My outlook for this season

[CougPatrol]

I don't really have concerns about our team. I think we're going to be very good. The issue with playing for the North title is that we're going to have to finish ahead of Stanford and Oregon.

Both of those programs have been great for years and still have deeper rosters than we do. Can we beat them? Absolutely. Can we lose to them? Absolutely. That what makes this season so intriguing.

 

[YakiCoug]

I don't really have concerns about our team. I think we're going to be very good. The issue with playing for the North title is that we're going to have to finish ahead of Stanford and Oregon.

Both of those programs have been great for years and still have deeper rosters than we do. Can we beat them? Absolutely. Can we lose to them? Absolutely. That what makes this season so intriguing.

If you watched the Stanford spring game, you would have seen their talent and depth. If Hogan could damage people with his legs, Stanford has a kid who is a much better runner AND thrower. It's true he lacks experience, but as well as Stanford has developed its o-line it might not matter. Oregon seems to be more vulnerable, however, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

 

[CougEd]

Jesus Ed. Your arguments are getting out there (they were already on the fringes of delusion). What exactly is your point? You prefer the Wulff regime due to competitive Apple Cups?

Why is it delusional to think Long, Cooper, Pole were talented football players. (Found out later so was Paulo) Why is it delusional to think Tuel (NFL fringes) and Halliday (record holder) were talented? Why is it delusional to think Galvin, Wilson, Williams, Dom, and Myers were talented players? Why is it delusional to think with Leach coaching them they wouldn't get better with more experience and his ability to coach?

Buchanon seemed to be talented. As did Simmons. Washington, Horton, Buchanon and Locker had enough talent to help get the team to 6-6. And yes both corners had their warts. The offensive line that started in 2013 seemed to be talented enough to get to 6-6, and two of the better players from 2012 line have either been on the fringes of the NFL or got drafted. (They started three walkons. So if your definition of delusional is that I believe that Leach is a better coach than Wulff, that I am mildly surprised that that they had a step back from 2011, and that the general public’s expectations for offensive output and record in 2012 under Leach was greather than 2011-then yes I am delusional. If you were in Vegas August 2012, and you had 5k burning a hole in your pocket and the betting line was 3.5 for the over under in year one, how would you have bet? What if it was 4? What scenario did you or others see that Leach would have had a worse record and a worse output than the guy before him?
The entire discussion was when people had higher expectations than say 3-8 and 20 points a game, the team didn't fare well. When expectations were tempered say in 2013 they far exceeded what people had originally expected. And in 2014 when people thought we were going to string back to back bowl games together, we fell short. I have zero problem with anyone telling me that this team was three plays from being 6-6. I think the Rutgers game defined the season. I think if Cracraft handles the punt we go in and score and put the game out of reach. I think we beat Cal, and we probably have enough confidence if we beat Rutgers to handle Reno. The Rutgers game was a very defining moment. And if someone thinks I am delusional for thinking 2015 far exceeded expectations, then you are right I am borderline delusional. So to the point MFL, I think in terms of expectations they fell short in 2012 and 2014, and they far exceeded them in 2013 and 2015. And I think 2016 is the year when wins match expectations. So yes, I suppose I am delusional.

And no I don’t prefer Wulff coaching over Leach, whether it is the Apple Cup or any other game. But if people point out how 2011 the team didn’t grow and wasn’t completive and use a punt as the metric, then I simply say at least they were somewhat close.

 

[CougEd]

So, regarding football, what is the definition of competitive in your mind?

I would say game where you are one inch away from winning is competitive. 49-7--not so much. I would say a game where you win is competitive, 42-7 no so much. I would say if you are within two scores going into the fourth quarter, it is competitive. What is your definition?

 

[CougEd]

Except you were, and are. Please point out where I said anything about the 2010 AC.

You didn't....

 

[SCglory]

I would say game where you are one inch away from winning is competitive. 49-7--not so much. I would say a game where you win is competitive, 42-7 no so much. I would say if you are within two scores going into the fourth quarter, it is competitive. What is your definition?

Weak and unhelpful definition. Competitive is going into the 4th quarter and a knowledgeable, unbiased 3rd party could honestly say "It's anyone's game."
"Within two scores?" What does that mean? 2 FGs? (6 points) 2 TDs (14)? That is a cougar definition, and not really of much help. There is a world of difference between blowouts and competitive. I've seen my share of games (and I'm sure you have too) where a 14-3 game going into the 4th quarter was NOT competitive, because the score was not indicative of the domination of one team over the other.

