Yes/No: Did RoLo inherit a better roster than Leach at WSU and ...

[Flatlandcoug]

I agree that the biggest problem with the defense was the coaching. I don't agree that if Minshew were QB last year that the team wins four more games. The offense was just as good last season. I think it is more correct that if last years team had 2018's defense, then they win four more games.

It's difficult to make accurate comparisons between seasons, but I guess that's part of the fun of all this. A bad defense can have a negative impact on the stats for an offense and vice versa. In many respects, the offense was better in 2019 than it was in 2018. Yards per rush were higher, averages per catch and attempt were higher and we generally moved the ball well. However, we had a lot more turnovers in 2019 than we did in 2018 and we gave up an additional 53 points during the season off of turnovers while scoring 24 points less off turnovers.

The defense was obviously the bigger problem, but we lost the UCLA game in particular because we couldn't hold onto the ball. Turnovers were also critical in the loss to Oregon. An early interception in the Cal game meant that we were down by two scores in the middle of the fourth quarter and frankly, set a negative tone for the game. It wasn't Gordon's fault that Winston fumbled in the third quarter but that turnover was another factor in the loss. This is just my opinion, but Minshew also would have had a positive impact on the defensive psychology and I believe that our defense shows more fire with him talking to them too.

For us to be successful in 2020, we need to take better care of the ball and we need to create more turnovers. I don't know if we'll have the guys to do it, but I think it's total BS to say that our defense is back to the 2012 days. If it is, that means that Mike Leach is a much worse coach than many of you think that he is. He's responsible for the entire team and if we suck as bad as some of you think when it comes to recruiting defense, I'll put my money on Rolovich being a better coach overall.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Rolo inherited a better program. yes. Better talent. yes.

What will be key for Rolo is the whatever Leach's secret sauce was for winning, that you don't throw that out.

I just hope that being a players coach, that he appears to be, doesn't mean he doesn't demand 100% effort on everything you do. I liked that Leach stuck to his guns on everything he did - whether we liked it or not.

well, hello there stranger.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Minshew didn’t play defense, which is where most of our problems were. I agree his leadership and confidence would have made 2019 better, and I think that By itself makes the difference against UCLA. Maybe it gets us another TD against ASU, maybe he doesn’t throw a pick-8 at Oregon. I don’t think he makes the difference in any other games. At most +3, probably less. Our D just wasn’t good enough, especially in the second half of the season.

GM makes a huge diff. Disagree 150%.

GM scores more than 13 against Utah and uw.

GM scores more than 21 against AF.

Scores more against UO, Cal, ASU.

I think he calls a better game. I think he distributes the ball significantly better. I think he leaves the defense with a longer field to defend. I think he leads the team to play inspired football. I think the turnovers cut dramatically.

GM leads the 2019 team to 10+ wins.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Since everyone is claiming that its a slam dunk that Rolo inherited better players, I offer the following:
87,92,90,72 (CPW rankings)
56,53,69,55,52,51,46,62. (CML rankings)

Ummm, ok. While typing this I stumbled onto something interesting. My argument was going to be that our recruiting has been consistently mediocre, even during the CPW years. While most of his kids didn't pass the eye test, there were some players in there, that I would have argued were not coached up to their potential. I'm not going full ED and saying the cupboard wasn't empty, but I think that Flat hit on it when he references culture.

HOWEVER, while researching recruiting rankings I found something interesting: as if in an effort to double down on their love for all things CPW, BX has the CPW years as follows: 74th(Blame Doba), 43,40,57. The initial rankings I quoted were from Rivals (who we know doesn't actually research players and assigns a lot of rankings based on who is recruiting them.)

Ok... now I'm doing more research, and the numbers I used in the above paragraph referencing BX is from an article written in 2018 (google: "wsu year by year recruiting rankings", top result). Yet, when I go to the current recruiting pages and get the rankings as of today, its the following for 2008-2011: 66,63,65,68. Continuing through the years, there are more inconsistencies between what the article quotes as national rankings and what the current rankings are:
BX article: 50,45,57,38,50,44
BX(247) current rankings: 58,50,53,42,56, 44

So what happened between 2018 and now that changed the class rankings on the 247 site? Are rankings subject to retrospective adjustment? If so, then why?

