according to some analysts... WSU is headed for 6-6 in 2016'. The only thing I can gather is that the improved defense was a gimmick last year over the previous year and that the offense was a gimmick as well. "Lucky" is how it's being described on Oregon sports talk shows. From where we stand...it might be really good luck. WSU goes from being taken seriously to perhaps being overlooked by their opponents. Good stuff.
Word on the street is that WSU got really lucky last year
- Thread starter froropmkr72
- Start date
lol.....nobody beats oregon unless they get "lucky." Well, yes, as TCU can testify, beating oregon w/o Adams is a lot easier than when he was there. But that's football. It was also "unlucky" that Falk did not play in the AC, so cougs were "unlucky" there.....usually, over time, breaks even out more or less. Oregon sports shows are a joke, perhaps the worst I have heard anywhere. I think the cougs are set up for a nice run this season.....
Until we prove that we aren't a one hit wonder, it's natural for everyone to be skeptical. We were 3 plays away from 11-0 last year and we were 4 plays away from 4-8 again. That's how fickle college football can be. I'd like to think that our team is getting better each year under Leach and that those close wins end up being easy wins and at least half of the close losses end up being wins. If we are still a team that is one play away from winning and losing games, you never know how the season will work out for sure. It's a compliment to Leach that they are still assuming bowl eligibility for us.
Agree 100%.
People round these parts got real testy when I suggested that playing an Adams-less Oregon factored in our win at Autzen (TCU game helped to bolster that theory), just like my Husky friends protested that us missing Falk for the AC factored. EVERYTHING plays a role, but if you're depending on luck/injuries - or if you're attributing entire seasons to that - you're wrong. I can't say we do better than .500 this year (I very much think we'll crush that), but I can say with confidence that you don't get lucky for 4 straight months.
They ignore the fact that three loses were close games as well. Obviously all close games must result in losses, otherwise it was luck.
I don't agree with the "luck" analysis, but objectively, the level headed Coug fans I know are both optimistic and concerned about the upcoming season. The vast majority of our games last season could have gone either way. If we improve in 2016, we should win a lot of them. If we dip in some areas, I could see us falling to .500 or thereabouts.
I expect that our offense will be more polished, and subsequently, more effective this season; especially at home. One thing that Leach's Texas Tech teams did that we haven't seen yet is beat down some conference opponents to the tune of 62-14 once or twice a year. I think that's going to happen this season. If you roll into Pullman with significant injuries or attrition to your defense, it's going to be a long day.
Falk was great last season when it mattered most in crunch time, but we sputtered during parts of games. This season, I think we're going to see some games where we score TD's on 5 of our first 6 drives and break down teams early. Unfortunately, I also think we're going to face some teams that can score at will on us as well. At the end of the season, I think 8-9 wins sounds right to me, but I won't be shocked if we only win 7.
I expect that our offense will be more polished, and subsequently, more effective this season; especially at home. One thing that Leach's Texas Tech teams did that we haven't seen yet is beat down some conference opponents to the tune of 62-14 once or twice a year. I think that's going to happen this season. If you roll into Pullman with significant injuries or attrition to your defense, it's going to be a long day.
Falk was great last season when it mattered most in crunch time, but we sputtered during parts of games. This season, I think we're going to see some games where we score TD's on 5 of our first 6 drives and break down teams early. Unfortunately, I also think we're going to face some teams that can score at will on us as well. At the end of the season, I think 8-9 wins sounds right to me, but I won't be shocked if we only win 7.
Man since we didn't blow out all those top teams we "upset" that must have meant we were lucky and whatnot, and not "really good".
If you beat Oregon and UCLA on the road by 1 or more points, you have a pretty good team.
If you beat Oregon and UCLA on the road by 1 or more points, you have a pretty good team.
Luck is part of the game, just as a 1997 WSU team had its share. While Ed and other pissers and moaners are praying for 3-9, a 6-6 season wouldn't be the end of the world, particularly if most of the losses are games we easily could have won.
I am cautiously optimistic. I also have seen it all in my years as a WSU fan. The conference is tough, even if it is projected to be a down year.
Seems that by definition to some, in the rare years that WSU wins the conference, it is a down year for the league. I'll take it any day though.