 

[Coug1990]

Weak and unhelpful definition. Competitive is going into the 4th quarter and a knowledgeable, unbiased 3rd party could honestly say "It's anyone's game."
"Within two scores?" What does that mean? 2 FGs? (6 points) 2 TDs (14)? That is a cougar definition, and not really of much help. There is a world of difference between blowouts and competitive. I've seen my share of games (and I'm sure you have too) where a 14-3 game going into the 4th quarter was NOT competitive, because the score was not indicative of the domination of one team over the other.

Come on SC, that is not a Cougar definition. That is a ED definition. Stop with your digs.

 

[CougEd]

Actually, I did give you a reasoned response. Also, the 2011 team and the 2012 are not the same team. The other eleven schools in the conference were not the same either. Some teams get better, others are worse and some are about the same. Do you not understand this?

It is a reason why this team in 2016 can actually be better, but have a worse record than the 2015 team. Plus, we have went through this before. The 2011 team played a very weak non conference schedule, so that was two wins. Then, they played CU with a RB and WR starting at cornerback and safety. Then, ASU was in free fall when WSU beat them, as they lost their last five games and Erickson was fired. Yes, the team earned the wins. But, lets be real, everything that lead to those four victories were not likely repeatable besides scheduling the sisters of the poor for the non-conference games for two wins.

If you are going to mention starting ML, a QB that had previously started and who was just as productive as Tuel, hurt Wulff. Then, you have to admit that starting two offensive players at DB may have hurt Colorado?

Regarding what I wrote years ago about the "Hearts and minds" of the players. Way to lie about the context I used it back then. But, it is typical of you. Wulff came in from day one with a scorched earth policy and was a total dick to many players. I wrote about that from day one.

Leach came in with a message of this is the way we are going to do things. Hard work and discipline. The players were neither at that time and some of them fought against that.

You're welcome.

D-I tried sending you an email thanking you for the chuckle. Yes, the ole 2012 non conference schedule. Way different than 2011. Oh, you had UNLV in 2011, and I am sure that was a different school in 2012. Also, didn't we play a D2 school as well in 2012?

Yes, I get that the schedule could be different. But was it "so" different? Was BYU all that different than SDSU?

In terms of what CU had and didn't have in 2011. Why don't you use that same analysis in the game we lost to them in 2012? Did they have their QB? No. Didn't they just lose to Sac State the week before? Wasn't Sac State the worse team in D1?

Wasn't Utah better in 2011? UCLA was better 2012. Cal was horrible in 2012.

The scorched earth is a good one. One guy has a rule of three, he is "disciplined", the other coach comes in his policies and rules it is scorched earth. There was nothing to scorch. Ivory would have been booted faster under Leach than Wulff. Rowlands quit.

What players do you feel that were so "wronged" by a new regime coming in? You don't think the players from 2012 have the same thoughts? You don't think the likes of Simmons, Duckett, Golden who didn't do anything to get booted felt it was scorched earth?

So when I say they had four wins they had four wins. You make excuse because of the non conference schedule and this school being weak and that school being weak.

Cal and Utah were better in 2011 record wise. SDSU and BYU had the same record. They won two non conference games. They won two games against Pac 12 competition. And they had a lead against SDSU late in third quarter, UCLA late in the 4th quarter, and they were an inch away from beating Utah. Not sure why that is hard to swallow. You would hope and I think most expected Leach to be the difference in being 1 inch in the end zone and scoring and one inch short and losing. It didn't happen in 2012. Like I said earlier in the post, congrats to you for seeing that Leach was going to have a worse record year one than his predecessor, and that you had foreseen 3-9.

Fortunately we were able to over come what I remember as an 18 point lead (I don't remember by board standards if this was competitive or not) going into the 4th quarter and UW puked all over themselves to tie the game then puked some more in OT to give us our third win to meet your predicted outcome of 3-9.

Again, it is just strange to me that 2012 needs to be defended. It didn't meet the hype. It happened. Just didn't meet the hype that Moos put fourth and what he set the expectations, nor did it reach what they did the prior year. (The scheduling was a good one) 2012 and 2014 didn't match expectations. 2013 and 2015 they exceeded expectations from the general public, and to the point (which was the point all along) I think 2016 is the year where the two match up. Which is a good thing.

 

[CougEd]

Weak and unhelpful definition. Competitive is going into the 4th quarter and a knowledgeable, unbiased 3rd party could honestly say "It's anyone's game."
"Within two scores?" What does that mean? 2 FGs? (6 points) 2 TDs (14)? That is a cougar definition, and not really of much help. There is a world of difference between blowouts and competitive. I've seen my share of games (and I'm sure you have too) where a 14-3 game going into the 4th quarter was NOT competitive, because the score was not indicative of the domination of one team over the other.

