3 kickoff returns and 2 punt returns for TDs in the scrimmage?
Apparently, we can't even stop OUR special teams return units. Yikes.
Apparently, we can't even stop OUR special teams return units. Yikes.
Special teams....OMG
- Thread starter CougPatrol
- Start date
3 kickoff returns and 2 punt returns for TDs in the scrimmage?
Apparently, we can't even stop OUR special teams return units. Yikes.
I read that. There is a lot to work on special teams wise. hopefully it gets ironed out.
I think the clear takeaway here is our increased explosiveness in our return game.3 kickoff returns and 2 punt returns for TDs in the scrimmage?
Apparently, we can't even stop OUR special teams return units. Yikes.
Just f'in kick 'em all out of bounds.
3 kickoff returns and 2 punt returns for TDs in the scrimmage?
Apparently, we can't even stop OUR special teams return units. Yikes.
Explosive! Like your bowels after a trip to Mexico!
How about covering in your lanes. Other teams can o=cover teams and punts, we should be able as well.
Yeah I'm more encouraged by that news than discouraged. Perhaps we will actually do something when the ball is kicked to us this year? I think Bumpus was the last Coug to take one back.
Yup 2005 September 9th at Nevada that was in the middle of Doba...then of course we were doing it the right way..and it's been a decade. I hope we are close this year to breaking yet another one of our long droughts.
You are numbers guy. How many kicks were taken back the last ten years where we kicked the ball? How many did we have last year?
Well since you asked.
Punt Returns for TDs
2008 - 1
2009 - 2
2010 - 2
2011 - 2 - Total Opp. Punt Returns for TDs during Wulff tenure... 7
2012 - 0
2013 - 0
2014 - 3 - Total Opp. Punt Returns for TDs during Leach tenure... 3
Kick off Returns
2008 - 1
2009 - 2
2010 - 0
2011 - 4 - Total Opp. Kickoff returns for TDs durring Wulff tenure... 7
2012 - 1
2013 - 1
2014 - 3 - Total Opp. Kickoff returns for TDs during Leach tenure...5
So despite how bad our return coverage was last year....
Leach has only allowed 8 in 3 years. 2.6 / year
Wulff allowed 14 in 4 years, 3.5 / year
75% of Leach's total happened in just 1 year (of which the special teams coach was fired for)
42.8% of Wulff's total happened in just 1 year. (which shows he was much more consistent in having terrible special teams)
Also worth noting. The largest number of kickoff returns for TDs happened during the miracle ceiling year of Wulff in 2011 with 4.
We really need to quit comparing this team to anything put forward by Wulff. We all agree that it was a terrible time. Being better than terrible is not our goal here. We gave up 6 returns for TD's in 2014. That is freakin' terrible in itself. It's time for Leach to produce a good team, not saying, "At least Wulff is my Mississippi".
It's where we came from, and its used to show if there is improvement or not. Up until last year we had improved quite a bit allowing just 2 in two years. But last year it was a very poor step backwards, and thus Russell was fired. Hopefully now we can get back on track.
Why in the Hell is Wulff's name mentioned in this string? Can't we, at least in August when optimism is high, stop comparing Leach to the worst coach in school history?
This link http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feist ranks all D-1 special teams and had us rated 127th (2nd to last) in 2014. Broken down by category, we ranked:
Utah ranked 5th
UAB ranked 3rd
ESPN's rankings tell a similar tale. http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/teamratings/_/year/2014/sort/stEfficiency/tab/efficiency
Idaho's ranking is unbelievable for a team that finished 1-11. Perhaps we should have gone after their special teams coach? When you look at these rankings, it's clear that you don't need world class Power 5 conference athletes to have quality special teams play. If we can rise up to the top-60 in special teams, I think that alone will get us to 6-6.
This link http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feist ranks all D-1 special teams and had us rated 127th (2nd to last) in 2014. Broken down by category, we ranked:
- 111th in Field Goal efficiency
- 126th in punt return efficiency
- 126 in punt efficiency (coverage)
- 118th in kickoff efficiency (coverage)
Utah ranked 5th
UAB ranked 3rd
ESPN's rankings tell a similar tale. http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/teamratings/_/year/2014/sort/stEfficiency/tab/efficiency
Idaho's ranking is unbelievable for a team that finished 1-11. Perhaps we should have gone after their special teams coach? When you look at these rankings, it's clear that you don't need world class Power 5 conference athletes to have quality special teams play. If we can rise up to the top-60 in special teams, I think that alone will get us to 6-6.
Someone asked how many times we had TDs scored on us in the past so I answered, and you are correct you don't need world class Power 5 conference athletes, but Idaho did need the 119th of 128 strength of schedule to achieve their high ranking and 1-11 season.
OK, so take Idaho out of the discussion if you choose. Do all of the teams ranked in the top-60 of the special teams stats recruit athletes better than ours? Utah is a great model to copy.