Many times it comes down to staying away from the injury bug to key players. We all know who those are (and one in particular).
Seems that by definition to some, in the rare years that WSU wins the conference, it is a down year for the league. I'll take it any day though.
Many times it comes down to staying away from the injury bug to key players. We all know who those are (and one in particular).
Since Leach's Cougars don't have injuries were gonna be fine in that regard.
I am cautiously optimistic. I also have seen it all in my years a
Oh yeah. I forgot that Falk just decided to let Bender play instead of him in the AC last year.
I'm not sure I'd call it lucky, but we did benefit from timing in our schedule last year.
At that point in the season, I don't think we were strong enough to beat UO with Adams. Maybe a few weeks later we would - the team that took Stanford to the wire and beat UCLA on the road could have hung with Adams, but in the first week of October I don't think we had the confidence. Our schedule actually laid out for us really well, so call that luck if you want.
We were lucky that Falk didn't get knocked out sooner, with some of the shots he took.
I think we could put together a nice run this year, although that off-season stretch is going to be brutal. Need to be firing in all cylinders, and with no glaring questions on D, before the end of September.
I agree that the O should be even better than last year - we should see full games that look like our first half against OSU, and no games that look like the sleepwalking against PSU and Wyoming.
But the big question is D. It'll be a big improvement if they could just figure out how to cover the QB on the run (I still think we win 2 more games in '15 if we don't let the QB run). The #1 offense in the country doesn't get us past a minor bowl if the D lays down every time someone farts in their general direction.
At that point in the season, I don't think we were strong enough to beat UO with Adams. Maybe a few weeks later we would - the team that took Stanford to the wire and beat UCLA on the road could have hung with Adams, but in the first week of October I don't think we had the confidence. Our schedule actually laid out for us really well, so call that luck if you want.
We were lucky that Falk didn't get knocked out sooner, with some of the shots he took.
I think we could put together a nice run this year, although that off-season stretch is going to be brutal. Need to be firing in all cylinders, and with no glaring questions on D, before the end of September.
I agree that the O should be even better than last year - we should see full games that look like our first half against OSU, and no games that look like the sleepwalking against PSU and Wyoming.
But the big question is D. It'll be a big improvement if they could just figure out how to cover the QB on the run (I still think we win 2 more games in '15 if we don't let the QB run). The #1 offense in the country doesn't get us past a minor bowl if the D lays down every time someone farts in their general direction.
I pretty much have to agree with Flat and 95. The schedule worked for us last year, but I think the schedule this year is every bit as favorable. Falk going down impacted us just as much as losing Adams impacted the Ducks. Our D's ability to contain the QB while generating a pass rush will be a big yardstick this year...but it isn't just us....the entire PAC will face that same issue on most of the league game Saturdays. It has always been a necessity for a PAC team to have good corners, DT's that could absorb blocks to free up LB's, and DE's that can rush. What is more of a factor today than in the past is the DE's ability to keep the QB in front of them while they rush (containment) and an OLB or nickel being available to pick up a scrambling QB. That is not an easy feat, and every D in the league has the same problem.
As for the whole "we got lucky" theme, of course we got lucky. But you make a lot of your own luck. A team that won as many close games at the end as we did can always be called lucky, but if that is the reason for the "lucky" label, it is something to feel good about. Some teams finish. Others don't. Last year we were able to finish, and I'm optimistic that this year's team will be similar.
Finally, with regard to the Oregon sports shows....they have every reason to be worried about this year. Sure, they have a lot of good athletes on their roster. But their recruiting has been really uneven for several years now, and the recruiting gaps and failures...QB being the poster child, but far from the only area of concern (look at D tackle)...suggests that they will be very thin at some positions. Even areas where they have average depth, such as the O line, were problems for them last year when they had a run of injuries.
I hope we are taken lightly next year, but I doubt that any coaching staffs will feel that way. Fans, maybe. But not our opposing coaches. Let's hope that fan hubris makes some of our opponent's players overconfident. That could be useful.
As for the whole "we got lucky" theme, of course we got lucky. But you make a lot of your own luck. A team that won as many close games at the end as we did can always be called lucky, but if that is the reason for the "lucky" label, it is something to feel good about. Some teams finish. Others don't. Last year we were able to finish, and I'm optimistic that this year's team will be similar.
