Pac-12 Preseason Media Poll

[mikalalas]

While I appreciate your enthusiasm.....the 2019 team doesn't appear to be remotely close to the best WSU team in history. I don't know what kind of sauce you are on.....but no. The 2018 team set the record for wins in a season, but only a fool thinks that they were a better team than our 1997 team...or even our 2002 team. I'd take the 1997 or 2002 team head to head against the 2018 team anytime. The 2018 team was very good and had the potential be in the discussion, but getting waxed by the mutts for the sixth straight year and failing to win the conference knocks them out of a reasonable discussion for greatest WSU team ever. FWIW, you are the ONLY person suggesting that the 2019 team is better than last year. Everyone else in the world is expecting at least a minor regression. I hope that you are proven right and this is a great team, but your rants belittle the efforts of WSU teams in the past that accomplished things that no Leach team has done yet. Before we declare that Leach is the greatest coach in the history of the game, maybe it would be a good idea to actually win the conference? Price did it twice.....while facing elite competition in the conference. UCLA (#5) in 1997 and USC (#4) in 2002 were great teams that finished in the Top 5 in the final polls. Name the team that we've beaten in the past four years that is in the same discussion as those two teams.

For your ongoing delusion about where we are ranked.......I'd love for you to show me who has us ranked #5 right now. While you are ranting about that...you might want to refer back to 2002. If you go to the ESPN page, you'll see that WSU was ranked #7 in both the AP and Coaches poll in the preseason poll. That team reached as high as #3 in the rankings before losing to UW in the AC because of Gesser's injury. Most publications are thinking that we are a Top 25 team, I don't believe that there is any legitimate publication saying that we have a Top 10 team.

I'm thrilled with what Leach has done with our program. He consistently brings in "football players" that are hard workers and buy into his system. In every measurable way, he is the best coach that we've ever had when it comes to building a "Program" instead of a "Team". We all get that. Price was better at gaming the system at the time and landing the occasional great recruiting class, but he left WSU right as it appeared that he had finally really gotten it figured out. And I agree with you that we are unlikely to finish 5-7. That doesn't mean that you don't sound like a Husky douchebag when you type a bunch of rants in all caps. Show some humility and respect. Hope for the best but don't get yourself in such a twist that your Cougar soul is destroyed if we don't win 8+ games. And learn how to type more coherently. Christ man....settle down.

You still either ignore, dont understand, etc:

WHAT ON PAPER, ON PAPER, ON PAPER, ON PAPER, ON PAPER, ON PAPER means.

ON PAPER means, is where a team has a certain level of talent, coaching, etc, or a lack thereof.

Example: If we were to go back in a time machine, and its 2008,2009, and lets say that we recognize, had reasonable logical proof, that that team ON PAPER, ON PAPER, ON PAPER, was the WORST TEAM IN WSU HISTORY.

Now would that be LITERALLY OFF PAPER OFF PAPER be the WORST TEAM IN WSU HISTORY YET?

NO

WHY?

BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO PLAY THE GAMES FIRST.

For all we knew back then WSU could have won a couple, few, some games, and not been the WORST TEAM ever in WSU team history.

WSU had to actually lose like they did to PROVE THEIR ON PAPERNESS of being the worst team in WSU History.

The same kind of thing for now.

This team is either the best team, or one of the best WSU teams in WSU history ON PAPER, ON PAPER, ON PAPER, ON PAPER, Skill, Talent, Recruit Player rankings, Team rankings, talent wise, coaching, depth, schedule, etc, wise.

Thats technically a ON PAPER, ON PAPER fact.

But even tho that's the case, THEY STILL HAVE TO PLAY THE GAMES, TO PROVE THEIR ON PAPERNESS.

I KNOW ALL ABOUT 97, 2001,2002, Last years team

Those teams are NOT better ON PAPER, then this year's WSU team.

But they are TECHNICALLY BETTER, because they have PROVEN their ON PAPER potential, and have achieved the BEST RESULTS IN WSU HISTORY SO FAR IN WSU HISTORY.

There is a difference between ON PAPER, and RESULTS

This team ON PAPER is either the best team, or one of the best teams in WSU history, ON PAPER.

That means that the team has that kind of talent, skill, coaching, REALISTIC POTENTIAL, POTENTIAL, POTENTIAL, but not the RESULTS, YET.

Most people know what ON PAPER means

You dont.