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

It's difficult to make accurate comparisons between seasons, but I guess that's part of the fun of all this. A bad defense can have a negative impact on the stats for an offense and vice versa. In many respects, the offense was better in 2019 than it was in 2018. Yards per rush were higher, averages per catch and attempt were higher and we generally moved the ball well. However, we had a lot more turnovers in 2019 than we did in 2018 and we gave up an additional 53 points during the season off of turnovers while scoring 24 points less off turnovers.

The defense was obviously the bigger problem, but we lost the UCLA game in particular because we couldn't hold onto the ball. Turnovers were also critical in the loss to Oregon. An early interception in the Cal game meant that we were down by two scores in the middle of the fourth quarter and frankly, set a negative tone for the game. It wasn't Gordon's fault that Winston fumbled in the third quarter but that turnover was another factor in the loss. This is just my opinion, but Minshew also would have had a positive impact on the defensive psychology and I believe that our defense shows more fire with him talking to them too.

For us to be successful in 2020, we need to take better care of the ball and we need to create more turnovers. I don't know if we'll have the guys to do it, but I think it's total BS to say that our defense is back to the 2012 days. If it is, that means that Mike Leach is a much worse coach than many of you think that he is. He's responsible for the entire team and if we suck as bad as some of you think when it comes to recruiting defense, I'll put my money on Rolovich being a better coach overall.

Rk Team W-L FEI PE Rk OA Rk OFEI Rk DFEI Rk SFEI Rk v10 v20 v30 v40 v50
26 Washington State 10-2 .43 .45 17 -.02 65 1.16 8 -.22 79 -.01 77 0-0 0-1 1-1 3-1 4-1
39 Washington State 5-7 .18 .15 44 .03 59 .95 11 -.73 107 .04 28 0-2 0-3 0-4 0-4 0-4

These are the FEI rankings. "The Fremeau Efficiency Index (FEI) is a college football rating system based on opponent-adjusted possession efficiency, representing the per possession scoring advantage a team would be expected to have on a neutral field against an average opponent."
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa/fei/overall/2019

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Rk Team W-L FEI PE Rk OA Rk OFEI Rk DFEI Rk SFEI Rk v10 v20 v30 v40 v50
26 Washington State 10-2 .43 .45 17 -.02 65 1.16 8 -.22 79 -.01 77 0-0 0-1 1-1 3-1 4-1
39 Washington State 5-7 .18 .15 44 .03 59 .95 11 -.73 107 .04 28 0-2 0-3 0-4 0-4 0-4

These are the FEI rankings. "The Fremeau Efficiency Index (FEI) is a college football rating system based on opponent-adjusted possession efficiency, representing the per possession scoring advantage a team would be expected to have on a neutral field against an average opponent."
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa/fei/overall/2019

The defense clearly didn't play as well. Nobody is denying that. The question is.....why did the defense decline so badly? Losing Pelleur was obviously a big blow and Jalen Thompson was NFL talent that was unexpectedly lost. Molton was a PI magnet when he played in 2018 but apparently that was better than just giving up huge plays the way that his replacements did at times. Jahad Woods is a great tackler but slow as hell. Can he get to the point where he can focus on the LOS and not be expected to make plays in space? Has he done anything in the off-season to get faster? Do we have any young CB's that can be effective? Will the guys that are back on our DL be more effective? Losing Beekman is a big loss and that might spell bad news for 2020. Can the team rally around his unexpected passing?

The biggest issue that I saw in 2018 was mental weakness. I felt better when an opposing team was sitting on a 3rd and 3 than I did when they were 3rd and 9. When our offense made mistakes, the defense seemed to fold more often. We'll see how the team plays this year but based on the way that the team performed and the way that Claeys looked in his last few interviews, our 2019 defense felt like a bunch of guys that didn't know what was expected of them with a leader that had given up on trying....for whatever reasons he had.

