Leach detractors- have you seen IT?

[CougEd]

You can't understand why Wulff would come up in a thread about KNOWING WHEN A COACH WAS A FAILURE?

Evidently, you're the only guy who still thinks that coach wasn't.

And you've spent 19 pages telling every person who isn't related to you that they're wrong. I can't understand your need, really. It's inexplicable.

Well my bad..I take back everything I said. I thought the title was directed at the Leach perceived detractors and when it was an IT moment for THOSE people that Leach didn't have it. I should have known it was about knowing it was a more generic threads of knowing when a coach didn't have it. Like when I thought Doba was making several terrible mistakes yet at the time they seemed well thought out. And before you get all worked up, Doba has admitted to those errors. I should have known it was about when the New England fans knew Pete Carroll didn't have it, or any other coach who failed, not just the subject line. I take everything back.

I have already said he got fired. I said he is long gone. I said I was glad to have hired Leach. Is that not good enough for you?

 

[Flatlandcoug]

915–328–36 ----easy. Rich Rod perfect example of a really really good coach at the wrong place. Pete Carroll in New England is another.

Both of you (90 and Ed) don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Rich Rodriguez at Michigan. He is the perfect example of why full judgement on Leach isn't relevant until after this season. He had to rework the roster at Michigan (and the attitude) when he was there. He made a bowl game in year 3. Michigan's success in 2011 was because RichRod had legitimately set the table for success and Hoke was the fortunate recipient of that. Unfortunately for Hoke, 14 starters on that 2011 team were seniors and he went crashing back to earth. Would RichRod have been able to sustain success after losing that many starters? I have no idea.

 

[wulffui]

I have already said he got fired. I said he is long gone. I said I was glad to have hired Leach. Is that not good enough for you?

Those are just two facts about the end of Wulff's tenure, not anything "you said"- there's no opinion at all.

He got fired for being an abject failure as a head football coach, a fact you seem uncomfortable with, and what I'm "saying" in the discussion.

 

[dgibbons]

Am I the guy on the left?

No. You're not the guy on the left either.

 

[CougEd]

Both of you (Tron and Ed) don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Rich Rodriguez at Michigan. He is the perfect example of why full judgement on Leach isn't relevant until after this season. He had to rework the roster at Michigan (and the attitude) when he was there. He made a bowl game in year 3. Michigan's success in 2011 was because RichRod had legitimately set the table for success and Hoke was the fortunate recipient of that. Unfortunately for Hoke, 14 starters on that 2011 team were seniors and he went crashing back to earth. Would RichRod have been able to sustain success after losing that many starters? I have no idea.

Flat....what isn't I don't know about him just out of curiosity. It was a bad hire because it was a bad fit. The reason I say that is for many different reasons. Most important, his offense. He really didn't have a QB that could be as efficient early on in his tenure. Completely different terminology, completely different blocking technique. I knew Rich rod would be fired after three years if not two. Where we have learned about patience, big money thinks you should have all the toold you need to be 10-1. It takes time to implement your offense, even though I heard there is the three day offense. Was he a "Michigan man"? Was he power football with a throwing game?

Yes, he got good players, but you don't have time to develop those players. Their lineman they recruit for example are physically ready to play year one. I never said he left the cupboard bare, or that they didn't jettison him a year too early, but Michigan has their timeline, not timelines that I think are right or fair.

 

[CougEd]

Those are just two facts about the end of Wulff's tenure, not anything "you said"- there's no opinion at all.

He got fired for being an abject failure as a head football coach, a fact you seem uncomfortable with, and what I'm "saying" in the discussion.

Those are just two facts about the end of Wulff's tenure, not anything "you said"- there's no opinion at all.

He got fired for being an abject failure as a head football coach, a fact you seem uncomfortable with, and what I'm "saying" in the discussion.

Got it. And saying he is an abject failure, a guy who was three seasons ago will allow us to move on and talk about 3-9, 6-7, 3-9 an not having a winning season without mentioning and discussing the reasons why were not having success anywhere similar to what he enjoyed at Tech. Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[wulffui]

Got it. And saying he is an abject failure, a guy who was three seasons ago will allow us to move on and talk about 3-9, 6-7, 3-9 an not having a winning season without mentioning and discussing the reasons why were not having success anywhere similar to what he enjoyed at Tech. Am I understanding you correctly?

I think you're unwilling to discuss or mention the MAIN reasons because a major part of it highlights how much worse Wulff did than even a mid-level big college coach in Dukes. I'm excited to see a team that isn't a majority Wulff guys this year- there's almost none left, because of his legendary recruiting. But next year, when all traces of his influence are gone once and for all, is when he's finally "not part of it".

And the nature of that 6, after what preceded it, is more than "another losing season", even if you keep diminishing that. And the 3-9s aren't fun, but I'm willing to write off the "weenies mutiny" season, both for the ingrained mentality and the lack of talent inherited.

