mission Accomplished" flag. Sark's best season at UW was the equivalent of our 2015 season. A good season, but one where you realize we still left a lot on the table. The biggest issue that I see with Sark's rebuild job at UW is that he left Peterson with a team that had no viable QB with experience. It can't be that good of a job if you failed at the most important position.

It is true that he built them into an average team. Still, it was a team that was making a bowl every year and finishing with a winning record besides his first year when he went 5-7 (the previous year they went 0-12). He took over a team that had been terrible under two different coaches (Gilbertson and Willingham). So, not every coach could do what he did, as two failed to do what he did.

Regarding QB's, they graduate. First year starters come in all the time now and do fine. Sarkisian recruited highly rated QB's. It is not as if he were offering NAIA type QB's.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

It is true that he built them into an average team. Still, it was a team that was making a bowl every year and finishing with a winning record besides his first year when he went 5-7 (the previous year they went 0-12). He took over a team that had been terrible under two different coaches (Gilbertson and Willingham). So, not every coach could do what he did, as two failed to do what he did.

Regarding QB's, they graduate. First year starters come in all the time now and do fine. Sarkisian recruited highly rated QB's. It is not as if he were offering NAIA type QB's.

I agree that Sark did what was asked of him at UW. He pulled them out of their funk and allowed their fans to be delusional again. More than some coaches can say.

 

[SaveFerris]

I agree that Sark did what was asked of him at UW. He pulled them out of their funk and allowed their fans to be delusional again. More than some coaches can say.

I wish he was still in Seattle.

 

[YakiCoug]

It is true that he built them into an average team. Still, it was a team that was making a bowl every year and finishing with a winning record besides his first year when he went 5-7 (the previous year they went 0-12). He took over a team that had been terrible under two different coaches (Gilbertson and Willingham). So, not every coach could do what he did, as two failed to do what he did.

Regarding QB's, they graduate. First year starters come in all the time now and do fine. Sarkisian recruited highly rated QB's. It is not as if he were offering NAIA type QB's.

And he did it while being mostly wasted every day on the job. Helluva coach, that Sark.

 

[Cougatron]

Let's take a look at the last 5 years that includes RS Seniors/ players in the program 5 years

2011 - WSU 4-8 / 7-6
2012 - WSU 3-9 / 7-6
2013 - WSU 6-7 / 9-4
2014 - WSU 3-9 / 8-6
2015 - WSU 9-4 / 7-6

Washington's results were exactly on part with how they have typically performed.

Our season was significant;y higher from where we have typically performed.

It's not even close.

We averaged 4 wins before last season. They averaged close to 8 wins

We were +5 games above the curve
They were minus 1 / about even.

I like Brock he's one of the few Huskies I do like, but this is just silly to debate.

 

[CougEd]

Let's take a look at the last 5 years that includes RS Seniors/ players in the program 5 years

2011 - WSU 4-8 / 7-6
2012 - WSU 3-9 / 7-6
2013 - WSU 6-7 / 9-4
2014 - WSU 3-9 / 8-6
2015 - WSU 9-4 / 7-6

Washington's results were exactly on part with how they have typically performed.

Our season was significant;y higher from where we have typically performed.

It's not even close.

We averaged 4 wins before last season. They averaged close to 8 wins

We were +5 games above the curve
They were minus 1 / about even.

I like Brock he's one of the few Huskies I do like, but this is just silly to debate.

Pretty sure last year the UW were picked higher preseason than WSU and obviously WSU ended up with the better overall record. Seems pretty cut-and-dry. Salk and Feldman thought WSU was the more impressive turnaround and Feldman had a solid rational. Sark was average but I didn't see the UW as a rebuild for Petersen. It was definitely a rebuild for us.

Part of me thinks it's great both programs are on the up. All I will care about at the end of the season is that we finish around where or better than we did last year. I love being in the discussion in mid-May but ultimately it's about what we continue to show on the field.

Who did you believe had a better team heading into 2015? Uw or WSU? Personally before game one I thought UW was headed for a 3 win season and WSU was going to drill them in the Apple Cup.

We had more experience at RB, QB, Oline, Dline. Their qb was the worse. So the bigger surprise to me is that UW had a winning season and that it drilled us in the Apple Cup. And maybe even a bigger surprise is the defense that took huge hits from the year before.

 

[wazzucougs96]

Who did you believe had a better team heading into 2015? Uw or WSU? Personally before game one I thought UW was headed for a 3 win season and WSU was going to drill them in the Apple Cup.