 

[CougEd]

The defense clearly didn't play as well. Nobody is denying that. The question is.....why did the defense decline so badly? Losing Pelleur was obviously a big blow and Jalen Thompson was NFL talent that was unexpectedly lost. Molton was a PI magnet when he played in 2018 but apparently that was better than just giving up huge plays the way that his replacements did at times. Jahad Woods is a great tackler but slow as hell. Can he get to the point where he can focus on the LOS and not be expected to make plays in space? Has he done anything in the off-season to get faster? Do we have any young CB's that can be effective? Will the guys that are back on our DL be more effective? Losing Beekman is a big loss and that might spell bad news for 2020. Can the team rally around his unexpected passing?

The biggest issue that I saw in 2018 was mental weakness. I felt better when an opposing team was sitting on a 3rd and 3 than I did when they were 3rd and 9. When our offense made mistakes, the defense seemed to fold more often. We'll see how the team plays this year but based on the way that the team performed and the way that Claeys looked in his last few interviews, our 2019 defense felt like a bunch of guys that didn't know what was expected of them with a leader that had given up on trying....for whatever reasons he had.

I agree that the biggest problem with the defense was the coaching. I don't agree that if Minshew were QB last year that the team wins four more games. The offense was just as good last season. I think it is more correct that if last years team had 2018's defense, then they win four more games.

So what makes anyone think we have 18's defense losing Beekman and Strong, and being unsettled at a ton of other spots? Have people seen really good corner play from anyone the last couple of years. Even a hint at it, like so and so broke on the pass really well and showed acceleration?

 

[BiggsCoug]

So what makes anyone think we have 18's defense losing Beekman and Strong, and being unsettled at a ton of other spots? Have people seen really good corner play from anyone the last couple of years. Even a hint at it, like so and so broke on the pass really well and showed acceleration?

The DB play, even while winning 11 games, was below average at best. When your kids are coached to take the PI penalty rather than get beat for the deep ball you have issues.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

So what makes anyone think we have 18's defense losing Beekman and Strong, and being unsettled at a ton of other spots? Have people seen really good corner play from anyone the last couple of years. Even a hint at it, like so and so broke on the pass really well and showed acceleration?

I don't think we have 18's defense. We aren't going to win 11 games this year and nobody is saying that. I don't think our talent is so terrible that we can't envision 7 wins. When you look at our schedule, we have a decent chance to start 5-0 this year.

Utah State, Houston and Idaho are all winnable games even if they aren't cupcakes. Except Idaho, we are going to wipe the field with the Vandals.

At Oregon State isn't going to be easy anymore, but until they post a winning season, you don't chalk that one up as an expected loss....even though I'm doing it right here. Still, this is a toss-up game at worst.

California is obviously dangerous but we get them at home and they lost a lot of defensive personnel. If 2019 hadn't been so bizarre, 5-0 would be a foregone conclusion. As it is, it could still happen. I'm picking us to beat Cal in Pullman.

Utah is going to clean our clock again.

Will Stanford stop sucking? Who knows, but I'm betting on the Cougs in that one.

ASU had a nice finish to their season and they are a team that we just seem to struggle against. This is one that I don't feel good about.

Colorado in Boulder late in the season makes me nervous. If we have our crap together by then, I feel good about it. If we've been struggling......ouch.

UCLA is impossible to judge. I don't like our chances in this game.

I wouldn't bet on us beating Oregon this year.

I'm hoping that Washington continues their slide in 2020. They've picked up an extra loss for three years running now. I'm betting on them being 6-5 heading into the Apple Cup this year. I think we'll have a puncher's chance in this game. We win and we get to 7 wins. Now, just being honest, with the questions at the QB spot and on defense, this could easily be a 3-9 season. It's not like we haven't seen that before. I see 9 wins as our absolute ceiling but I think 9 losses is more likely than 9 wins.

 

[CougPatrol]

I don't think we have 18's defense. We aren't going to win 11 games this year and nobody is saying that. I don't think our talent is so terrible that we can't envision 7 wins. When you look at our schedule, we have a decent chance to start 5-0 this year.