Is an 18 point deficit going into the 4th quarter "competitive" ?

 

[CPtheCoug]

Seriously guys.... Almost none of the above posts discuss the upcoming 2016 season.....

Wulff was four years ago and was a bad head coach, everyone knows this - Its time to move on!

 

[dgibbons]

D-I tried sending you an email thanking you for the chuckle. Yes, the ole 2012 non conference schedule. Way different than 2011. Oh, you had UNLV in 2011, and I am sure that was a different school in 2012. Also, didn't we play a D2 school as well in 2012?

Yes, I get that the schedule could be different. But was it "so" different? Was BYU all that different than SDSU?

In terms of what CU had and didn't have in 2011. Why don't you use that same analysis in the game we lost to them in 2012? Did they have their QB? No. Didn't they just lose to Sac State the week before? Wasn't Sac State the worse team in D1?

Wasn't Utah better in 2011? UCLA was better 2012. Cal was horrible in 2012.

The scorched earth is a good one. One guy has a rule of three, he is "disciplined", the other coach comes in his policies and rules it is scorched earth. There was nothing to scorch. Ivory would have been booted faster under Leach than Wulff. Rowlands quit.

What players do you feel that were so "wronged" by a new regime coming in? You don't think the players from 2012 have the same thoughts? You don't think the likes of Simmons, Duckett, Golden who didn't do anything to get booted felt it was scorched earth?

So when I say they had four wins they had four wins. You make excuse because of the non conference schedule and this school being weak and that school being weak.

Cal and Utah were better in 2011 record wise. SDSU and BYU had the same record. They won two non conference games. They won two games against Pac 12 competition. And they had a lead against SDSU late in third quarter, UCLA late in the 4th quarter, and they were an inch away from beating Utah. Not sure why that is hard to swallow. You would hope and I think most expected Leach to be the difference in being 1 inch in the end zone and scoring and one inch short and losing. It didn't happen in 2012. Like I said earlier in the post, congrats to you for seeing that Leach was going to have a worse record year one than his predecessor, and that you had foreseen 3-9.

Fortunately we were able to over come what I remember as an 18 point lead (I don't remember by board standards if this was competitive or not) going into the 4th quarter and UW puked all over themselves to tie the game then puked some more in OT to give us our third win to meet your predicted outcome of 3-9.

Again, it is just strange to me that 2012 needs to be defended. It didn't meet the hype. It happened. Just didn't meet the hype that Moos put fourth and what he set the expectations, nor did it reach what they did the prior year. (The scheduling was a good one) 2012 and 2014 didn't match expectations. 2013 and 2015 they exceeded expectations from the general public, and to the point (which was the point all along) I think 2016 is the year where the two match up. Which is a good thing.

My takeaway is that you're trying to say Wulff's best season was equivalent to Leach's worst.

Thanks.

 

[dgibbons]

Seriously guys.... Almost none of the above posts discuss the upcoming 2016 season.....

Wulff was four years ago and was a bad head coach, everyone knows this - Its time to move on!

Apparently Ed isn't so sure.

 

[Fab5Coug]

I only read a couple pages of this thread. But, basically, coaching transitions are hard. It's not, at all, uncommon for a team to take a step back in year 1 of a new coach. Wulff won 4 and was close to winning a couple more. Leach won 3 and was close to winning a couple more. It's not like WSU took some colossal step back in year 1. It was 1 game. 1 game separated Wulff's year 4 from Leach's year 1.

Wulff had a QB in Lobster that had been in his system for 4 years. Leach had a couple guys in essentially their true freshman year running his system. It's no surprise that '11 Lobster outperformed '12 Tuel (138.3 vs 119.5).

 

[Coug95man2]

Apparently Ed isn't so sure.

This is the crap that is so tiring on this site. I remember when everyone thought this was going to end once we started winning… That worked out well.

 

[YakiCoug]

Apparently Ed isn't so sure.

Ed attended the Wulffian Defense Writing Seminar in Renton last weekend, and today he's demonstrating what he learned.
Quite a display of manic behavior. Yet another attempt to pollute a thread to get it deleted?

 

[kayak15]

One of the reasons that the prior staff's teams were somewhat "competitive" in the first half is that the other guys didn't bother trying that hard. We were pathetic and the rest of the conference knew it. I can't remember how many times we went into halftime within reach of the opponent and then, after an obvious ass chewing by the opposing coach, we were blown out in the third quarter. The scoreboard did not always reflect the true nature of the competition.

CP is right. It's time to move on.

 

[Fab5Coug]

One thing I always thought was slightly different in how the coaches handled their transition years, and I don't have any inside, personal knowledge, just what I heard in interviews; Leach seemed to question the players effort level, whereas Wulff questioned their ability.