We had more experience at RB, QB, Oline, Dline. Their qb was the worse. So the bigger surprise to me is that UW had a winning season and that it drilled us in the Apple Cup. And maybe even a bigger surprise is the defense that took huge hits from the year before.

We haven't drilled UW in an Apple Cup in 30+ years. Expecting that to happen is a fools errand.

 

[CougEd]

We haven't drilled UW in an Apple Cup in 30+ years. Expecting that to happen is a fools errand.

You thought UW was a better team heading into 2015 replacing their QB, running back, offensive line, defensive line? I thought heading into the season we were head and shoulders above them.

 

[kayak15]

You thought UW was a better team heading into 2015 replacing their QB, running back, offensive line, defensive line? I thought heading into the season we were head and shoulders above them.

I agree. We were better than them early. But their replacements stepped up nicely (for them) and filled the holes. They also caught lightening in a bottle with a couple of their freshmen. I don't know whether Petersen is that good of a coach or they just got lucky. Probably a bit of both.

 

[SaveFerris]

Who did you believe had a better team heading into 2015? Uw or WSU? Personally before game one I thought UW was headed for a 3 win season and WSU was going to drill them in the Apple Cup.

We had more experience at RB, QB, Oline, Dline. Their qb was the worse. So the bigger surprise to me is that UW had a winning season and that it drilled us in the Apple Cup. And maybe even a bigger surprise is the defense that took huge hits from the year before.

The UW lost more talent on defense than I thought they could replace last season. They had a good defense and Browning had his moments. Most had the UW third or fourth and us fifth in the north.

Their wins: Sac State, Utah State, drunk SC, Arizona, Oregon State, WSU minus Falk, etc. Let the hype machine begin. We were picked lower and our wins were more impressive than what they put together. I was impressed they could lose as much as they did on defense and still be as good as they were on that side of the ball.

I thought going into the season we would be better and feel the same going into next season. Feldman basically said WSU had the higher ceiling short-term and I believe that's an accurate opinion at the moment. Doesn't mean it will turn out that way next season. Our October stretch is brutal again but I think we are closer to turning the corner than the UW.

 

[CougEd]

I agree. We were better than them early. But their replacements stepped up nicely (for them) and filled the holes. They also caught lightening in a bottle with a couple of their freshmen. I don't know whether Petersen is that good of a coach or they just got lucky. Probably a bit of both.

I think luck is always a factor. I also think he is a pretty good coach as well.

 

[CougEd]

The UW lost more talent on defense than I thought they could replace last season. They had a good defense and Browning had his moments. Most had the UW third or fourth and us fifth in the north.

Their wins: Sac State, Utah State, drunk SC, Arizona, Oregon State, WSU minus Falk, etc. Let the hype machine begin. We were picked lower and our wins were more impressive than what they put together. I was impressed they could lose as much as they did on defense and still be as good as they were on that side of the ball.

I thought going into the season we would be better and feel the same going into next season. Feldman basically said WSU had the higher ceiling short-term and I believe that's an accurate opinion at the moment. Doesn't mean it will turn out that way next season. Our October stretch is brutal again but I think we are closer to turning the corner than the UW.

I agree- short term, meaning this year, we will finish with a better record. I think the Apple Cup in Pullman will be for the Pac 12 north. And I think in 2017 the game in Seattle will be for the Pac 12 north. Of course an injury to falk changes everything I just wrote.

 

[YakiCoug]

I agree- short term, meaning this year, we will finish with a better record. I think the Apple Cup in Pullman will be for the Pac 12 north. And I think in 2017 the game in Seattle will be for the Pac 12 north. Of course an injury to falk changes everything I just wrote.

But the absence of Falk in last year's AC doesn't factor into your peculiar and continued emphasis that WSU got "drilled." Neither does the loss of Dahl, Sorenson, and Cracraft. I know of a few mutt fans that ignore how those losses dictated the 2015 AC score. Guess we can add one more.

 

[fingerdisco]

We haven't drilled UW in an Apple Cup in 30+ years. Expecting that to happen is a fools errand.

C'mon--'92 Apple cup (AKA the snow bowl)...42-23? I'd put that in the drilled column, and that was "only" 24 Apple cups ago.

 

[YakiCoug]

C'mon--'92 Apple cup (AKA the snow bowl)...42-23? I'd put that in the drilled column, and that was "only" 24 Apple cups ago.

And, while hardly a blow-out, the '97 AC should have ended 41-28, but a ref ignored Jerome Pathon's offensive pass interference on the mutts' final TD to make it 41-35. And the '92 final score should have been 42-15.