Utah State, Houston and Idaho are all winnable games even if they aren't cupcakes. Except Idaho, we are going to wipe the field with the Vandals.

At Oregon State isn't going to be easy anymore, but until they post a winning season, you don't chalk that one up as an expected loss....even though I'm doing it right here. Still, this is a toss-up game at worst.

California is obviously dangerous but we get them at home and they lost a lot of defensive personnel. If 2019 hadn't been so bizarre, 5-0 would be a foregone conclusion. As it is, it could still happen. I'm picking us to beat Cal in Pullman.

Utah is going to clean our clock again.

Will Stanford stop sucking? Who knows, but I'm betting on the Cougs in that one.

ASU had a nice finish to their season and they are a team that we just seem to struggle against. This is one that I don't feel good about.

Colorado in Boulder late in the season makes me nervous. If we have our crap together by then, I feel good about it. If we've been struggling......ouch.

UCLA is impossible to judge. I don't like our chances in this game.

I wouldn't bet on us beating Oregon this year.

I'm hoping that Washington continues their slide in 2020. They've picked up an extra loss for three years running now. I'm betting on them being 6-5 heading into the Apple Cup this year. I think we'll have a puncher's chance in this game. We win and we get to 7 wins. Now, just being honest, with the questions at the QB spot and on defense, this could easily be a 3-9 season. It's not like we haven't seen that before. I see 9 wins as our absolute ceiling but I think 9 losses is more likely than 9 wins.

Cal was never going to be a foregone conclusion, unless that conclusion was that they’re going to beat us. Cal has a huge matchup advantage against us, and until proven otherwise, I’d pick them to beat us by 10.

I think 6-6 this season would be a nice accomplishment.

 

[CougEd]

GM makes a huge diff. Disagree 150%.

GM scores more than 13 against Utah and uw.

GM scores more than 21 against AF.

Scores more against UO, Cal, ASU.

I think he calls a better game. I think he distributes the ball significantly better. I think he leaves the defense with a longer field to defend. I think he leads the team to play inspired football. I think the turnovers cut dramatically.

GM leads the 2019 team to 10+ wins.

Take a peak how many lat critical plays Minshew made. 2018 there was not a huge margin for error and he made all the right plays at the right time. Gordon did not.

 

[CougEd]

I don't think we have 18's defense. We aren't going to win 11 games this year and nobody is saying that. I don't think our talent is so terrible that we can't envision 7 wins. When you look at our schedule, we have a decent chance to start 5-0 this year.

Utah State, Houston and Idaho are all winnable games even if they aren't cupcakes. Except Idaho, we are going to wipe the field with the Vandals.

At Oregon State isn't going to be easy anymore, but until they post a winning season, you don't chalk that one up as an expected loss....even though I'm doing it right here. Still, this is a toss-up game at worst.

California is obviously dangerous but we get them at home and they lost a lot of defensive personnel. If 2019 hadn't been so bizarre, 5-0 would be a foregone conclusion. As it is, it could still happen. I'm picking us to beat Cal in Pullman.

Utah is going to clean our clock again.

Will Stanford stop sucking? Who knows, but I'm betting on the Cougs in that one.

ASU had a nice finish to their season and they are a team that we just seem to struggle against. This is one that I don't feel good about.

Colorado in Boulder late in the season makes me nervous. If we have our crap together by then, I feel good about it. If we've been struggling......ouch.

UCLA is impossible to judge. I don't like our chances in this game.

I wouldn't bet on us beating Oregon this year.

I'm hoping that Washington continues their slide in 2020. They've picked up an extra loss for three years running now. I'm betting on them being 6-5 heading into the Apple Cup this year. I think we'll have a puncher's chance in this game. We win and we get to 7 wins. Now, just being honest, with the questions at the QB spot and on defense, this could easily be a 3-9 season. It's not like we haven't seen that before. I see 9 wins as our absolute ceiling but I think 9 losses is more likely than 9 wins.

Well...the one thing we have going for us is virtually everyone in the north is breaking in a new qb. So maybe not having any experience is not that much of a deficit at the QB position.