I don't recall Leach ever stating his players couldn't physically do it, he just emphasized they needed to try harder. Wulff basically communicated to his players they could not win because they either weren't good enough, or not old enough.

Effort level can be improved, age & size cannot, at least not immediately.

 

[How_did_this_happen?]

One thing I always thought was slightly different in how the coaches handled their transition years, and I don't have any inside, personal knowledge, just what I heard in interviews; Leach seemed to question the players effort level, whereas Wulff questioned their ability.

I don't recall Leach ever stating his players couldn't physically do it, he just emphasized they needed to try harder. Wulff basically communicated to his players they could not win because they either weren't good enough, or not old enough.

Effort level can be improved, age & size cannot, at least not immediately.

One of the main components of why Leach is successful is that he is a "no excuse" guy. His attitude is basically man-up and take responsibility for your play, play for the team instead of yourself, and don't make any excuses. It works in football and works in life in general. The players will learn good life lessons playing for Leach.

 

[Fab5Coug]

One of the main components of why Leach is successful is that he is a "no excuse" guy. His attitude is basically man-up and take responsibility for your play, play for the team instead of yourself, and don't make any excuses. It works in football and works in life in general. The players will learn good life lessons playing for Leach.

It's no wonder the transition year was hard. Guys like Nolan Washington and Casey Locker and Gino Simone had spent 3-4 years being told they weren't old enough, big enough, or good enough to win.

Kind of dovetails into a pet peeve of mine. I hate it when coaches call players "kids". That's not an exclusive thing to Wulff. First & foremost, it's patronizing. Second, I feel like it's building an excuse for their play.

 

[CougEd]

It's no wonder the transition year was hard. Guys like Nolan Washington and Casey Locker and Gino Simone had spent 3-4 years being told they weren't old enough, big enough, or good enough to win.

Kind of dovetails into a pet peeve of mine. I hate it when coaches call players "kids". That's not an exclusive thing to Wulff. First & foremost, it's patronizing. Second, I feel like it's building an excuse for their play.

I am not sure I have not heard virtually every coach talk about youth and they just have to grow up. Like you said, it isn't exclusive to Wulff, and he probably overused the phrase to hopefully buy patience.

I think players become confident when they can act instead of think then react. And I also think plays that were made in the Rutgers game last year were pivotal. Could you imagine on the TD screen pass to Harrington where he was ruled out and was called back and they didn't get into the end zone what difference that would have made in their mental outlook.

Winning solves a lot of problems.

 

[Coug1990]

One thing I always thought was slightly different in how the coaches handled their transition years, and I don't have any inside, personal knowledge, just what I heard in interviews; Leach seemed to question the players effort level, whereas Wulff questioned their ability.

I don't recall Leach ever stating his players couldn't physically do it, he just emphasized they needed to try harder. Wulff basically communicated to his players they could not win because they either weren't good enough, or not old enough.

Effort level can be improved, age & size cannot, at least not immediately.

Leach didn't think the talent level was up to P12 standards. But, he knew that before he took the job. He could accept that, because he knew that he would be able to recruit and change the talent level. Remember he took over with a little over a month left in the recruiting cycle and he jettisoned half the verbal recruits that Wulff had recruited. Honestly, if he had more time, he probably would have kept only 2 or 3 of them.

However, he wanted effort from day one. That is his biggest on field issue every year. He can put up with a few mistakes, but you better be giving max effort while doing it. That was a big problem with the team, the most talented players on the team did not want to work hard. The most talented players are also the leaders on the team. So, when players like Marquess Wilson or CJ Mizell loaf and are in the ears of their teammates, what you get is losing football.

 

[Coug1990]

It's no wonder the transition year was hard. Guys like Nolan Washington and Casey Locker and Gino Simone had spent 3-4 years being told they weren't old enough, big enough, or good enough to win.

Kind of dovetails into a pet peeve of mine. I hate it when coaches call players "kids". That's not an exclusive thing to Wulff. First & foremost, it's patronizing. Second, I feel like it's building an excuse for their play.

Wulff had more excuses than any coach I have ever heard. He set himself up for failure, but it was never his fault. Yaki linked Wulff's press conference a week ago and listening to it once again made me feel for him the man, but it also reinforced just how in over his head he was.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Wulff had more excuses than any coach I have ever heard. He set himself up for failure, but it was never his fault. Yaki linked Wulff's press conference a week ago and listening to it once again made me feel for him the man, but it also reinforced just how in over his head he was.

