Leach detractors- have you seen IT?
- Thread starter wulffui
- Start date
When you do that, you're adding "wrong assumptions about people I don't know" to "denying actual facts about football". Very Flat Earth Society.
I am absolutely correct on that one and in regards to you. BTW, the whole earth is flat was a reference made by me in regards to you and the other usual suspects. Try to be somewhat original.
Actually, if Leach or Tyorne Willingham or any other coach made the same call I would say the exact same thing. So it is about coaching and general decisions, not Leach vs Wulff. Coaches do this all the time. They don't care about the opponent. Yes, as a fan I would hope that Leach Wulff or any other coach would hold out the starter, but it is not how they are wired. You could say he is the worst coach, doesn't change the fact this complaint is off base.
You're wrong about 90% of what you say on here, especially your idiotic garbling about me. You could prove it... No, you can't, because you're wrong. And Flat Earth Society is the mantle you gave yourself- hilariously- by comparing it to people who thought Wulff was a bad coach... when that is as simple as the earth being round. Nope, Wulff is good, and the earth is flat, says you.
Ride on, Flat Earthers!
The nice thing about message boards is that people like you get to hide behind them...but it is very easy to tell who has played an who hasn't.
You are wrong, as usual, about the flat earth thing.
And you are the one who has Wulff in his handle. Too funny.
1)For you, evidently not.
2) No, I'm right. The earth is round, Paul Wulff is a bad coach.
3) Spongebob, right?
The earth is flat never had anything to do with whether or not Paul Wulff was a good coach. Yes, explained many times my spongebob handle(originally 2002) as it was my nieces favorite cartoon.
You have never explained your Wulff(or UI) handle.
Interesting. His record says you are correct. Doesn't mean he made a decision any different than other coaches. You just saw the coach from the Pats play a player in a 25 point blowout with 4 minutes left and he breaks an arm. That games was in more control than a 14 point lead.
But email Leach and ask him if he would have done anything different. The starter got ready to go and played. He didn't step out of bounds when he needed to. The decision backfired, and he was fired and had the record that he did. But the decision wasn't different than playing a QB in a blowout when the game was decided and still dropping back to pass.
Coaches make that call all the time.
It was, though. Otherwise you'd be able to show me THAT decision duplicated, not something vaguely similar, kinda.
Can't you just admit that you are the one trying to make this into a Wulff v. Leach thing?
So it is about coaching and general decisions,
Yes. Poor decisions after poor decisions after poor decisions. 6 qbs in 4 years.
Coaches do this all the time.
No they don't. Only Paul Wulff is a guy who had two QBs suffer a broken back 1 with a Lacerated Liver, Multiple Knee and Bizarre Internal Bleeding Calf Injuries.
Injuries are part of the game, but when the track record is THAT awful. Something is wrong.
You could say he is the worst coach, doesn't change the fact this complaint is off base.
Here's my complaint with Wulff. He had 6 QBs injured, was one of the worst recruiters in FBS, sunk the program to all new lows, had poor APR and for that should have been fired. He was a terrible terrible terrible coach who set the program back.
Here are some other noteable Wulff lowlights
In 2008 We didn't score for a total of 10 quarters
Five quarterbacks have played, with three injured. A scout team signal caller was picked up after campus tryouts in 2008.
And what does this idiot do recruiting wise the next year for O-line? He brings in 2 Lineman in the 2009 class.
5 times we were shut out over 4 seasons. That's over 10% of his entire tenure we didn't score a damn point.
He finished with a .184 win %
He averaged 15 points per game over 4 years.
He had the program mocked by major sports publications anointing us not once but twice in their top 10 lists for worst teams in the BCS era.
HE WAS A TERRIBLE COACH WHOSE LEGACY WILL BE THAT OF ONE OF THE WORST TO EVER COACH HERE OF ALL TIME AND NO AMOUNT OF DEFENDING HIM OR TRYING TO MINCE WORDS WILL CHANGE THAT.
- HE WAS FOOLISH IN HOW HE PROTECTED HIS QBS,
SO MUCH SO THAT 3 QBS WERE KNOCKED OUT BY FCS TEAMS
- HE RECRUITED BELOW MWC TEAMS,
- HE WON A TOTAL OF 9 GAMES.
- HE WON A TOTAL OF 4 GAMES AGAINST CONFERENCE TEAMS IN 4 YEARS.
2008 - Washington
2009 - NONE
2010 - Oregon State
2011 - ASU, Colorado
That is it. Show me any school in the country that would keep a coach after winning 4 conference games in 4 years. Not one damn team would keep a coach for a 5th year.
THE ONLY reason he wasn't let go after 2009 was because he was a Coug. That is it. If he wasn't they would have canned him immediately.
So for the love of god. Stop defending or acting like what he didn't do was wrong/ not terrible. He was wrong. He was terrible, and I for one am glad we shipped his ass out of Pullman.