But hopefully now you know what ON PAPER MEANS NOW.

As far as the awards, rankings, etc, I told you I am not making it up, and that there was a now buried WSU Watch thread here, that was either SOONERHIA Like, or posted by Scott, or another poster, that linked to the #5, #10 ranking, to the neutral, objective thing that said that ONLY CLEMSON, ALABAMA, GEORGIA, NOTRE DAME, OHIO STATE, MICHIGAN had a better chance then WSU of going to PLAY OFF, NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME, AND WINNING IT.

Do you really idiotically think I would make that up, say something like that, if I hadnt seen it first?

If so, your a idiot.

I am not sure where to find it, or if I can find it. If I can find it, I will post it.

But I shouldnt have to.

Others have seen it here, before it got buried.

And you have probably seen it here, before it got buried.

That or you dont pay attention to stuff like that.

Or you dont remember it, etc.

But if I do find it, I will be sure to post it and rub your face in it.

 

[mikalalas]

And here is the CBS Poll posted by Loyal Coug.

Also is was posted by NCW, with FLAT in the post, thread.

I would post a link to the threads, but dont know how.

But I did copy, paste Loyal Coug's OP, link, etc:



Has us at #10 (thanks for the tip, clickbait.com). Now that is some love.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/rankings/cbs-sports-ranking/

 

[mikalalas]

But sure such a team will probably win less then 8-5, 3rd place Pac 12 bowl win at worst.

NOT

 

[random soul]

Before Thompson's departure I actually thought this defense had a chance to be our best since '03, and that our chances of winning the division rode on that. Now I'm a bit less confident, but I still think we're contenders.

 

[mikalalas]

Before Thompson's departure I actually thought this defense had a chance to be our best since '03, and that our chances of winning the division rode on that. Now I'm a bit less confident, but I still think we're contenders.

While losing Thompson does suck, hurt some, Thomas is moving to his strength at SS, while JC Transfer Beekman who is AWESOME is going to start at Free Safety, and so WSU will probably be just fine defensively.

 

[Fab5Coug]

No way in hell would WSU under Leach, with this years team, with GAGE GUBRUD, The best WR CORP IN PAC 12, #5 WR CORP IN NATION, ONLY wins 5 games.

Only way WSU would only win 5 games, is Gage, and Gordon both get injured(and even then that might not be enough as even Tinsley, Cooper could probably grind out 6,7 wins)

And Max Borghi and Mc Intosh, 1 or both would have to also get injured in addition to the QB's

And Tay, Patmon, Easop Winston, would all 3 have to get injured, in addition to QB's, Max Borghi, and even then the remaining WR's might still be good enough.

Or if that didnt happen on offense, enough injuries on defense, especially on either the DL or Secondary, as LB could weather a injury or 2 there.

And even then if the defense got injured, the offense might semi probably win.

There is a reason why one of the national rankers ranked WSU #10 in the nation.

There is a reason why the other rankers have WSU at about 17 to 27 in nation.

There is a reason why WSU WR CORP is ranked tied for 1st in Pac 12 and #5,6 in nation.

There is a reason why WSU has so many players on award watchlist, and highly favored odds wise to win those awards.

All that usually doesnt happen if the team only wins 5 games.

Talent, Situation, coaching, Schedule, etc, this is one of the BEST WSU teams ON PAPER.

Such a team, usually does not only win 5 games.

Thiis team will logically, rationally, reasonably, REALISTICALLY win 8,9, 8.5 games to 10,11, 10.5 games.

The Vegas over/under on wins for WSU is 8/8.5, with most, and smart money taking the over.

The only team on schedule that a probable, should lose loss, is Oregon.

UW lost their Defense, has to replace their defense, and their transfer QB starter(If starts), is a STONE STATUE, and while not bad, is about on par with WSU QB Gordon. And UW lost WR, Gaskins, etc.

The fuskies will probably win about 5,6 5.5 to 7,8, 7.5 games with 6.5 wins as Over/Under.

That is not a team that's a Probable Should Lose To team.

And Utah is overrated. Their offense wont be that good. They are like Cal, in that Utah has a awesome defense.

I see only 2 lossses, throw in the proverbial 1 loss WSU shouldnt lose and I see at least a 9-3 season.

And certainly not a only win 5 games season(Except for massive injuries, etc)

WSU will win at least 7,8 games, and will not only win 5 games, and if that were to happen, I will LITERALLY EAT MY WORDS(Except for Massive Injuries causing the only winning 5 games)

Jacob Eason is about on par with Anthony Gordon?