Even though I've gone on record repeatedly saying that I think that the Wulff hate is too strong around here, I 100% agree that he was a man who was in over his head. In 2010, I got the opportunity to spend some time with Wulff's brother and a few brief moments with Wulff. They expended a lot of energy pointing out the lack of experience in the two deep and how the team just wasn't going to be able to compete. Then you look at a team like UW who had a younger roster the next year......and they finished the regular season 7-5. Wulff spent so much time defending why the team couldn't compete that he never really checked to see if it could. Nothing kills morale and effort faster than your leader telling you that you suck. He didn't know how to elevate the team quickly so he was quick with the excuses and blame so nobody would hold him accountable, not realizing that his actions would bring more heat than just shutting his mouth.

 

[CougEd]

Even though I've gone on record repeatedly saying that I think that the Wulff hate is too strong around here, I 100% agree that he was a man who was in over his head. In 2010, I got the opportunity to spend some time with Wulff's brother and a few brief moments with Wulff. They expended a lot of energy pointing out the lack of experience in the two deep and how the team just wasn't going to be able to compete. Then you look at a team like UW who had a younger roster the next year......and they finished the regular season 7-5. Wulff spent so much time defending why the team couldn't compete that he never really checked to see if it could. Nothing kills morale and effort faster than your leader telling you that you suck. He didn't know how to elevate the team quickly so he was quick with the excuses and blame so nobody would hold him accountable, not realizing that his actions would bring more heat than just shutting his mouth.

I'll bite...personally I agree with you I wish he would have shut his mouth. But let me ask you if Mike Price took over and in a private moment he told you in "Flat, from 09-2011 we are really going to have our growing pains. And if we don't get Rogers or Lopina up to speed, and if we can't find a DT, the attrition really has caught up with us." Let's say that was the reality. Could Mike Price go out and say- "we just need to coach them up better. We are young and we need to get them older in a hurry". Or simply saying "we need to coach better". Could he have gotten away with that?

Not sure if Wulff, or ANY coach that came from D 2 could buy time by saying "we need to coach better. The true issue was fans nor team respected him because of the level he came from, and he was under a different microscope. And I wouldn't say that was just Wulff, but anyone that came from a D2 school and didn't have a broad coaching resume.

I remember when Chip lost to Boise State and the general public hammered him. "Is his small time college coaching experience catching up with him. Is he over his head? How will be punish Blount?"

 

[Fab5Coug]

Even though I've gone on record repeatedly saying that I think that the Wulff hate is too strong around here, I 100% agree that he was a man who was in over his head. In 2010, I got the opportunity to spend some time with Wulff's brother and a few brief moments with Wulff. They expended a lot of energy pointing out the lack of experience in the two deep and how the team just wasn't going to be able to compete. Then you look at a team like UW who had a younger roster the next year......and they finished the regular season 7-5. Wulff spent so much time defending why the team couldn't compete that he never really checked to see if it could. Nothing kills morale and effort faster than your leader telling you that you suck. He didn't know how to elevate the team quickly so he was quick with the excuses and blame so nobody would hold him accountable, not realizing that his actions would bring more heat than just shutting his mouth.

College football is different than when Wulff played. Freshmen play, and they succeed, and they do so at most positions. Wulff had this fairy tale that eventually he would have a roster with 40 4th & 5th year seniors. That's just not feasible in today's college football, and it's also not necessary.

All we heard in '09 was "wait till you get a load of Andre Barrington, Sekope Kaufusi and the rest of these red shirts." If those guys were so impactful, then eff their red shirts. Get them on the field while you can. It's so rare for guys to stay healthy and eligible for 5 years.

 

[brettcraycraft51]

Not sure if Wulff, or ANY coach that came from D 2 could buy time by saying "we need to coach better. The true issue was fans nor team respected him because of the level he came from, and he was under a different microscope. And I wouldn't say that was just Wulff, but anyone that came from a D2 school and didn't have a broad coaching resume."

i agree that his background could have been an initial reason for a lack of respect, but literally everything he did after coming to wazzu is probably a more plausible explanation for why people didn't respect him.

 

[dgibbons]

College football is different than when Wulff played. Freshmen play, and they succeed, and they do so at most positions. Wulff had this fairy tale that eventually he would have a roster with 40 4th & 5th year seniors. That's just not feasible in today's college football, and it's also not necessary.

All we heard in '09 was "wait till you get a load of Andre Barrington, Sekope Kaufusi and the rest of these red shirts." If those guys were so impactful, then eff their red shirts. Get them on the field while you can. It's so rare for guys to stay healthy and eligible for 5 years.

And with the grade and character risks he was taking it was never going to happen. That's on top of lack of linemen, and the lack of Pac-12 quality bodies in the trenches. The JC DE to Pac-12 DT experiment was a total failure.