Finally, with regard to the Oregon sports shows....they have every reason to be worried about this year. Sure, they have a lot of good athletes on their roster. But their recruiting has been really uneven for several years now, and the recruiting gaps and failures...QB being the poster child, but far from the only area of concern (look at D tackle)...suggests that they will be very thin at some positions. Even areas where they have average depth, such as the O line, were problems for them last year when they had a run of injuries.
I hope we are taken lightly next year, but I doubt that any coaching staffs will feel that way. Fans, maybe. But not our opposing coaches. Let's hope that fan hubris makes some of our opponent's players overconfident. That could be useful.
Yes, and here's usually why. Coug teams seldom (ever?) have the depth of the USCs or the Oklahomas, etc. so they need to avoid the injury bug. In 97, the cougs did. Leaf was seemingly indestructible, and Michael Black never got hurt....until the RB....and that could have been fatal. Injuries hurt teams which are shallow in talent more....
Ah...you really do have a tough time moving on. No need to pray for a 3-9 or even 9-3 season. I hope they stay healthy and the Apple Cup is for the Pac 12 north. I think they have the talent to win 10 games, would I be surprised if they went 5-7 or 6-6? Nope. If all things considered and Falk takes even a half of step back, then I could see us at 6-6.
But I would much rather see 10-2.
Last edited:
Year two of a defensive scheme with lots of guys returning...
Year five of the offense finally humming along...find the space and get five yards a play.
I'm expecting great things this season. Gabe Marks didn't come back to go 6-6. I think Coug fans can expect solid to great seasons with Leach at the helm. IMHO, WSU is slowly joining the ranks of the big boys where the expectation of big time winning exists.
Every special season there is luck involved. Sometimes...things don't break a team's way, but I think this team now worries about what they can control and that's why last year's squad was able to pull out some close ones.
Year five of the offense finally humming along...find the space and get five yards a play.
I'm expecting great things this season. Gabe Marks didn't come back to go 6-6. I think Coug fans can expect solid to great seasons with Leach at the helm. IMHO, WSU is slowly joining the ranks of the big boys where the expectation of big time winning exists.
Every special season there is luck involved. Sometimes...things don't break a team's way, but I think this team now worries about what they can control and that's why last year's squad was able to pull out some close ones.
please to be telling which two pdx dunces I can permanently remove from my listening rotation. First guess is the 6-9am guys, but the 12-3 guys run a close second.
Yep, pretty lucky to start out 0-1 with a loss to D2 Portland State... at home...
Last edited:
And Lady Luck was with us when Falk, Dahl, Sorenson, and Cracraft missed the AC.
Calling those wins "luck" insults the guts and execution the whole team showed in those close wins.
Also, as DGib pointed out, nobody talks about the close games that WSU didn't win. Cal, Stanford, and Portland State all are wins if things bounce the other way a couple times, a kick is made, a close replay review call goes the other way, etc.
That said, having rewatched the Rutgers game the other night -- and almost having it give me an ulcer -- it's fair to say that in some of the wins, the team made some incredibly well-timed, highly improbable plays (e.g., lengthy 4th-down conversions, passes that were tipped and then caught, really tough catches along the sideline, etc.). The guys made those plays, along with many others that made those plays meaningful, and calling the wins "luck" is an insult. I don't think it's crazy to say, though, that if they play another set of 7 or 8 close games, it's quite possible that they lose 6 of those despite being just as good of an overall team (and it's possible they might win all 8, too). Here's hoping they step on opponents' throats and win some more games by a couple scores than they did last year.
Also, as DGib pointed out, nobody talks about the close games that WSU didn't win. Cal, Stanford, and Portland State all are wins if things bounce the other way a couple times, a kick is made, a close replay review call goes the other way, etc.
That said, having rewatched the Rutgers game the other night -- and almost having it give me an ulcer -- it's fair to say that in some of the wins, the team made some incredibly well-timed, highly improbable plays (e.g., lengthy 4th-down conversions, passes that were tipped and then caught, really tough catches along the sideline, etc.). The guys made those plays, along with many others that made those plays meaningful, and calling the wins "luck" is an insult. I don't think it's crazy to say, though, that if they play another set of 7 or 8 close games, it's quite possible that they lose 6 of those despite being just as good of an overall team (and it's possible they might win all 8, too). Here's hoping they step on opponents' throats and win some more games by a couple scores than they did last year.