Your logic would forbid comparing any economic gains since 2008 to, well, 2008.
It's odd to me that people continually point to the Wulff years as if it's the barometer for success.
If Leach leaves Pullman or gets the boot someday, is our Athletic Director going to ask coaching candidates what their plan is to regain the glory of 2010?
How about we hold Leach to the standard of 6th or above in our conference?
Not quite. Many here simply have to continually refute the idiotic suggestions that those years weren't as bad as they really were. If the Paultergeists' lame and obsessive defenses stopped, so would the butt whuppings that follow them.
Great point.
Should all future stock markets be compared to the gains from 2008 to 2014 or would it be wiser to look at a bigger picture than that?
Comparing a terrible 2014 special teams performance to our special teams under Wulff is like saying that the 2000 point drop in the Dow in 2011 was ok since it wasn't as bad as the 5000 point drop in 2008. It still sucked.
Wiser or not… With this analogy, whenever a drop occurs, they make analogies to this downturn or that downturn. Comparisons are normal. It's the fights, fits, personal attacks and stupidity that thrives on this board that people get tired of. But the comparisons are normal. Look at TT. Anyone that coaches there, will forever be compared to CML. When Stoops leaves UO, will no one speak his name in any comparison? Positive or negative comparisons are normal.
No 2008 is not the benchmark for what we are trying to do, but Wulff's tenure serves as the starting point for where the team/program was at. That's what Leach walked into. So you look at the data and see how he did. 2012/2013 were decent years. only 2 returns for TDs. Much better than what we were doing before. Then 2014 came, and now we can see that it was a terrible terrible year for special teams. Leach fired Russell and now we can move forward.
The only reason I brought up the 2008-2011 stats was because Ed...in his own form of idiocy threw a little tantrum asking "well how many tds did we have before?!" trying to insinuate that all of sudden allowing TDs happened under Leach....which is contrary to the false narrative that Ed likes to propagate. ... because he doesn't believe in logic, facts, reason, insurmountable data, 3rd party independent journalists worst BCS team declarations, the fact he was fired from USF after 1 year, the fact he could only get a job with Team USA....if you are tired of it. I'm tired of spelling it out.
But the question is Tech comparing Klingsbury to Tommy Tuberville? I agree with Patrol, I would at least hope the comparison is to Mike Price, unless we think Leach isn't capable of getting much higher than what Wulff did.
Good grief, I simply asked a question. A tantrum? I asked a very simple question. I won't insinuate anything. Our special teams sucked last year. But there was a legitimate question, how have we performed that last 10 years.
Not an insinuation, I don't recall having one year every time we kicked the ball it was going to the house. Of course I could be incorrect on that. Thus a question.
Last edited:
Ummm...no one refutes they were horrible. They were worse than 98-2000. What is being refuted is how the program looked when it was handed over to how it looked when they left, both in terms of young players and young players with eligibility and playing experience with several years left if not three.
I just refute Matt E and his line mates both short term and long term where better than Cooper, Laurenzi, Pole, Long and, David and Paulo. I refute Lopina, JT Levy, Rogers, and Lobster were better than Tuel, Halliday, Clements and Apodoca. And in hindsight I believe Jake Rodgers, Fullington, Goetz, Jacobson, Ecklund, Dahl(just showed up after being offered and turned down) and Bosch were any worse (being kind) than Lesuma for one year, Hannam for two Alfred for two, and Joey Eppele, and BJ Guerra for four.
Last edited:
Here's one from this year.
Texas Tech coach Kliff Kingsbury focused only on winning
EDIT: The crazy part of this… All you have to do is google Kliff Kingsbury and Tommy… and it fills it in for you, there are so many articles.
Maybe I missed it. No where did I read where Tuberville is he comparison to the standard of where program should b headed under Klingsbury. They talk about Leach being the standard. That should be the comparison I would think. Not the guy who was fired. I would think Price should be the standard, not Wulff. The oh but he isn't 9-40 kinda rings hallow.
The problem with statistics is that they are so easily twisted. You point out that the cumulative numbers for Leach are better than Wulff but ignore the fact that 2014 was actually as bad as any year for either coach (and maybe any WSU team in decades). What conclusion should we draw from that? Is WSU football collapsing to Wulffian levels? Or is it pointless to even compare them in the first place?
What it means is that special teams were indeed very bad, but they were okay in 2012/2013. So while it was a down year for special teams the view point is that we can and have had them better just the year before. We should be able to do better this year on special teams with a new coach and focus on the unit. The key thing to take away is that when we hit a wulff level of bad we need to address the issue. Leach fired the Russell which is exactly what he is supposed to do.
So how did Melee do after he was put in? Well we only had Arizona where we had 1 punt and 1 kickoff for a TD. After that we were okay. A majority of the TDs scored were Cal / Utah. So hopefully with a full year of practice these coverage issues will be addressed.
For me, the discussion in this thread about how 2014 ranks as bad is strictly related to special teams performance. I agree that 2008 and 2009 are in truly in elite company when it comes to overall suckitude.
