I find myself pretty optimistic in looking forward to next year, which is an always dangerous place to find yourself as a long time Coug fan. I can see this team beating any and all teams on their schedule. Will that happen? Probably not, but it sure feels good to go into the year thinking that there is a real shot at a conference title game appearance. The O is pretty sick, and should increase point production from last year with Falk getting better, and the WR's having a lot of experience. The kicking game should be at least as good, and ST's improved throughout last year, so we should get a net bump in those stats as well. My biggest concern is the DL, but even there we find reasons for hope in the early play of Barber,and what we have seen thus far from some of the guys last year like Ekuale. The secondary could/should be really good. LB's should have a bit more speed overall. The schedule sets up pretty well with 7 home games. I guess I am having a tough time figuring out how we won't be playing for a shot at the North against UW in the AC. The opening is a tough slate, but get through that and we could be looking at a pretty fun season. Thoughts? Am I being too optimistic?
My outlook for this season
- Thread starter MRICoug
- Start date
Hell no. We have dynamic playmakers on both sides of the rock. Depth is building. Our coaching staff is pushing all the right buttons. Recruiting is off to a great start. Coug Football has much to be excited about. This is why we paid Leach & staff...btw I think Moos is brilliant for his proactive raise approach. This staff feels the love and should be in Pullman for awhile.
A cautionary tale, although I, too, lean toward the optimistic side: IF our O-line performs close to or even on a par with last years' group then I see the offense being "pretty sick". I'm not sure we can know that with certainty yet. Also, on D, yes the DBs seem to be deeper and better than in years, but will we miss the likes of Allison and Palacio? at linebacker? Hope not.
I hear you. I think the OL will be solid, but we are jaded from the past where little depth meant if we lost a good OL it was a pretty big step back the next year. I liked Dahl quite a bit, but I also like what we have seen from his replacement. Add that these guys all have multiple years in the system and I am pretty confident in the OL. Palacio and Allison were good last year. I think we will miss Allison a bit more, as he sniffed out quite a few plays. I think in terms of talent the replacements are at par or better with these guys so experience will be the biggest issue i.e. recognizing and reading what is happening quickly.
I am getting excited. If we have a "solid" 2016 (6+ wins) than heading into 2017 I will be even MORE excited.
My reasoning? Trends... It would prove 2015 wasn't some crazy fluke season, that those youngsters were the real deal (with only 6-ish wins as a base-line in 2016 I am envisioning some of our late game heroics during 2015 simply not going our way in 2016), and now those youngsters are seniors (including Falk).
Oh boy....
My reasoning? Trends... It would prove 2015 wasn't some crazy fluke season, that those youngsters were the real deal (with only 6-ish wins as a base-line in 2016 I am envisioning some of our late game heroics during 2015 simply not going our way in 2016), and now those youngsters are seniors (including Falk).
Oh boy....
Why would we go backwards three games? I could see us being under .500 if Falk gets his head rattled again, but to lose three more games from 2016 schedule makes no sense unless you think Hillinski QB's the majority of the season. Cal beat us last year. They won't this year. We lost a non conference game to a D2 team. We shouldn't this year. We have Oregon at home. They lose their QB plus their best dlineman. UW is at home. Am I missing something. I think if we win 6 while it is nice to have back to back to back seasons without major injury I would think it is a step backwards.
Agree with you guys. Man2 hits the nail on the head for me. It does seem somewhat creepy and fearsome to be this optimistic. We have all been anxiously awaiting previous seasons only to fall flat on our faces before October arises. This year's- and the future's for that matter- anticipation may well be a result of objective analyses and not just the usual Kool Aid intoxication. We were good last year and this year have greater depth. Hopefully we are right this time and not just full of crap as has been normal and expected in the past.
I see what you are saying about the late game heroics, but by the same token you could also say the games won't be as close with offensive improvement along with the majority of the Pac-12 breaking in new QB's. What is the Vegas over under wins?
Here is a question for you. Was it really out-of-line after the 2001 season to think 2002 was going to be very special?
Don't forget that both games against the Bay Area schools, Cal and Stanford, were late game loses. So, unless you believe that every late game will go against the Cougars, it will probably still balance out.
You just gave a few possibilities why we could fall back 3 games. There were obviously a lot of close games that could have gone either way and did last season (from Rutgers, UCLA, Oregon to Cal, Stanford). Before spring ball is even over you don't have any real context to how the season will play out. If last season didn't teach us that I'm not sure what would be enough. Lose to PSU, Cal, barely beat Rutgers and beat Oregon, UCLA, ASU. Not sure how anyone could draw that up during spring ball as a plausible outcome.