And maybe our defense is helped by Pac 12 offenses breaking in new qb's.

 

[CougEd]

I don't think we have 18's defense. We aren't going to win 11 games this year and nobody is saying that. I don't think our talent is so terrible that we can't envision 7 wins. When you look at our schedule, we have a decent chance to start 5-0 this year.

Utah State, Houston and Idaho are all winnable games even if they aren't cupcakes. Except Idaho, we are going to wipe the field with the Vandals.

At Oregon State isn't going to be easy anymore, but until they post a winning season, you don't chalk that one up as an expected loss....even though I'm doing it right here. Still, this is a toss-up game at worst.

California is obviously dangerous but we get them at home and they lost a lot of defensive personnel. If 2019 hadn't been so bizarre, 5-0 would be a foregone conclusion. As it is, it could still happen. I'm picking us to beat Cal in Pullman.

Utah is going to clean our clock again.

Will Stanford stop sucking? Who knows, but I'm betting on the Cougs in that one.

ASU had a nice finish to their season and they are a team that we just seem to struggle against. This is one that I don't feel good about.

Colorado in Boulder late in the season makes me nervous. If we have our crap together by then, I feel good about it. If we've been struggling......ouch.

UCLA is impossible to judge. I don't like our chances in this game.

I wouldn't bet on us beating Oregon this year.

I'm hoping that Washington continues their slide in 2020. They've picked up an extra loss for three years running now. I'm betting on them being 6-5 heading into the Apple Cup this year. I think we'll have a puncher's chance in this game. We win and we get to 7 wins. Now, just being honest, with the questions at the QB spot and on defense, this could easily be a 3-9 season. It's not like we haven't seen that before. I see 9 wins as our absolute ceiling but I think 9 losses is more likely than 9 wins.

If nine wins is "more likely" , it goes back to Pete's question about the roster, doesn't it?

 

[95coug]

GM makes a huge diff. Disagree 150%.

GM scores more than 13 against Utah and uw.

GM scores more than 21 against AF.

Scores more against UO, Cal, ASU.

I think he calls a better game. I think he distributes the ball significantly better. I think he leaves the defense with a longer field to defend. I think he leads the team to play inspired football. I think the turnovers cut dramatically.

GM leads the 2019 team to 10+ wins.

GM doesn’t score enough more against Utah & UW. We still lose.
GM beats UCLA, maybe ASU, maybe Oregon....so he doesn’t play Air Force at all.

We laid such a giant egg in all phases against Cal that I don’t think he makes the difference there.

I agree he calls a better game, played with more confidence, better leader, etc. There aren’t many categories I’d give Gordon the edge in, and none of them would make me take Gordon over Minshew in any situation.

But the D was just bad. They gave up long drives in short time against UO and ASU. An epic drive against Air Force. 500+ yards to Stanford’s backup QB. Season highs in yards and points for Cal. 50+ points in under 20 minutes against UCLA. Over 200 yards to an RB from freaking northern Colorado. Just about any metric you want to use shows they were bad. I know you think this D could have won 10 games, but I’m not buying it. They were terrible, and showed little to no improvement. In fact, minus a few bright spots, I’d accept an argument that they got worse as the season wore on. It wouldn’t matter if you had Gordon, GM, or Joe Montana at QB, they weren’t going to win 10. It’s easier to argue that they didn’t deserve to win 6.

 

[CougEd]

GM doesn’t score enough more against Utah & UW. We still lose.
GM beats UCLA, maybe ASU, maybe Oregon....so he doesn’t play Air Force at all.

We laid such a giant egg in all phases against Cal that I don’t think he makes the difference there.

I agree he calls a better game, played with more confidence, better leader, etc. There aren’t many categories I’d give Gordon the edge in, and none of them would make me take Gordon over Minshew in any situation.