Dude.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

I actually think that this season is much easier to handicap than last year.

I assume Gubrud is the better QB and will start, but I might be wrong. Either way, we have at least two good QB's and a better, more experienced and serviceable 3rd choice than usual. That suggests that a QB injury won't kill us as it did, and regularly could have done, once upon a time. Sure, a pile of injuries would hurt a lot. But a single injury? Unlikely to kill us. Might be the difference between 1st and 3rd in the north, but this team looks good enough to win 8 games if we had to start our second best QB (which ever kid that ends up being).

Personally, due to the QB depth, I'd say the worst loss to a single injury would be Borghi. When in the Leach era (at either WSU or TT) might someone have suggested that the worst potential injury would be a RB rather than the starting QB, without being laughed out of the room? You may disagree with me, but you have to acknowledge that I can at least make the case that our most irreplaceable player on offense is the starting RB.

Our D looked better than last year until we lost our captain and 3 year starter (would have been 4 years) at safety. Now we merely look about as good as last year.

We have all the specialists back, and they had a decent year last year. And the coaching staff had very little turnover since last year. Claeys in particular has impressed, and this is his second year...historically a step up for any D coordinator from his first year.

8 wins minimum. If we avoid injuries I think we could win 11. I don't see us running the table, if for no other reason than CML's teams (like many HC's teams) seem to always have at least one game where they come out either flat as a pancake or so hyped that they can't do anything right for at least a quarter. That is more about team chemistry and leadership than it is about coaching. CML in particular tries to maintain an even keel week in and week out, but that is hard to do 100% of the time with young men.

I also think the Apple Cup will determine the north champ. It might be between the two WA schools, or one of us might only be a potential spoiler, but it pencils out to be the game that determines the final winner for the north.

 

[Fab5Coug]

You still either ignore, dont understand, etc:

WHAT ON PAPER, ON PAPER, ON PAPER, ON PAPER, ON PAPER, ON PAPER means.

ON PAPER means, is where a team has a certain level of talent, coaching, etc, or a lack thereof.

Example: If we were to go back in a time machine, and its 2008,2009, and lets say that we recognize, had reasonable logical proof, that that team ON PAPER, ON PAPER, ON PAPER, was the WORST TEAM IN WSU HISTORY.

Now would that be LITERALLY OFF PAPER OFF PAPER be the WORST TEAM IN WSU HISTORY YET?

NO

WHY?

BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO PLAY THE GAMES FIRST.

For all we knew back then WSU could have won a couple, few, some games, and not been the WORST TEAM ever in WSU team history.

WSU had to actually lose like they did to PROVE THEIR ON PAPERNESS of being the worst team in WSU History.

The same kind of thing for now.

This team is either the best team, or one of the best WSU teams in WSU history ON PAPER, ON PAPER, ON PAPER, ON PAPER, Skill, Talent, Recruit Player rankings, Team rankings, talent wise, coaching, depth, schedule, etc, wise.

Thats technically a ON PAPER, ON PAPER fact.

But even tho that's the case, THEY STILL HAVE TO PLAY THE GAMES, TO PROVE THEIR ON PAPERNESS.

I KNOW ALL ABOUT 97, 2001,2002, Last years team

Those teams are NOT better ON PAPER, then this year's WSU team.

But they are TECHNICALLY BETTER, because they have PROVEN their ON PAPER potential, and have achieved the BEST RESULTS IN WSU HISTORY SO FAR IN WSU HISTORY.

There is a difference between ON PAPER, and RESULTS

This team ON PAPER is either the best team, or one of the best teams in WSU history, ON PAPER.

That means that the team has that kind of talent, skill, coaching, REALISTIC POTENTIAL, POTENTIAL, POTENTIAL, but not the RESULTS, YET.

Most people know what ON PAPER means

You dont.

But hopefully now you know what ON PAPER MEANS NOW.

As far as the awards, rankings, etc, I told you I am not making it up, and that there was a now buried WSU Watch thread here, that was either SOONERHIA Like, or posted by Scott, or another poster, that linked to the #5, #10 ranking, to the neutral, objective thing that said that ONLY CLEMSON, ALABAMA, GEORGIA, NOTRE DAME, OHIO STATE, MICHIGAN had a better chance then WSU of going to PLAY OFF, NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME, AND WINNING IT.