So I'm discussing a bowl season and a disappointing season that, nonetheless, going forward, allows me to point to fixable issues that it appears the staff worked to address. And with actual guys other schools wanted, not your "JC All-Conference Honorable Mention" guys Wulff would bring in to address those issues.

So, no, going into year four returning the majority of both units, one year removed from a bowl, with several close losses (and a Cal loss that goes beyond that) is not when I'm going to panic and compare him to Wulff, which seems to be your MO.

Halliday led us to a bowl in his first season as a full time starter, and with more experience and better measureables from other units across the board when compared to that team, I expect Falk will do the same.

 

[Coug1990]

Both of you (90 and Ed) don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Rich Rodriguez at Michigan. He is the perfect example of why full judgement on Leach isn't relevant until after this season. He had to rework the roster at Michigan (and the attitude) when he was there. He made a bowl game in year 3. Michigan's success in 2011 was because RichRod had legitimately set the table for success and Hoke was the fortunate recipient of that. Unfortunately for Hoke, 14 starters on that 2011 team were seniors and he went crashing back to earth. Would RichRod have been able to sustain success after losing that many starters? I have no idea.

Huh? What the heck are you talking about? Did you even read what I wrote? I said Rich Rod was a fit at Michigan. I agree with everything you wrote regarding his time at Michigan. But, the timing was wrong for what he wanted to do. Michigan fans and players just were not ready to buy in 100%. That is why he was fired before he could fully build his culture, his program. Changing a culture is not easy. I believe if he were hired today at Michigan, they might be more willing to listen. Timing is everything.

You are correct, Rich Rod is the perfect example of why full judgement on Leach isn't relevant yet. Yet you have continually judged Leach. This is why I wrote you talk out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[spongebob11]

I think you're unwilling to discuss or mention the MAIN reasons because a major part of it highlights how much worse Wulff did than even a mid-level big college coach in Dukes. I'm excited to see a team that isn't a majority Wulff guys this year- there's almost none left, because of his legendary recruiting. But next year, when all traces of his influence are gone once and for all, is when he's finally "not part of it".

And the nature of that 6, after what preceded it, is more than "another losing season", even if you keep diminishing that. And the 3-9s aren't fun, but I'm willing to write off the "weenies mutiny" season, both for the ingrained mentality and the lack of talent inherited.

So I'm discussing a bowl season and a disappointing season that, nonetheless, going forward, allows me to point to fixable issues that it appears the staff worked to address. And with actual guys other schools wanted, not your "JC All-Conference Honorable Mention" guys Wulff would bring in to address those issues.

So, no, going into year four returning the majority of both units, one year removed from a bowl, with several close losses (and a Cal loss that goes beyond that) is not when I'm going to panic and compare him to Wulff, which seems to be your MO.

Halliday led us to a bowl in his first season as a full time starter, and with more experience and better measureables from other units across the board when compared to that team, I expect Falk will do the same.

Leach did worse in yr 3 with the majority of Wulff players gone. That should be concerning.

 

[Coug1990]

Who said anything about recruiting area? How is the fit fine if "they weren't ready for him"?

When Price started at WSU, what was his LONG track record of hiring coaches at Weber State that we knew at the time. Not looking back 30 years, but when he hired Joe Tiller from Wyoming, what was his record?

I wrote something about recruiting area. You said "area." I assumed incorrectly that also meant recruiting. I guess at Michigan, they just open the dorms and players just show up.

Silly! Trix are for kids, even Liam Neeson knows this now. Silly, not when Price was hired at WSU, but over time at WSU he had proven himself when hiring coaches. A couple of years in, yeah I knew that Price knew how to hire coaches. I am sure you did too. Leach had proven himself at TT that he knew how to hire coaches.

It is why I still am not worried about the direction of the program.

 

[Coug1990]

Leach did worse in yr 3 with the majority of Wulff players gone. That should be concerning.

Why? Because freshman and sophomores should be physically as strong and know the offense/defense as well as the graduated seniors? I did not know that. Thanks for enlightening me. Learn something every day.

 

[Cougatron]

Leach did worse in yr 3 with the majority of Wulff players gone. That should be concerning.

No it isn't. Not when you play so many freshmen in the secondary. Here's the ones who played last year.
True Freshmen Pippins, Porter, Hameed,
RS Fresh - Dotson, Lemora, White,

That's 6 Freshmen 3 True and 3 RS Fresh out there of course they are going to struggle.
You might be able to get by with 1 or two, but when it is a bunch out there forget it.

So now a bunch have gotten experience add in some JCs and we will be doing better. They won't be spectacular but they will be better.

 

[wulffui]

Leach did worse in yr 3 with the majority of Wulff players gone. That should be concerning.