The truth is Wulff just recruited poorly. But the "recruiting at a level never seen before" mantra resonated with the fans (some of them anyway) so he kept using it.

 

[95coug]

I'll bite...personally I agree with you I wish he would have shut his mouth. But let me ask you if Mike Price took over and in a private moment he told you in "Flat, from 09-2011 we are really going to have our growing pains. And if we don't get Rogers or Lopina up to speed, and if we can't find a DT, the attrition really has caught up with us." Let's say that was the reality. Could Mike Price go out and say- "we just need to coach them up better. We are young and we need to get them older in a hurry". Or simply saying "we need to coach better". Could he have gotten away with that?

Not sure if Wulff, or ANY coach that came from D 2 could buy time by saying "we need to coach better. The true issue was fans nor team respected him because of the level he came from, and he was under a different microscope. And I wouldn't say that was just Wulff, but anyone that came from a D2 school and didn't have a broad coaching resume.

I remember when Chip lost to Boise State and the general public hammered him. "Is his small time college coaching experience catching up with him. Is he over his head? How will be punish Blount?"

I don't know that coming from EWU had anything to do with it. If he had come in and showed anything positive, I don't think that would have mattered. But he didn't. I think Coug fans could have forgiven the opening loss to Oklahoma State - they were a tough team, and we actually did put up a fight for 3 quarters. BUt then they come home and get beat by 60+ by Cal, blown out by Baylor, lose 2 QBs to Portland State, blown out by Oregon, OSU, shut out by USC in possibly the most disgraceful display I've ever seen on a football field, shut out by Stanford and ASU. The only bright spot was a double OT win against possibly the worst team UW has ever fielded. The only games I left out were UCLA and UA, where we were in it at the half and disappeared in the 2nd.

His origin plus his 2008 performance was probably insurmountable. Following it up with an arguably worse 2009 probably should have spelled the end.

 

[Coug1990]

I don't know that coming from EWU had anything to do with it. If he had come in and showed anything positive, I don't think that would have mattered. But he didn't. I think Coug fans could have forgiven the opening loss to Oklahoma State - they were a tough team, and we actually did put up a fight for 3 quarters. BUt then they come home and get beat by 60+ by Cal, blown out by Baylor, lose 2 QBs to Portland State, blown out by Oregon, OSU, shut out by USC in possibly the most disgraceful display I've ever seen on a football field, shut out by Stanford and ASU. The only bright spot was a double OT win against possibly the worst team UW has ever fielded. The only games I left out were UCLA and UA, where we were in it at the half and disappeared in the 2nd.

His origin plus his 2008 performance was probably insurmountable. Following it up with an arguably worse 2009 probably should have spelled the end.

Coming from EWU had zero to how the fans thought of him. Even at the end, there was a large segment of WSU fans that were still behind him. People wanted him to be the coach because he was a Cougar. Many people continued to support him because he was a Cougar and they believed his constant whining about how tough he had it. Seriously, it is the same thing that occurred at USC for continually hiring an AD because he is one of them.

A lot of us football fans accepted him, especially because he "won" his opening press conference. But seriously, you watch him coach and it was evident that he was in over his head.

 

[Coug1990]

Even though I've gone on record repeatedly saying that I think that the Wulff hate is too strong around here, I 100% agree that he was a man who was in over his head. In 2010, I got the opportunity to spend some time with Wulff's brother and a few brief moments with Wulff. They expended a lot of energy pointing out the lack of experience in the two deep and how the team just wasn't going to be able to compete. Then you look at a team like UW who had a younger roster the next year......and they finished the regular season 7-5. Wulff spent so much time defending why the team couldn't compete that he never really checked to see if it could. Nothing kills morale and effort faster than your leader telling you that you suck. He didn't know how to elevate the team quickly so he was quick with the excuses and blame so nobody would hold him accountable, not realizing that his actions would bring more heat than just shutting his mouth.

You make very good points. Both the uw and WSU were extremely young teams this past year as well.

I remember sitting in husky stadium for the 2009 Apple Cup. It was par for the course, meaning it was one of the most pathetic coaching jobs I have seen. Wulff/Sturdy would call a time out and they still could not get the play off in time. Also, for play calling for the rest of the game, they would wait until there was little time on the clock before they signaled in the play. So, you continually had the players have to run to the line and snap the ball immediately. I remember thinking in two years, they still cannot run the offense.

I guess part of why I am hard on Wulff was because I knew several players on the team. He was a complete jerk to them. He was one way to the press and alumni, but he was completely different behind the scenes. Now, I will say that he was kinder and gentler to his own recruits.