 

[fingerdisco]

And, while hardly a blow-out, the '97 AC should have ended 41-28, but a ref ignored Jerome Pathon's offensive pass interference on the mutts' final TD to make it 41-35. And the '92 final score should have been 42-15.

Plus, the Pusskies didn't do squat the entire second half in 92. That second half onslaught was awesome.

 

[YakiCoug]

Beyond Brock's impressive 5 INTS in the '97 AC, his 5 sentence fragments for every 20 seconds he speaks are virtually unmatched in sports broadcasting. To be fair, he has gotten better in this regard. Early on, however, it was painful listening to him. And then there's that forehead of his.

Brock and Salk were talking about what is more impressive given where they have been. The uw has been generally rated in the top 15 by the preseason polls. WSU has been rated not as high, but in the top 25.

Brock said that what the uw did when they were 3-6 last year and then going into this season meant that they were more impressive.

Now, all of you tell me what was wrong with that statement.

 

[chipdouglas]

You could wallpaper a room with all the hyped up expectations of what the Huskies were going to do every year for the last 10 years. And yet in that time period, they've finished below 0.700 100% of the time, below 0.600 90% of the time, and below 0.500 40% of the time. Needless to say, chronically finishing unranked has not exactly gripped the nation.

At least our expectations are in line with our performance and our place on the national stage: promising future but not getting ahead of ourselves. Every summer we get a good 100-day runup during which the entire country is put on notice to keep an eye on UW's imminent run to the crystal football.

Those of you who have spent a good deal of time outside of the NW will know that the Huskies are not only not top-of-mind for the nation's CFB fans, but that many don't realize there are two (!) Washington teams. Many people I was in the service with didn't even know there was a state called Washington outside of the nation's capital. Nobody suffers more from The Spotlight Effect.

 

[CougEd]

But the absence of Falk in last year's AC doesn't factor into your peculiar and continued emphasis that WSU got "drilled." Neither does the loss of Dahl, Sorenson, and Cracraft. I know of a few mutt fans that ignore how those losses dictated the 2015 AC score. Guess we can add one more.

Weird...you don't think losing by 35 is getting drilled ? Yes Falk electing not to play was a factor. As was other injuries. But we felt strong enough to go into Seattle and chuck it like we always do, so it is hard to think falk was a 35 point difference .

 

[Coug1990]

Weird...you don't think losing by 35 is getting drilled ? Yes Falk electing not to play was a factor. As was other injuries. But we felt strong enough to go into Seattle and chuck it like we always do, so it is hard to think falk was a 35 point difference .

Same old ED. Still clinging to the Falk electing not to play stance.

 

[YakiCoug]

Same old ED. Still clinging to the Falk electing not to play stance.

HecED is a charming little fella.

 

[CougEd]

Same old ED. Still clinging to the Falk electing not to play stance.

Huh, that came from Leach...

 

[Coug1990]

Huh, that came from Leach...

According to Leach, in four years WSU has had one injury, when Connor Halliday broke his leg. Do you also believe that to be true?

 

[CougEd]

According to Leach, in four years WSU has had one injury, when Connor Halliday broke his leg. Do you also believe that to be true?

Sounds like your issue is the person who said it was the players decision.

 

[Cougatron]

Who did you believe had a better team heading into 2015? Uw or WSU? Personally before game one I thought UW was headed for a 3 win season and WSU was going to drill them in the Apple Cup.

We had more experience at RB, QB, Oline, Dline. Their qb was the worse. So the bigger surprise to me is that UW had a winning season and that it drilled us in the Apple Cup. And maybe even a bigger surprise is the defense that took huge hits from the year before.

Well you obviously have proven yourself over and over and over again to not be correct.

UW will finish around 7-6 every single year as long as they are remotely competent. It has a tremendous budget and tons of support. It has no disadvantage whatsoever. It's campus is in a metro area, it's athletic department is one of the richest etc. etc. and yet they always are mediocre it's who they are.

Our recruiting was in the gutter with only about 3-4 true Pac-12 starters before Leach showed up. Now as his guys have started to develop we have are more competitive now. UW's rebuild started with Sark and they are pretty much on par with where they should be.

So every year you should expect them to be about 7-6 that's their proven over time range.

In fact their overall win% as a program is .589 7-6 is .538 win % so they are pretty much in line with what they should do.

Our win % is .468 just under .500 slightly better than 5-7 So we should be slightly under .500 when we are doing it par the course.

You see Ed this is why we fired someone that had a .18 win% ...because it was garbage.

Leach finished the season .692 well above our average and hence won coach of the year.

 

[Coug1990]

Sounds like your issue is the person who said it was the players decision.