Feel free to note that I never used the term "luck" in my post. I said that college football is fickle. For many, if not most teams, a successful season comes down to a few plays in a few games. Greatness is fleeting for most and many of the "great" teams that you see are teams that made those few plays go their way. The supposedly great UW team in 2000 had 7 wins by less than one touchdown. One play per game the other way and they might have been a 3-8 team. They were good because they made those plays. The 2005 WSU team finished 4-7 with five games that came down to one play with another game (OSU) that we had many opportunities to win. We failed and that made that team a "bad" team.
We won't know what type of team that we'll have this year, but it's good to know that Leach has built the program to the point where we have the opportunity to be a "great" team knowing that it could still be a bad year. As I said before, the longer term hope is that we build up to the point where the bad years are rare and the close games become fewer as we get better. It's tough for a program like WSU to do that and we have to hope that Leach is the man to do that.
These are good points. For what it's worth, in response to your "[f]eel free to note" point, I wasn't impugning you or anyone else in particular re anything that had been said in the thread ... I think it's all been pretty reasonable. I was just addressing anyone (e.g., some fool on talk radio) who might look at WSU's 2015 season at a superficial level and dismiss the record as owing to luck.
The only thing that is slightly different from my perspective… I do believe CML is "the man to do that." What he has done in 4 years is pretty incredible, IMHO. I do believe he will be the leader of our "Golden Era". Price will be playing second string, sort of speak.
"Just win, baby." -- Al Davis
If we get a couple lucky breaks that put a few more W's in the win column, I'm good with that.
If we get a couple lucky breaks that put a few more W's in the win column, I'm good with that.
Granted, this is a silly metric, but one of the best indicators for me that the program is back on solid ground is that for the first time since 2002, I no longer feel that the season hinges on just one game, or one month. We blew up that myth last season by losing to Portland State and the Apple Cup, yet we still finished with a great season.
I think that's where Leach's coaching persona is really felt. We could very well have a rough stretch of games this October, as we play Oregon, at Stanford, UCLA, at ASU. Even if we do lose 2 or 3 of them, I just can't see Leach allowing the team to collapse. If we lose a handful of games, I fully expect that we'll rebound with a nice winning streak to offset that. Again, I haven't felt that optimistic about our program since 2002 and 1997.
Some teams will beat us this season, but many others are going to get run over by us.
I think that's where Leach's coaching persona is really felt. We could very well have a rough stretch of games this October, as we play Oregon, at Stanford, UCLA, at ASU. Even if we do lose 2 or 3 of them, I just can't see Leach allowing the team to collapse. If we lose a handful of games, I fully expect that we'll rebound with a nice winning streak to offset that. Again, I haven't felt that optimistic about our program since 2002 and 1997.
Some teams will beat us this season, but many others are going to get run over by us.
Last edited:
Price will play second fiddle once Leach wins the conference/Pac 12 north. Much different dynamic with the league championship game.
I'll throw in the fact that Oregon is much better than it was in 1997 and 2002 (a 9-4 season is now a down year in Eugene), the UW isn't dealing with the aftermath of probation, WSU can no longer play non- or partial qualifiers (prop 48/16), UCLA is stronger overall than it was back then, Stanford isn't your father's Stanford, and Utah has raised the level of competition in the league.
Even so, if Leach manages to win the conference twice in six seasons, he will have at least matched what Price did. Of course, matching 1997-2002 also would allow for the tremendous dips in '98, and '99.
In this sense, Leach reminds me of Dick Bennett teams. Recall that Oklahoma State beat us 81-29 and then a few week later we defeated top 15 Arizona on their home court in a huge upset (our first victory over them since the 1980s as I recall).
We are more dangerous after a loss, especially a big loss. That is a sign of a well-coached team.
just to throw this in there...
Cowherd was reflecting on the 97 Cougs (back in his portland days) and called their season "lucky" as well, mostly as in "they were lucky any of the athletes panned out" type thing, since they were the "revenge of the rejects."