But the D was just bad. They gave up long drives in short time against UO and ASU. An epic drive against Air Force. 500+ yards to Stanford’s backup QB. Season highs in yards and points for Cal. 50+ points in under 20 minutes against UCLA. Over 200 yards to an RB from freaking northern Colorado. Just about any metric you want to use shows they were bad. I know you think this D could have won 10 games, but I’m not buying it. They were terrible, and showed little to no improvement. In fact, minus a few bright spots, I’d accept an argument that they got worse as the season wore on. It wouldn’t matter if you had Gordon, GM, or Joe Montana at QB, they weren’t going to win 10. It’s easier to argue that they didn’t deserve to win 6.

95...here is how I would counter...Minshew had magic. He made plays. Against UCLA the Cougs had a minute to score, which is a ton of time for Mike Leach. We scored 9 TD's via the air.

ASU, they scored late in the game, but I think the Cougs had about a minute to get into FG range. Nothing.

Gordon had a lot of Halliday in him. If you are going to have your best players on offense, and that is what is being sold, you better be really good and efficient. Gordon had Halliday numbers. Look nice in a stat page. The picks hurt.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

GM doesn’t score enough more against Utah & UW. We still lose.
GM beats UCLA, maybe ASU, maybe Oregon....so he doesn’t play Air Force at all.

We laid such a giant egg in all phases against Cal that I don’t think he makes the difference there.

I agree he calls a better game, played with more confidence, better leader, etc. There aren’t many categories I’d give Gordon the edge in, and none of them would make me take Gordon over Minshew in any situation.

But the D was just bad. They gave up long drives in short time against UO and ASU. An epic drive against Air Force. 500+ yards to Stanford’s backup QB. Season highs in yards and points for Cal. 50+ points in under 20 minutes against UCLA. Over 200 yards to an RB from freaking northern Colorado. Just about any metric you want to use shows they were bad. I know you think this D could have won 10 games, but I’m not buying it. They were terrible, and showed little to no improvement. In fact, minus a few bright spots, I’d accept an argument that they got worse as the season wore on. It wouldn’t matter if you had Gordon, GM, or Joe Montana at QB, they weren’t going to win 10. It’s easier to argue that they didn’t deserve to win 6.

I think you guys just fail to understand how critical the QB position is. A good QB doesn't guarantee success, but they can make a huge difference. Houston, with Case Keenum at the helm, went 10-4 in 2009, they were 2-0 when he went down in the UCLA game in 2010....which they went on to lose. They went 3-6 the rest of the way out to finish 5-7. Houston went 13-1 in 2011 with Keenum back for the season. They went 5-7 in 2012 after he graduated. So.....from 2009-2012, Houston went 25-5 in games that Keenum was healthy in and 8-14 in games that he didn't play in (or was hurt in).

Now, Gardner Minshew may not be Case Keenum, and Gordon wasn't exactly a scrub, and there are undoubtedly other factors that affected those outcomes for Houston, but it is very, very easy to look at the results of last year's games and picturing us finishing 9-3 instead of 6-6. That would have put us in the Redbox Bowl against Illinois....a much better matchup and a game that we would have likely won. So yeah, I think that having a QB of Minshew's abilities might have gotten us to 10 wins.

 

[BiggsCoug]

GM doesn’t score enough more against Utah & UW. We still lose.
GM beats UCLA, maybe ASU, maybe Oregon....so he doesn’t play Air Force at all.

We laid such a giant egg in all phases against Cal that I don’t think he makes the difference there.

I agree he calls a better game, played with more confidence, better leader, etc. There aren’t many categories I’d give Gordon the edge in, and none of them would make me take Gordon over Minshew in any situation.

But the D was just bad. They gave up long drives in short time against UO and ASU. An epic drive against Air Force. 500+ yards to Stanford’s backup QB. Season highs in yards and points for Cal. 50+ points in under 20 minutes against UCLA. Over 200 yards to an RB from freaking northern Colorado. Just about any metric you want to use shows they were bad. I know you think this D could have won 10 games, but I’m not buying it. They were terrible, and showed little to no improvement. In fact, minus a few bright spots, I’d accept an argument that they got worse as the season wore on. It wouldn’t matter if you had Gordon, GM, or Joe Montana at QB, they weren’t going to win 10. It’s easier to argue that they didn’t deserve to win 6.