Same old ED, not answering the question. Same old ED, trying to put this on me. Same old ED, taking a dig at Coach Leach.

No, my issue is 100% with you. You write as it is 100% given that Falk elected not to play. What about Luke's sister who tweeted out he was held out the game by the doctor? By your logic, you are calling her a liar. Is that what you think?

 

[CougEd]

Same old ED, not answering the question. Same old ED, trying to put this on me. Same old ED, taking a dig at Coach Leach.

No, my issue is 100% with you. You write as it is 100% given that Falk elected not to play. What about Luke's sister who tweeted out he was held out the game by the doctor? By your logic, you are calling her a liar. Is that what you think?

Are you calling Leach a liar? He is the one who put it at the feet of his player. The one person who has that information at his hand is the head coach.

And while I heard contrary info to what his sister put out, I wouldn't call her a liar. I am not confident that the person who told me was accurate. It was info that seemed to agree with what Leach had said. But the person isn't connected to the program so I would never take "their" word over Leach's or even his sisters.

But I am not talking about that, I am talking about what Leach had said. Luke Falk elected not to play. Are you calling Leach a liar?

Same old DL, same response to my posts. I simply posted and repeated what our coach had said. Again, I would think the problem you have is with the person who distributed the info.

What he said after he was carted off at halftime is that he decided to give him the second half off. He didn't talk about what isn't a cold, but something that happens to be very serious that is going on in the game. He could have said we don't discuss those matters, he could have said he elected to give him the day off, he could have simply we don't discuss players who missed a practice. There are tons of things he could have said. What you know and I know is he said Luke elected not to play.

 

[kayak15]

Ed, you are close to the correct interpretation of Leach's statement. Leach does not discuss or admit injuries. When asked for the gazillioneth time by media folks who should know better, he responds with gibberish/nonsense. "He chose not to play." "He is dealing with personal issues." "We decided to play someone else." "He is resting." All of which translate into "He is injured." Leach should not be taken literally when asked about these absences. Falk was obviously injured but CML was not going to admit that. It gets a bit silly at times but that is the way he is.

 

[Coug95man2]

Are you calling Leach a liar? He is the one who put it at the feet of his player. The one person who has that information at his hand is the head coach.

And while I heard contrary info to what his sister put out, I wouldn't call her a liar. I am not confident that the person who told me was accurate. It was info that seemed to agree with what Leach had said. But the person isn't connected to the program so I would never take "their" word over Leach's or even his sisters.

But I am not talking about that, I am talking about what Leach had said. Luke Falk elected not to play. Are you calling Leach a liar?

Same old DL, same response to my posts. I simply posted and repeated what our coach had said. Again, I would think the problem you have is with the person who distributed the info.

What he said after he was carted off at halftime is that he decided to give him the second half off. He didn't talk about what isn't a cold, but something that happens to be very serious that is going on in the game. He could have said we don't discuss those matters, he could have said he elected to give him the day off, he could have simply we don't discuss players who missed a practice. There are tons of things he could have said. What you know and I know is he said Luke elected not to play.

So after the Colorado game in which Falk was injured and carted off on a head-board. The game in which he seemed to be unconscious on the field… After the game CML was asked about the injury and his direct quote was Falk was, "healthy as can be." CML went on quite a tirade when an out of town reporter pressed the issue. He went off… But one of the last things he said during that press conference was in regards to when the decision between Falk and Bender would take place. CML stated in a very pissed off demeanor, "27 seconds before kick-off."

So that is just one example. There are video interviews from his first year, if you'd like to look them up, where he had similar comments about injuries, as the "healthy as can be" variety. He was asked quite a bit the first 2 years of his tenure at WSU. Same kind of answers.

When it comes to injuries, don't believe our coach, in any way. Not even on the kind of injury, as was aptly pointed out when Halliday broke his leg… or ankle… or whatever. CML didn't even know where the bone was in Halliday's… body. He's not to be believed on the 1) kind of injury (unless obvious like Halliday but even then he got it wrong), the 2) timeline for return or 3) even if the player is injured. That's the only real point.

Do I believe CML is lying? I guess in the literal sense, yes. He outright lies about injuries. But I don't believe he ever considers himself believable, either. He doesn't want to be believed. That's why he stated Falk was "healthy as can be".

Falks sister is more convincing than CML. CML knows it. Everyone knows it but Ed. By the way, in that tirade after Colorado, CML states,
The idiocy of asking me about injuries goes even several layers deeper when you consider the fact I have virtually no input on it. The doctors handle it.

Just my input.