Its more unfortunate than concerning. He recruited a defensive backfield in 2012... that washed out. Combine that with a lack of any 2011 recruits, and you have an issue. Between maturation and recruits brought in, there's a concerted effort to address the matter, so I'll see how it looks before I pass judgment.

 

[CPtheCoug]

Its more unfortunate than concerning. He recruited a defensive backfield in 2012... that washed out. Combine that with a lack of any 2011 recruits, and you have an issue. Between maturation and recruits brought in, there's a concerted effort to address the matter, so I'll see how it looks before I pass judgment.

What you just said doesn't matter cause 3-9. Talk football son! Recruiting ain't football, the W/L column is!

 

[spongebob11]

Why? Because freshman and sophomores should be physically as strong and know the offense/defense as seniors? I did not know that. Thanks for enlightening me. Learn something every day.

You're welcome. Look at the 92 defense. That will enlighten you some more.

 

[YakiCoug]

No it isn't. Not when you play so many freshmen in the secondary. Here's the ones who played last year.
True Freshmen Pippins, Porter, Hameed,
RS Fresh - Dotson, Lemora, White,

That's 6 Freshmen 3 True and 3 RS Fresh out there of course they are going to struggle.
You might be able to get by with 1 or two, but when it is a bunch out there forget it.

So now a bunch have gotten experience add in some JCs and we will be doing better. They won't be spectacular but they will be better.

Last year's problems on defense went beyond the backfield. Coen was serviceable at linebacker, but Monroe, Pritchard, and Peterson weren't exactly Pac-12 quality. And, yes, they were Wulff recruits.

 

[Cougatron]

Last year's problems on defense went beyond the backfield. Coen was serviceable at linebacker, but Monroe, Pritchard, and Peterson weren't exactly Pac-12 quality. And, yes, they were Wulff recruits.

You can add Tracy Clark, Taylor Tailulu to that list.

 

[Coug1990]

You're welcome. Look at the 92 defense. That will enlighten you some more.

I know you think I'm dumb and do not know what I talk about. So enlighten me more about the 92 defense. Thanks

 

[spongebob11]

I know you think I'm dumb and do not know what I talk about. So enlighten me more about the 92 defense. Thanks

Sure. Happy to. The whole secondary were pretty much Sophs.That whole defense was littered with Sophs.

 

[Cougatron]

Sure. Happy to. The whole secondary were pretty much Sophs.That whole defense was littered with Sophs.

Yeah the 1991 defense was ranked #91 out of 107 in points allowed
and jumped to #61st of 107 in 1992.

So basically if we go from a bad scoring defense to a mediocre one.

 

[spongebob11]

Yeah the 1991 defense was ranked #91 out of 107 in points allowed
and jumped to #61st of 107 in 1992.

So basically if we go from a bad scoring defense to a mediocre one.

Well, if we can field those type of players, this yr, then in 2 yrs, we'll have the best defense in the country.

 

[Coug1990]

Sure. Happy to. The whole secondary were pretty much Sophs.That whole defense was littered with Sophs.

So, that normal for good defenses? Most good defenses at WSU and other schools are usually littered with underclassmen?

 

[Coug1990]

Well, if we can field those type of players, this yr, then in 2 yrs, we'll have the best defense in the country.

That means Grinch will leave after this coming season to become the defensive backs coach for the Cowboys. LB's coach Wilson takes over and the rest is history.

 

[CougEd]

No it isn't. Not when you play so many freshmen in the secondary. Here's the ones who played last year.
True Freshmen Pippins, Porter, Hameed,
RS Fresh - Dotson, Lemora, White,

That's 6 Freshmen 3 True and 3 RS Fresh out there of course they are going to struggle.
You might be able to get by with 1 or two, but when it is a bunch out there forget it.

So now a bunch have gotten experience add in some JCs and we will be doing better. They won't be spectacular but they will be better.

In all fairness, I don't ever remember Coleman, Burns, Hunter, Trufant, David, Mobley, Rushing ever struggling like that?

 

[Cougatron]

NT

 

[wulffui]

In all fairness, I don't ever remember Coleman, Burns, Hunter, Trufant, David, Mobley, Rushing ever struggling like that?

I remember us losing an Apple Cup in part because Reggie Williams unhinged his jaw and swallowed Marcus Trufant whole.

 

[Cougatron]

In all fairness, I don't ever remember Coleman, Burns, Hunter, Trufant, David, Mobley, Rushing ever struggling like that?

None of them faced the spread like it is today. They aren't running pro style at people anymore they are sending trips and quads of receivers. Lots of single match ups all over

That's why there are no more Mark Fields out there anymore. It's about the fast LB.

Everything is about speed on defense because offenses are all about speed now.

 

[spongebob11]

None of them faced the spread like it is today. They aren't running pro style at people anymore they are sending trips and quads of receivers. Lots of single match ups all over

That's why there are no more Mark Fields out there anymore. It's about the fast LB.