Bowl eligible and a winning season is success in my book on paper. I expect and want more but like you said, Falk goes down, the left side of the line flops, injuries, attrition, any number of things could tank the season. Doesn't necessarily mean it would be a step back.
Also revised 6-6 to 8-4 prior to first game. Then like Mel Kiper revises his big board I am in for 10 and Pac 10 north.
No, not that year, Ed. 2001 and 2002 were the only two years where we could look forward somewhat confidently to success. But having followed Cougar football since the Sweeney years, those are the only two outliers. Now I feel that we have more depth than we did in those days and thus can reasonably be even more optimistic than we were prior to those two seasons. But as man2 postulated, there is a voice in the back of my Coug head whispering, "Just wait. Something is going to go wrong. A rash of injuries, stupid game plans, something." I. like most Cougs, have been reduced to a pathetic blob of apprehension and foreboding by previous failures. Your point is good but this coming season is the third out of about half a century that I have supported the Cougs that we can objectively anticipate a winning season. Like man2 I look forward to this Fall but it is "spooky" as he posted. As MRI said, it is a dangerous place for old time Cougs. It will take some time for that little voice to recede.
Put me down for nine or ten wins and I will cringingly await the outcome.
Last edited:
You're talking about the same guy who predicted a string of 10-win seasons would soon follow 2008 but who later curled up in a blanket of denial.
Timing is everything in CFB. The Cougs were pretty tentative during the first few weeks of the season. The offense gained some confidence with the comeback at Rutgers, but I don't think the entire team really put it together until we beat the ducks. That game gave everyone the confidence that they could play the game, and they went 6-2 the rest of the way. The WSU team that played after the UO game would not lose to PSU or Cal, and would not need a last minute drive to beat Rutgers. 8-4 becomes 10-2, and end up playing closer to New Years, in somewhere better than El Paso.
On the other side of that coin, Oregon doesn't lose to WSU with Adams at QB...and if we lose that game, I'm not sure we beat UA and UCLA on the road, or beat Stanford everywhere but the scoreboard. And just that quickly, an 8-4 season turns into 5-7, and we're not bowling at all.
That said...the 2016 team should start with confidence. They know they can play with the big boys. But I don't see them coming out overconfident, not after the PSU game last year. There are some big, and highly significant question marks, mostly on the lines. Someone needs to step up and fill the shoes of Dahl and Vaeao, in particular. We have to expect some dropoff, but how big that drop is will go a long way in determining how successful the season is. I expect it'll be more important on D, because Falk and the receivers will be comfortable enough with each other to make things happen faster, which will help hide small deficiencies on the OL.
If 2016 can pick up right where 2015 left off - if the O takes a small step forward and the D doesn't lose any ground, and with no serious injuries, I could see them running the table. The toughest games should be UCLA and UW - and both are at home.
Flipping the coin again...if the D struggles to fill the voids in the front 7, and the O stays static, I could see them getting tripped up at BSU, then losing to Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, and ASU...which will hurt confidence and make UA a toss-up, and then lose to UW. That'll make 5-7 or 6-6, which again assumes no major injuries.
I would even go back to the Cal loss. Falk, Marks, and others commented they needed to 'decide who they were as a team' or something like that. They let the Cal game slip away but seemed to realize it was on them rather than Cal being better. It just felt different in the post game beyond just being sick of losing.
No question though that the he Oregon win absolutely was a clear turning point for the season. They should know how to win moving into next season from jump.
I think you outlined a very important detail. That Oregon game was vital for the players to gain confidence, IMHO. And as much as I'd like to say we'd have beat them with VA, I know intellectually we wouldn't have. Our backfield just needs a bit more time. Has this off-season been enough? We shall see. I can say, they are practicing against a QB (Falk and from what I hear Hillinski is lighting it up) that is pretty extraordinary. If he can't prep our D, I don't know who can.
But Other95… you are spot on. Football, hell any NCAA sport, is all about emotion. These are kids, even the 22-25 yo players! It's gaining confidence when you didn't know you could achieve something. There wasn't that emotional grain of sand that would push the players over the edge to physically do what they could. Oregon did just that for us. Rutgers was almost as important but Oregon has been our Baine for 3 years. Coulda, Shoulda, Woulda… Finally we did.
My "spooky" is based on this… Every once in a while, we will win a game we shouldn't. Does matter what "era". Just like last year against Oregon. In the far past, we'd gain confidence but physically we just never stacked up. The win was more because they didn't show up, not because we were dominant. This kinda feels like that. But I also know intellectually that we are a different team from so many years past. BUT I also know we won Oregon due to VA not being there… They were not 100% by a long shot. So it just brings up so many memories that are engrained. Trying to stay intellectual on this, but the old emotional baggage of being beat up for so long is hard to sweep away.