 

[95coug]

You make very good points. Both the uw and WSU were extremely young teams this past year as well.

I remember sitting in husky stadium for the 2009 Apple Cup. It was par for the course, meaning it was one of the most pathetic coaching jobs I have seen. Wulff/Sturdy would call a time out and they still could not get the play off in time. They waited until there was little time on the clock before they signaled in the play. So, you continually had the players have to run to the line and snap the ball immediately. I remember thinking in two years, they still cannot run the offense.

I guess part of why I am hard on Wulff was because I knew several players on the team. He was a complete jerk to them. He was one way to the press and alumni, but he was completely different behind the scenes. Now, I will say that he was kinder and gentler to his own recruits.

Don't forget, he was still doing this in 2011. Remember the indecision at the end of the Utah game, when he waffled twice before deciding to kick a FG when he was 6 inches from a TD?

 

[12375CAT]

Beat the Sled Dogs!

 

[SCglory]

Is an 18 point deficit going into the 4th quarter "competitive" ?

I already answered that. Read, Ed, Read. If an unbiased 3rd party says it's anyone's game, then yes. If you're trying to pull a freshman type trick, by using weird outlier scores where a team came back from a huge deficit to "prove" something....all that proves is that momentum shifts. Speaking of 18 point deficits....take the 74 Notre Dame/USC game....trojans went in at half down 18, 24-6. As most know they came back to win, 55-24.

Cougs were down to furd in the R Mayes days by I think 24-0, and 35-6 or something like that late in the 3rd but all cougs know that they came back to win.

But none of that changes my point or your sloppy thinking. A game that is competitive at one point can cease to be; and a game that is not competitive can become so. That's why you generally don't use scores alone, Ed. For example, there probably was a time when your mental acuity was in the 50th or so percentile. But those days are long past.....So you WERE normal, but now you aren't. Get it? Brains age. Things change.

 

[95coug]

I already answered that. Read, Ed, Read. If an unbiased 3rd party says it's anyone's game, then yes. If you're trying to pull a freshman type trick, by using weird outlier scores where a team came back from a huge deficit to "prove" something....all that proves is that momentum shifts. Speaking of 18 point deficits....take the 74 Notre Dame/USC game....trojans went in at half down 18, 24-6. As most know they came back to win, 55-24.

Cougs were down to furd in the R Mayes days by I think 24-0, and 35-6 or something like that late in the 3rd but all cougs know that they came back to win.

But none of that changes my point or your sloppy thinking. A game that is competitive at one point can cease to be; and a game that is not competitive can become so. That's why you generally don't use scores alone, Ed. For example, there probably was a time when your mental acuity was in the 50th or so percentile. But those days are long past.....So you WERE normal, but now you aren't. Get it? Brains age. Things change.

1996 Apple Cup was more than 3 quarters of some of the worst football I'd seen to that point, and we were down 24-0. Corey Dillon goes down with cramps, and we come back to tie in the 4th. A massive momentum swing does not mean that 3/4 of the game wasn't completely lopsided.

 

[YakiCoug]

I already answered that. Read, Ed, Read. If an unbiased 3rd party says it's anyone's game, then yes. If you're trying to pull a freshman type trick, by using weird outlier scores where a team came back from a huge deficit to "prove" something....all that proves is that momentum shifts. Speaking of 18 point deficits....take the 74 Notre Dame/USC game....trojans went in at half down 18, 24-6. As most know they came back to win, 55-24.

Cougs were down to furd in the R Mayes days by I think 24-0, and 35-6 or something like that late in the 3rd but all cougs know that they came back to win.

But none of that changes my point or your sloppy thinking. A game that is competitive at one point can cease to be; and a game that is not competitive can become so. That's why you generally don't use scores alone, Ed. For example, there probably was a time when your mental acuity was in the 50th or so percentile. But those days are long past.....So you WERE normal, but now you aren't. Get it? Brains age. Things change.

Throw in some really bad genetics and - VOILA!

 

[CrimsonWazzu]

I just opened this thread for the first time, thinking "oh man, be good to see where everyone thinks this team is going in 2016".

Still talking about Wulff.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I just opened this thread for the first time, thinking "oh man, be good to see where everyone thinks this team is going in 2016".

Still talking about Wulff.

I decided to see who derailed the thread and you can thank Yakicoug. It was going fine until he decided to go after CougEd not once not twice but three times. Ed never mentioned Wulff until Yaki just couldn't help himself and bring it up. For all of the bagging on Ed, you might want to tell Yaki to quit being a dick all the time and maybe these types of threads wouldn't happen. Take a look for yourself at the first page. Every post by Yaki was smartassed without actually contributing anything to the conversation.