Everything is about speed on defense because offenses are all about speed now.

What are you talking about? Mark Fields was the fastest lb we've ever had!

 

[Cougatron]

What are you talking about? Mark Fields was the fastest lb we've ever had!

I admit he was much faster than you would think, but in today's game you would see guys like him as rush ends and stuff in college.

I think Alabama is the only place that has guys like Fields at LB. They are just extremely rare, and if they do have someone with his size and speed they opt to pit them as a DE.

 

[CougEd]

None of them faced the spread like it is today. They aren't running pro style at people anymore they are sending trips and quads of receivers. Lots of single match ups all over

That's why there are no more Mark Fields out there anymore. It's about the fast LB.

Everything is about speed on defense because offenses are all about speed now.

Repeat the second paragraph again?

 

[CougEd]

What are you talking about? Mark Fields was the fastest lb we've ever had!

Mark Fields may be one of the fastest linebackers in the last 30 years. He was a freak. He ran down Curtis Conway on a botched pooch kick in 1992 in LA.

 

[Cougatron]

Repeat the second paragraph again?

It's about the fast linebackers. Fields is a fast guy no doubt but the game is about small fast LBs now.

how many of these do you see in the Pac 12 today?

Not many if any.

 

[CougEd]

None of them faced the spread like it is today. They aren't running pro style at people anymore they are sending trips and quads of receivers. Lots of single match ups all over

That's why there are no more Mark Fields out there anymore. It's about the fast LB.

Everything is about speed on defense because offenses are all about speed now.

Well that is more troubling then. If we were matched up in man, then we may have the slowest DB's this side of the Mississippi. Just look at the USC game. if it was handed touch football they wouldn't be in the same picture frame. I would much rather hear they had a mix up in coverage and it was a communication error.

And this may be harsh, I have watched some really crappy DB play over the years at WSU. But I don't recall easier TD's given up on a consistent basis than what we gave up last year. If we were straight "man" then we really have problem.

 

[CougEd]

It's about the fast linebackers. Fields is a fast guy no doubt but the game is about small fast LBs now.

how many of these do you see in the Pac 12 today?

Not many if any.

Tron, he was faster than the small fast linebackers.

 

[Cougatron]

Tron, he was faster than the small fast linebackers.

Yeah he's a fast guy okay he's a bad example. I'm talking about the BIG LBs we used to see. Just monster LBs...those days are over. The big fast guys like fields get put on the DL the small fast ones are now the ideal due to the spread.

And really now you are seeing so much more 335/425 than ever.

Right now safeties are the most coveted position on defensive roster.

 

[Cougatron]

And this may be harsh, I have watched some really crappy DB play over the years at WSU. But I don't recall easier TD's given up on a consistent basis than what we gave up last year. If we were straight "man" then we really have problem.

I've seen a lot of bad DB play too...



keep an eye on #15 in that clip. upperclassmen Tyree Toomer one of those Wulff "gems" coached by Chris Ball.

Also entering the end frame are Deone Buchanon and Damante Horton.

 

[YakiCoug]

Yeah the 1991 defense was ranked #91 out of 107 in points allowed
and jumped to #61st of 107 in 1992.

So basically if we go from a bad scoring defense to a mediocre one.

That defense gave up 40 to Stanford in a 40-3 loss and nearly collapsed in the bowl game. John Rushing, however, did come up with a strip, and Singor Mobley recovered the ball to set up a game-winning field goal in the 4th. Btw, Lewis Bush, Anthony McClanahan, Brian Ford, Ray Hall, Curtis Geathers, and Kurt Loertscher were not sophomores.

 

[YakiCoug]

I've seen a lot of bad DB play too...

View embedded media

keep an eye on #15 in that clip. upperclassmen Tyree Toomer one of those Wulff "gems" coached by Chris Ball.

Also entering the end frame are Deone Buchanon and Damante Horton.

That Chris Ball was a freakin' genius.

 

[CougEd]

I've seen a lot of bad DB play too...

View embedded media

keep an eye on #15 in that clip. upperclassmen Tyree Toomer one of those Wulff "gems" coached by Chris Ball.

Also entering the end frame are Deone Buchanon and Damante Horton.

Toomer was horrible. He should have been playing closer to the line of scrimmage.

 

[spongebob11]

That defense gave up 40 to Stanford in a 40-3 loss and nearly collapsed in the bowl game. John Rushing, however, did come up with a strip, and Singor Mobley recovered the ball to set up a game-winning field goal in the 4th. Btw, Lewis Bush, Anthony McClanahan, Brian Ford, Ray Hall, Curtis Geathers, and Kurt Loertscher were not sophomores.

Perhaps you should look in the mirror next time you accuse one of having reading comprehension issues. I never said the whole defense were Sophs...just the nucleus of that 94 D.