Also, I'm very much in agreement that just because we won 8-9 games last year, doesn't mean 6 or 7 or 8 wins would be a failure. I'd be stoked with anything above 6 wins. The ultimate concept of, every year, continually requiring our team to gain a W in the column is silly. That would mean that next year and the year after, we are after the national championship. I wouldn't hate that!!! But it isn't realistic, either. That also sets us up where, after 3 or 4 years, if we don't win a National Championship, we will be disappointed. I'm sorry. After the decades and decades of "innocence", I'm not dumb. A football program that had a few incredible years back in the early 2000's, and now 2 bowls, does not wipe away the concept that we were "par" if not "sub-par" for decades and decades. And for us to get anywhere NEAR a perennial bowl trip, in and of itself, is huge, IMHO. We start to battle for the PAC12 title, great. I could feed off that for a decade. Then set our sites on something "national". I'm a fan. I don't need to have the same mentality as the players, here. I hope they have their sites set high. I'm here to support them.
There's 2 things I'm going to disagree with you on:
First, I was here first. YOU are the "other95".
Second, while there's still a benefit to getting another bowl at 6-6 or 7-5, honestly I'll be a bit disappointed if that's all we get. I don't think it's tough to imagine the Apple Cup deciding the north. I don't have much trouble seeing 9-10 wins, or even more. I'm expecting better than 6-7 wins from this group.
Of course, if they don't get 9-10, I'll just quietly lament what could have been. I won't be dropping my support. My expectations are emotional, and are based on excitement, not on entitlement. That's the difference between us and UW and UO.
We'll open the season with a loss to EWU, and then end up playing in the PAC-12 title game.
Well, it's not inconceivable.
Yes.
"6+" ..... "base-line" ..... These phrases mean I don't believe we lose more than half our games, at a minimum....
My current speculation is
Oregon, UCLA, and UW have the best chance to beat us. BSU can be scary, @ ASU can be scary. That means I am putting the other 7 games in the W category, and figure we should at least win 2 of the previously mentioned 5. That gets us to 9....everything else would be gravy.
Oregon, UCLA, and UW have the best chance to beat us. BSU can be scary, @ ASU can be scary. That means I am putting the other 7 games in the W category, and figure we should at least win 2 of the previously mentioned 5. That gets us to 9....everything else would be gravy.
Last year we were fortunate overall from an injury standpoint. This year I think our 1's overall are better than last year. But many of our 2's are unproven. If we don't lose any of the top half dozen people (such as Marks and Falk) during the year, we might possibly win 10 during the regular season. It would be tough, but it is at least possible (and not in some alternate universe, either). If the rest of the injury depletion for the remainder of the 1's is minimal on top of not losing any of the most key guys, then the shot at 10 regular season wins is even better.
On the other hand, if we have to use a lot of the 2's, we may end up at 6 or 7 wins. Even if the 2's are roughly equivalent athletes, there is still age/maturity/ experience.
I think injuries and depth questions are the biggest potential bullets to dodge. If we mostly dodge them, it should be a very good season. And I will say that as CML spends more time in Pullman, the depth continues to improve…so that is a fact to consider, as well.
On the other hand, if we have to use a lot of the 2's, we may end up at 6 or 7 wins. Even if the 2's are roughly equivalent athletes, there is still age/maturity/ experience.
I think injuries and depth questions are the biggest potential bullets to dodge. If we mostly dodge them, it should be a very good season. And I will say that as CML spends more time in Pullman, the depth continues to improve…so that is a fact to consider, as well.
That's "fall speak" when you don't want to look past a Portland State or some other team you are suppose to beat. But spring talk we can look ahead all we want : )
I will say in 2012 w there were expectations and I think we fell short. even if people thought that was a three win team, I don't think anyone predicted the offensive production to be as bad. As short as we fell in expectations in 2012 I think we certainly surpassed that in 2013. In 2014 once again I think expectations were higher than what we achieved, and certainly higher than three wins. And I think 2015 they far surpassed what most people thought would happen. I hope and expect 2016 will be a year we don't fall backwards and live up to some of the hype not that we are on solid footing.
I've got to say… I attribute this to "buy in". For it to be so inconsistent, for it to be such dramatic a change from '14 to '15. That is all about the kids. Not like CML changed or anything.
Most of the time it is about the Jimmy's and the Joe's. Was it about Connor? Is it about Falk? What scenario in your mind besides a major injury to Falk can play out that this team loses three more games in the regular season than it did in 2015?
Aside from Falk getting beat up and electing not to play I struggle to see how we don't win 9 games.