Do you really idiotically think I would make that up, say something like that, if I hadnt seen it first?

If so, your a idiot.

I am not sure where to find it, or if I can find it. If I can find it, I will post it.

But I shouldnt have to.

Others have seen it here, before it got buried.

And you have probably seen it here, before it got buried.

That or you dont pay attention to stuff like that.

Or you dont remember it, etc.

But if I do find it, I will be sure to post it and rub your face in it.

No one has WSU ranked in the top 10, no matter how many times you post it.

 

[95coug]

Between our schedule and our recent performance, I think it’s completely reasonable to expect 8 wins.

Problem is that one or two serious injuries to starters can create a swing of a game or two for almost any team. Possibly more for us, with less quality depth. If the wrong guy goes down for the season (and on the current roster I think the wrong guy is Borghi, Woods, Lucas, or Mauigoa), that could create a -3 in the win column.

One other problem I have with handicapping the season: it’s the Cougs. Here’s a complete list of the seasons in the last 30 years where their results lined up pretty well with what I expected:











That pretty much covers it.

 

[random soul]

Between our schedule and our recent performance, I think it’s completely reasonable to expect 8 wins.

Problem is that one or two serious injuries to starters can create a swing of a game or two for almost any team. Possibly more for us, with less quality depth. If the wrong guy goes down for the season (and on the current roster I think the wrong guy is Borghi, Woods, Lucas, or Mauigoa), that could create a -3 in the win column.

One other problem I have with handicapping the season: it’s the Cougs. Here’s a complete list of the seasons in the last 30 years where their results lined up pretty well with what I expected:











That pretty much covers it.

2002 and 2009 were the two years when what I expected to happen, more or less happened, for better and worse. Outside of that, you're pretty much on the mark

 

[mikalalas]

I actually think that this season is much easier to handicap than last year.

I assume Gubrud is the better QB and will start, but I might be wrong. Either way, we have at least two good QB's and a better, more experienced and serviceable 3rd choice than usual. That suggests that a QB injury won't kill us as it did, and regularly could have done, once upon a time. Sure, a pile of injuries would hurt a lot. But a single injury? Unlikely to kill us. Might be the difference between 1st and 3rd in the north, but this team looks good enough to win 8 games if we had to start our second best QB (which ever kid that ends up being).

Personally, due to the QB depth, I'd say the worst loss to a single injury would be Borghi. When in the Leach era (at either WSU or TT) might someone have suggested that the worst potential injury would be a RB rather than the starting QB, without being laughed out of the room? You may disagree with me, but you have to acknowledge that I can at least make the case that our most irreplaceable player on offense is the starting RB.

Our D looked better than last year until we lost our captain and 3 year starter (would have been 4 years) at safety. Now we merely look about as good as last year.

We have all the specialists back, and they had a decent year last year. And the coaching staff had very little turnover since last year. Claeys in particular has impressed, and this is his second year...historically a step up for any D coordinator from his first year.

8 wins minimum. If we avoid injuries I think we could win 11. I don't see us running the table, if for no other reason than CML's teams (like many HC's teams) seem to always have at least one game where they come out either flat as a pancake or so hyped that they can't do anything right for at least a quarter. That is more about team chemistry and leadership than it is about coaching. CML in particular tries to maintain an even keel week in and week out, but that is hard to do 100% of the time with young men.

I also think the Apple Cup will determine the north champ. It might be between the two WA schools, or one of us might only be a potential spoiler, but it pencils out to be the game that determines the final winner for the north.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[95coug]

I thought of both of those years as close ones, but I don’t recall expecting a Rose Bowl in 2002, and I do recall in 2009 thinking they couldn’t be worse than 2008.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I thought of both of those years as close ones, but I don’t recall expecting a Rose Bowl in 2002, and I do recall in 2009 thinking they couldn’t be worse than 2008.

I was excited about 2002 and most people felt we had a chance to win the conference. It was a bit surreal to see WSU so highly rated for the NCAA 2003 video game (which was based on the 2002 season). Cougs were #7 and Martin Stadium was in their Top 25 hardest places to play.

Sadly, the comments about 2009 are spot on. We all knew it was going to be a rough season. Although I’d argue that it was even worse than expected. I passed on going to see the Cougs in San Antonio before the season started, because it was obviously going to be a beating of epic proportions.