As for Tron.....I get that you are trying to shine a positive light on things, but there isn't any kind of comparison to anything that is going to make last year anything but terrible. Playing games with statistics on this doesn't provide any value in my opinion. We sucked last year on an epic level, bad enough to be compared to performance during Wulff's tenure. It was unacceptable and people lost their jobs. At the end of 2015 (and 2016 for sure), if the only way to put a positive spin on our program is to compare it to Wulff, we've got some serious freakin' problems. This is four years out from Wulff, it's sad that he's still part of the discussion at all.
Let's just hope that the changes made since the beginning of 2014 show a meaningful improvement.
Here's the thing, tho ed. Google "Kliff Kingsbury vs Tommy Tuberville and you get literally hundreds of pages with who knows how many articles per page. With literally hundreds of articles, I can guarantee you, there's comparisons in there with Tommy and Kliff. But I'll be honest, I don't want to wade through them all. But if it's important to you, go for it. I'd suggest staying in the "news" portion.
I would suggest to you that the vast majority of Tech fans don't believe that Kingsbury is sainted and granted 5 years of no judgment just because Tuberville wasn't as good as Leach. In fact, if Tech doesn't make a bowl game this year, you can expect that Kliff Kingsbury will be in strong contention for the title "former Texas Tech Head Coach". By 2016 (the equivalent of this year for Leach), if Tech isn't winning, Kingsbury is guaranteed to be gone. Unfortunately for Kliff, he has to face Arkansas, Baylor, TCU, OU, O-State, West Virginia, KSU and Texas. Getting two wins against that lineup will not be easy. Texas is expected to be much tougher in year two under Strong. Arkansas' six losses last year were to 8-5 Auburn, 8-5 A&M, 12-2 Bama, 10-3 Georgia, 10-3 Miss. State and 11-3 Missouri. They beat 8-5 LSU and 9-4 Mississippi. West Virginia did have a sketchy loss to 6-7 Texas, but the rest of their losses were to 12-2 Bama, 8-5 OU, 12-1 TCU, 9-4 KSU and 8-5 A&M. When that's the three best chances you have to win, you have a rough schedule ahead. Tech will be lucky to finish 6-6 and I wouldn't bet on it. 5-7 is far more likely.
At that time, any comparisons to Tuberville will be that Kliff sucks just much as Tuberville and needs to be fired. That is almost exactly the same thinking that people who are critical of Leach are applying. If anything, bringing up Tech bolsters Ed's position....not yours. It might be best to not use Tech as your example?
I would pretty much agree whole-heartedly with you on all points in the first paragraph. But why wouldn't I use such an analogy again? You are trying to use suggestions of Kliffs future demise. I'm saying there are a boat load of articles that compare Kliff to Tubby 2 years ago… last year... this year. He was saying that doesn't happen, that only WE, the lowly Wazzu Fans compare the low to the current coaches. I said it does happen and all I had to do is google it and there were so many articles, I gave up. Didn't even START to read any because there were so many. So I don't know what you're reading...
Wulff was always going to be in the discussions because he still had his fingerprints on the team. College football (and other college sports) are very much a dividends pay later kind of sport. So what as done 3-4 years prior still affects what happens today because that's where your upper classmen come from. And what you are recruiting today usually doesn't pay full until later.
So Wulff indeed was having to deal with mistakes doba made, but the way he handled those mistakes was really poor, and the way he was setting up the future was poor. When the offensive line was poor and lacked depth in 2012 that's on Wulff. When the 2011 class had 1 DB that did nothing that affects 2014. As to Leach's mistakes. yes there have been some. If the Huskies didn't poach our kicker I think Russell may still have his job. He didn't secure him, and we paid badly for it. He lost his job for it. If Breske was able to find a way to secure JCs or talent to bridge the departure of secondary players for 2014 he may still have his job, but he didn't and thus he was fired.
It's all part of common threads. Leach has improved our recruiting tremendously where we are competing with other Pac-12 teams for players and beating them out and he's brought in young coaches who can recruit as well. The benefits will pay off big down the line, and as we move forward we will be getting better and better.
The future looks extremely promising under Leach
numerous scholarship lineman that are big, 3 QBs that look really good, a whole truckload of receivers, and great RBs.
On defense we have the best Poly pipeline bringing in big athletic players, we have some great linebackers in Luvu, Leniu, Pelleur, Hoyd, Porter, etc. and two young aggressive recruiters to help us get better and better players.
Yeah we had a bad season, but our future looks good. Like really good. Like a team that has depth, and talent to compete in the Pac-12.
Not important at all. You asked me how many do you need to post. I didn't need any. I would think Leach is the bench mark. I would be ultra surprised if people at Tech said...Well Klingsbury won one more game that Tuberville. He has that going for him. I would think the Tech people would hope Kliff aspires to the success Leach had, or some sort of form of that.