His first comment: "Leech pollyannas, both of you!" - Just being a smartass

Second: "You are on record predicting WSU will finish 6-6 in 2016." - can't help but take a shot at Ed. BTW, Ed didn't mention Wulff here.

Third: "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." - another shot at Ed. Again, Wulff hadn't been mentioned.

Fourth: "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." - yet another shot at Ed. Again, there was no mention of Wulff or Wulff's tenure. Ed had said that 2012 fell short of expectations. He didn't talk up Wulff or mention Wulff or say that Wulff would have done better. To say that 2012 failed to meet everyone's preseason expectations is 100% accurate. Yaki was just picking a fight.

If you want to see this board get better, ban fools like Yakicoug that pick fights with other posters constantly, even when that poster isn't even directing comments towards them. He is a poison on this board and a big reason that people avoid this place.

 

[YakiCoug]

Auditioning for "mommy of the year," I see. Go cry on Dan Wulff's shoulder. For the record, Ed dipped into his usual reference to Cougar football more than 15 years ago before I chastised him for a 6-6 prediction he IN FACT made for 2016. Ed often uses the 5-year-old Trumpian excuse "He started it!... I'm just responding." If your argument is that I shouldn't respond to anything he posts however repetitive and idiotic it is, well, thank you for being the best mommy you can be. You can always ignore my posts instead of whining about them. It is an option, no? Have a nice day.

I decided to see who derailed the thread and you can thank Yakicoug. It was going fine until he decided to go after CougEd not once not twice but three times. Ed never mentioned Wulff until Yaki just couldn't help himself and bring it up. For all of the bagging on Ed, you might want to tell Yaki to quit being a dick all the time and maybe these types of threads wouldn't happen. Take a look for yourself at the first page. Every post by Yaki was smartassed without actually contributing anything to the conversation.

His first comment: "Leech pollyannas, both of you!" - Just being a smartass

Second: "You are on record predicting WSU will finish 6-6 in 2016." - can't help but take a shot at Ed. BTW, Ed didn't mention Wulff here.

Third: "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." - another shot at Ed. Again, Wulff hadn't been mentioned.

Fourth: "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." - yet another shot at Ed. Again, there was no mention of Wulff or Wulff's tenure. Ed had said that 2012 fell short of expectations. He didn't talk up Wulff or mention Wulff or say that Wulff would have done better. To say that 2012 failed to meet everyone's preseason expectations is 100% accurate. Yaki was just picking a fight.

If you want to see this board get better, ban fools like Yakicoug that pick fights with other posters constantly, even when that poster isn't even directing comments towards them. He is a poison on this board and a big reason that people avoid this place.

 

[dgibbons]

I already answered that. Read, Ed, Read. If an unbiased 3rd party says it's anyone's game, then yes. If you're trying to pull a freshman type trick, by using weird outlier scores where a team came back from a huge deficit to "prove" something....all that proves is that momentum shifts. Speaking of 18 point deficits....take the 74 Notre Dame/USC game....trojans went in at half down 18, 24-6. As most know they came back to win, 55-24.

Cougs were down to furd in the R Mayes days by I think 24-0, and 35-6 or something like that late in the 3rd but all cougs know that they came back to win.

But none of that changes my point or your sloppy thinking. A game that is competitive at one point can cease to be; and a game that is not competitive can become so. That's why you generally don't use scores alone, Ed. For example, there probably was a time when your mental acuity was in the 50th or so percentile. But those days are long past.....So you WERE normal, but now you aren't. Get it? Brains age. Things change.

Ed was trying to get someone to say that the 2012 AC was not competitive. WSU was behind by 18 at the start of the 4th, won in OT.

 

[SCglory]

Ed was trying to get someone to say that the 2012 AC was not competitive. WSU was behind by 18 at the start of the 4th, won in OT.

Well, I have no problem--as I said--of games shifting from "competitive" to non-competitive, and sometimes back again. That's what happens when 19-year-olds are doing the heavy lifting. That's why score alone doesn't tell the story. Somewhere in a dry (hopefully) box, packed away are tapes sent me by the then AD Rosenbach, and on there is that Rueben Mayes game against Stanford. I would compare that game against ANY improbable comeback. What's interesting about the 74 SC/ND game was that that game was only "competitive" (in the traditional sense of the word), for about 3 minutes in the mid-3rd quarter....sandwiched in between two lopsided portions, one with the irish dominating, the other with the good guys. So, out of 60 minutes, that was not a competitive game for 90% of the time. That's why my standard makes the most sense: ask an impartial and knowledgeable observer.