And while I can give a little more weight to that opinion, since Price and Co did take some flyers on a lot of kids, to say any team that was successful was merely luck is to take a gigantic sh!t on any and all effort the staff and kids gave to achieve what they did. Its not a stupid take, its disrespectful and lazy, and these sports guys have to stop saying entire teams got lucky for an entire season.
Players get lucky on plays occasionally - teams don't get lucky for an entire season.
Cowherd was reflecting on the 97 Cougs (back in his portland days) and called their season "lucky" as well, mostly as in "they were lucky any of the athletes panned out" type thing, since they were the "revenge of the rejects."
And while I can give a little more weight to that opinion, since Price and Co did take some flyers on a lot of kids, to say any team that was successful was merely luck is to take a gigantic sh!t on any and all effort the staff and kids gave to achieve what they did. Its not a stupid take, its disrespectful and lazy, and these sports guys have to stop saying entire teams got lucky for an entire season.
Players get lucky on plays occasionally - teams don't get lucky for an entire season.
Last edited:
This has been an interesting string. After reading it through, I have to come back to "finishing". Draw what ever conclusion you want, but it is the teams that finish that are accused of being lucky. Because if you don't finish, you don't win, and nobody can construe that as being lucky.
We've been learning as a team how to finish. Last season was the first time that we put together most of a season when the kids knew that they could get it done down the stretch, and knew that WSU's chances of pulling it off were better than the other team's chance of stopping us.
This year you see a lot of returners from that team. And I suspect we will again finish well. Which suggests that once again, some bimbo from Duck Radio or Husky Excuses will call us lucky. But you know what? I'm kind of looking forward to that...
We've been learning as a team how to finish. Last season was the first time that we put together most of a season when the kids knew that they could get it done down the stretch, and knew that WSU's chances of pulling it off were better than the other team's chance of stopping us.
This year you see a lot of returners from that team. And I suspect we will again finish well. Which suggests that once again, some bimbo from Duck Radio or Husky Excuses will call us lucky. But you know what? I'm kind of looking forward to that...
Price took the cougs to two RBs and was competitive in one. The equivalent--fair or not--is Leach winning the conference twice. Nothing less would even remotely put Price in the second fiddle/string role. Which may mean that the cougs will have to sweep some team from the southern division
Price/WSU would have been competitive in the 2003 RB had Gesser been able to play on two legs. His injury was a huge factor in the outcome.
"If only," huh? Maybe.
BTW, what is real reason camp is in Lewiston? Lewiston is a hole (literally) in all seasons, but in August? Was Leach looking for a climate to approximate the north Texas Plains?
(Length alert)
I agree. The Rose Bowl(s) will be the determining factor. But I believe CML will have more bowls, more winning seasons AND will be happy in Pullman for a longer period of time. So his success will be stronger and longer, thus giving him more opportunity to make those Rose Bowl appearances a reality.
With this coach, he has proven anything is possible. Yes, including losing a game we should have won (we should never forget that the TT faithful told us upon CML's hire). But I sense a serious long term optimism I haven't felt in a very long time. I'm willing to jump on that train, knowing I've firmly placed the Crimson Tinted glasses squarely on my nose.
This may go to the Boise State thread where CSB has mentioned he hates when fans blindly follow. And while I don't "hate" it, I do find it amusing. But to be clear, I'm not blindly following. Just following with excitement. Not spouting about how we should be in the Top 5 in the nation, no real hyperbole. Just stoked about our future. We have a bright one and CML is leading this program in the right direction.
I've contended the mental aspect is the key, the foundation for WSU to start winning again. From day 1 I've stated that. Last year showed the strides that have been made in that dept.. Other than the PSU game (maybe the AC but that is debatable due to the injuries though out our ranks at the time), we never gave up. And in doing so, we won several games when the opposition just stopped playing. I'm excited due to the mental aspect that I'm seeing. We have no ceiling with that tough, hard, no excuse attitude, IMHO. That includes Rose Bowls in our future. Do we need to win the North first? Yep. It'll all come.