Not to get into the CML vs. Wulff thing but I gotta say, anyone that thinks the flu doesn't cause issues mentally, is just plain wrong. Sorry Sponge. Think of managers at any given workplace. Trying to get work out of someone that is sick is like telling a stoner to focus. A person with the flu has a foggy mind, who could argue that?
In "heavy equipment" jobs, there are many shops that don't ALLOW operators to work equipment if they come to work sick. Sometimes they're sent home. Being sick and at work is a recipe for mistakes
To think that doesn't equate for those on the field is ignoring reality. Thus, mistakes equate to injuries… in so many ways. Example that isn't QB related: Don't feel good, technique goes out the door for tackling. Don't get low enough, you get smashed. OR you lower your head, concussion time… I just don't even understand this argument, Sponge.
Don't need an algorithm. Need Common Sense.
Carry on…
So the flu caused Jeff Tuel to stay in bounds and take on a linebacker as opposed to getting out of bounds and avoiding a season ending injury. Gotcha.
Did I say that? Sponge. I'm not fighting with you, but you know that being sick causes people to be less than 100%. Blame Tuel, blame Wulff, blame God, I don't care. Would Tuel would have done that if 100% healthy? Don't know. Neither do you. But come on… Having the flu is guaranteed to have affected Tuel in SOME way, mentally. Certainly physically.
Right. Therefore Wulff is off the hook. Perfectly sound decision to play your QB, who was (or perhaps after his injury became) the one guy that WSU could not lose in order to have a successful season, in a game against a doormat FCS opponent, with the game in hand, after said QB had spent most of the day puking.
Well, you're the one that keeps saying the injury is all on Tuel for making a bad decision. Can you add 1 plus 1 here, or do you need help?
Again, sound decision to play Gronk in the last four minutes of a blowout in which he breaks his arm? Smart for Leach to expose Halliday, his only QB with experience on the roster in a 62-24 game with 13 minutes left? You make the claim because we were up by 14 to a crappy team that why risk it? Why risk an injury to your only qb when you are down 62-24? Again, coaches make these decisions all the time. What would have happened if Halliday got his leg rolled up in that game instead of the USC game? That would have eliminated any chance to go 6-7 and bowling.
So Wulff decision, in a first quarter of his game where his QB was feeling better isn't any different than playing a player in a blowout. Both expose players to "unnecessary" risks. If you think it is all that uncommon, ask Leach what he would do in a 14 point game in the first quarter with his best player on the sidelines of the first game? I think you would be surprised by his answer.
Again, he was cleared by the doc to play. There was enough information to say he was ok. Unlike us, they have a doctor on staff to administer fluids via IV, and they have the equiptment to monitor such stuff. I easily pulled out two articles, one where a DB in a meaningless game played the whole game with the flu. Pete Carroll talks about M Lynch missing the first couple of series because he is puking like Lynch was simply getting taped up.
Where I would disagree with you is where the workers you speak about do not have a doctor on staff at their place of work, whose sole purpose is to keep players healthy, to help the injured, and be a third party who can be the buffer for the coach and tell him when they "can't play" even when the coach wants them to play.
Tuel was given his IV. He was cleared by a doc who was there. And there are plenty of example of player playing sick.
I'm talking about the QB that supposedly was the messiah, end all, be all, at least as good as Andrew Luck, absolute key to the season. I already answered your what would Leach do question. Again, you are making this Leach v. Wulff.
You don't read or comprehend very well. The flu didn't cause Tuel to stay inbounds. His bad decision did.
Wulff gets off the hook.... But Tuel's poor decision making is the reason for the injury.
Part of being a coach is not subjecting your team or players to risk. Kind of like how you harp on Leach for losing the 2012 CU game by not running the ball, etc. Your lack of consistency is noted.
Really, someone said he would be as good as Andrew Luck? No, I am asking about what a coach would do, and which better coach to ask than one that is the current coach. You take it as Leach vs. Wulff because you have to pit the two together. It is what the coaching profession would do and if it is a legit criticism.
Why Play Tuel at all then? If Wulff held him out of the ISU game, he should have held him out of the UNLV game as well. Maybe play him when they only think they can risk an injury when they need a performance. They play them because they need to get live reps. They need to play to get the rust off. Coaches make these TYPE of decisions all the time.
But not the ACTUAL bad decision that Wulff made. That ended with a bad result. You haven't found a single one with circumstances like this, and you've clearly tried.
It's only an argument for the people still wanting to create fantasies for Wulff. Really, Leach has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Paul Wulff's terrible decision.
Missed my point. A virus running through a body will affect everyone. Was Tuel 95% or 15%? Don't know. I'd wager Tuel wouldn't even know.
This isn't a big point. I wasn't trying to fight with or against anyone here. The blanket statement that a virus running rampant through a body and not affecting someones clarity and decision making is just physiologically wrong. Say Tuel was 95% or 15%… that's your argument. I wasn't there. Trust the doc? whatever. Figure out if it affected him on that specific decision, good luck.
Acknowledging that being sick affects your body... you wouldn't think you're breaking major ground here, right?
Similar threads