I think primarily I look at it with then knowledge of my own ignorance… regarding the other teams. I KNOW they aren't staying the same as last year. Are they improving? Are they regressing? What was THEIR recruiting 2, 3 years ago to get them where they are at, NOW. All of them are trying to improve… When we meet up with them, will THEY have hit their stride? They might struggle the first few games, hit their stride just before coming to us, and come in so hungry, they'd beat up on Ohio State… Will their injuries start at the beginning so that by the end of the season, they are able to bring some of them back? Then that begs the question, where are they in our schedule?
It goes on and on. Do you know how UCLA will react to the seniors leaving their program? Who will replace whom? How have they been doing in the gym? Stuff like that.
For me, I don't just look at WSU. I realize there are other programs. And honestly, I don't care enough about them to have anything resembling an accurate read on them. Thus I don't have an accurate read on how we'd do against them. As you've aptly pointed out, there is a difference between spring and in the middle of the season where we SEE how they have already reacted.
This is the primary reason I hate crystal ball stuff. About half way through the season, I have a decent gauge on how other teams are doing. Before that, it's all for fun. It certainly isn't accurate.
It is never accurate. Probably why computer models, self proclaimed experts and posters such as myself are wrong. That is why so many coaches get fired. However, there are always some sort of expectation.
But going into next year I could easily see us losing to Oregon and UCLA. But I also don't think we will get beat by a D2 non conference opponent, and I don't see us losing to Cal. And I have a hard time believing with a healthy Luke Falk we get hammered by the UW at home.
Here we go again. Only idiots like yourself thought Wulff left any semblance of a D1 team, but have at it. RepEDitive drivel is what you're good at. The reasonable expectations in 2012 were that Leach would have a very tough time cleaning the mess Chris Ball, Wulff and others left behind, but he has managed two bowl games in his first four seasons.
Last edited:
If you watched Stanford's spring game, you'll know they have a couple very nice QB prospects. One is an excellent dual-threat QB. Their O-line as always appears solid. And they'll have one of the better if not the best d-lineman in the Pac-12. And then there's this guy named Christian McCaffrey.
Last edited:
See I try to really temper that. This is almost a life road, choice for me and how I perceive WSU as a whole. You and I have gone back and forth on this already. I'm not trying to be evasive, I just don't have specific "expectations" on stuff I don't have control over. You seem to almost push your expectations on others. Sorry man. Won't do it on me.
Stuff I control? I have many, many expectations. I'm known as a control freak, around here.
I get caught every once in a while, like me just posting initially on here. But that also progresses as the season progresses, as well.
But overall, I just fight that emotion of "expectation" without direct control. It's just not as much fun for me when I expect something and it doesn't come to fruition. So I try to temper that when it comes to stuff I've chosen to enjoy. WSU, I truly enjoy.
Example: Saw a kid in the Portland Airport this weekend, decked out with WSU gear. I just smiled and said, "Go Cougs!" and his mom nudged him with a shocked/smile on her face and his smile was worth it's weight in gold. WSU is just a special place for me and I am not going to ruin it with something as silly as "expecting" anything out of the program. I truly "come home" every time I travel there… OK… Done being sappy but that gives you an idea of my enjoyment of WSU. And I won't ruin that.
The program is, what it is. And I'll enjoy it as it stands. That's my goal, always. Admittedly, I do suck at it sometimes but I'll always try to rely on logic. Expectations over something with no control… not really logical.
And I thought I was pretty succinct about the level of "expectation" but clearly your thoughts are Derected elsewhere. So you were one of the few who thought we would average 20 points a game. Glad you saw that.
Nanookie sounds like you are a bit "north" of the rules. I do believe idiot is a no no, but maybe ask your bud in your friendly exchanges. Maybe you are the exception the rules.
Last edited:
Not trying to put my thoughts on to anyone else. I have been called an Apauloigist. In part because I think patience is important in a rebuild. And I wasn't the person calling for Leach's head after he lost to PSU and their D4 defensive coordinator. I think jobs take time. So to say I am pushing my expectations on you is a bit ridiculous. I simply think this is a 9-10 win team and I don't see how they can go back to 5 to 6 wins. If they win five to 6 games yes there will be a disappointment factor for everyone.
Mike Leach above anyone else has high expectations. Do you think he was thinking he was going to lose the Apple Cup for example? I don't believe it crossed his mind.
As for me whether we are 3-9 or 9-3 I ill always enjoy Cougar football....so I am not putting my expectation upon you.
The problem was the level of "expectation" was based upon pure fantasy. People were tired of the losses. When people found out that Mike Leach was coach, people fantasized that the team would immediately be great, ignoring that the team had more holes than Swiss cheese.
Similar threads