We won't be perennial TOP 10's but we'll be dabbling our foot in that pool. Is it possible to be perennially in the TOP 10? You bet. Just don't know if we'll ever get there due my luggage from our past. CML was taking TT there quite a bit so who knows.So long story, long… I do believe Price will be our first, but second tier, "Golden Era". This is one time I am looking into the crystal ball.
Sorry so long. I'll put my pom poms down now.Agree about Lewiston. Now that our program is starting to garner more publicity, I'd like to see Fall camp move back to campus. If Leach is looking for a "Field of Dreams" setting, I'd rather see them practice in Colton...or Colfax even.
(Length alert)
I agree. The Rose Bowl(s) will be the determining factor. But I believe CML will have more bowls, more winning seasons AND will be happy in Pullman for a longer period of time. So his success will be stronger and longer, thus giving him more opportunity to make those Rose Bowl appearances a reality.
With this coach, he has proven anything is possible. Yes, including losing a game we should have won (we should never forget that the TT faithful told us upon CML's hire). But I sense a serious long term optimism I haven't felt in a very long time. I'm willing to jump on that train, knowing I've firmly placed the Crimson Tinted glasses squarely on my nose.
This may go to the Boise State thread where CSB has mentioned he hates when fans blindly follow. And while I don't "hate" it, I do find it amusing. But to be clear, I'm not blindly following. Just following with excitement. Not spouting about how we should be in the Top 5 in the nation, no real hyperbole. Just stoked about our future. We have a bright one and CML is leading this program in the right direction.
I've contended the mental aspect is the key, the foundation for WSU to start winning again. From day 1 I've stated that. Last year showed the strides that have been made in that dept.. Other than the PSU game (maybe the AC but that is debatable due to the injuries though out our ranks at the time), we never gave up. And in doing so, we won several games when the opposition just stopped playing. I'm excited due to the mental aspect that I'm seeing. We have no ceiling with that tough, hard, no excuse attitude, IMHO. That includes Rose Bowls in our future. Do we need to win the North first? Yep. It'll all come.
So long story, long… I do believe Price will be our first, but second tier, "Golden Era". This is one time I am looking into the crystal ball.
Agree with the premise there are GOOD reasons to be optimistic going forward. I have no idea why so many magazines rated cougs where they did, given Falk & Co. Leach seems to have his system implemented, guys are on board, and he is more or less reloading to his system. But he still needs the signature win to take the program away from regional and alum excitement to national awareness. Stanford last year was close. Huskies this year would be a good one, given their PR. I see the cougars beating Oregon this year, even with their latest "one and done" pretend student.
They should be strongly competitive in each and every game. Each one.
"Finishing" is absolutely the most critical thing for any team, particularly the teams that are in WSU's situation. There are a dozen programs that so established, so deep, so talented and so ingrained in the culture of college football that they are almost always going to have the chance to be elite in any given year. Most other teams have the potential to be good, but a mediocre season isn't out of the question. Some teams have almost no chance at being good when they head into the season. We were there five years ago.
A bad team can become "ok" if they had learned to finish. Looking at 2011, WSU had opportunities to beat SDSU, UCLA, and Utah but didn't have a clue on how to finish games. In 2005, WSU lost 5 games by 4 points or less and had many opportunities to beat OSU but couldn't finish. A potential 10-2 season slumped to 4-7. The term "couging it" reflects our historical tendency to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Mike Price had finally started to ingrain a winning attitude in our program and had a QB who knew how to finish when he left us in 2002. That's long gone. I agree that Leach appears to be the guy who will finally instill that expectation of success into our program where losing isn't acceptable and that bad things don't just happen....you have to allow them to happen.
When we learn how to finish games consistently (which we did last year for the most part), we have the potential to become an upper tier program on a regular basis. With the constant turnover of players and talent, it's never guaranteed except for the select few programs that have earned that.
Good post. It's not just "changing a culture" that is so critical, it's maintaining the change. Assuming a nice, long tenure for Leach, it's just as important to get another good coach to follow him. Keep it going, etc.
Agree about Lewiston. Now that our program is starting to garner more publicity, I'd like to see Fall camp move back to campus. If Leach is looking for a "Field of Dreams" setting, I'd rather see them practice in Colton...or Colfax even.
I believe the staff likes it for the team bonding aspect with the idea that a closer team trusts each other and finishes together.
Similar threads