If GM leads the team to more than 13 points it changes the fabric of the game. GM in year two calls better plays, gets the team in and out of plays, takes steps forward as a qb. If he puts up 26 against Utah and uw, is it enough to win? Maybe. But I don't think either of those teams score what they scored this year.

Cal is shit. Cal needed a pick 8 to win 33-20. And you're telling me that GM in year two doesn't beat them? No way.

WSU had UO beat and they let them off the hook with poor special teams coaching and play. GM beats them. UO isn't even in that position to win with 60 seconds left.

GM beats ASU too. AG looked a lot like CH to me. He might play QB but he has zero savvy or moxie. He turned the offense into the "Swing Pass Raid," not the Air Raid. What was the point in lining up MB in the backfield? Why not just play him at the slot?

Im not arguing that the defense is gonna beat people. Im arguing that poor special teams play, turnovers by the offense and bad offensive football didn't help them at all. In some cases, made it harder for them altogether. For example, 2 returns for touchdowns versus UCLA. How is that the defense's fault? All these turnovers??? If you give the other team a short field they will make a GOOD defense pay. UCLA is a case for the offense and special teams losing the game. Special teams doesn't give up 2 touchdowns, WSU wins. Offense doesn't turn the ball over 6 friggin' times, WSU wins. But somehow you point at the defense??? Whatever.

The volume of mistakes and poor coaching was just too much for this years defense to overcome. Were they a good unit? No. But to deny that there wasn't other things impacting their potential is crap.

At what point as a staff do you have a meeting about how you can help position the defense for more success? At what point as a staff do you acknowledge that you need to create as much field for the defense to defend as possible? At what point as a special teams coach do you find ways to limit the ability of the other team to return the ball? And I don't mean tackling. I mean kicking into the endzone or punting out of bounds. Something, anything to keep the returners from advancing the ball ~ giving the defense as long a field as possible to defend. At what point as an offensive staff do you talk about how to keep drives alive or stop the bleeding with all the turnovers??? Heaven forbid you run the ball with your back and grind out a little clock. Maybe give the other teams offense less time to score and your defense more time to rest. They're not the best but they won't be gassed.

Or how about scoring more than 13 fu$king points in two games??? QB, 2 WRs, 1 RB and 2 OL are gonna be in NFL camps. 6 of 11 positions and you can't score more than 13 points? Not much of a lead to defend even if the defense was GOOD. Offensive guru coach and they score 13, 13, 20 against Utah, uw and Cal. None of which are juggernauts. But blame the defense.

Millions of dollars shoved into the coaching staff and they had no answers on how to help the defense? No ideas?

Im not saying the defense was 10+ wins good. Im saying an offense with better play calling is. Smartly coached and called special teams gets them there. The meat left on the bone this season was aplenty.

And let's not pretend like the schedule is top 10 either. Show me the murderers row on the 2019 schedule...

Leach pissed away 2019 and some of you are letting him off the hook by blaming the defense and completely ignoring the issues his offense and special teams had.

 

[CougEd]

Last season was one of the most poorly coached seasons Ive seen at WSU. That was a 10 win team coached down.

True -you're too young to recall but relative to the RPM squad of 1985, the 2019 squad isn't even in the running for poorly coached seasons.

11, Walden is honest and says that is his worse coaching job. They never recovered from losing to Oregon. No way that should be the first game out of the gate.

They lost to Pac 10 champs UCLA by 1, 2nd place Arizona by 5, 12-7, ASU by 5, Oregon by 3. And they did win the apple cup.

The Oregon game hurt, and not sure they recovered from it. You had Tim Petek who had lung cancer and died within a year, and the coaches didn't know why he was always gassed. Nick Volk if I recall correctly tore his ACL. It was a hard year all the way around.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

There is value in saying you are what your record says you are.

There is also truth in having left meat on the bone.

Last season was one of the most poorly coached seasons Ive seen at WSU. That was a 10 win team coached down.

What is coming back, imo, isnt a 3 league win team. It’s better than that.

Defensively, they were poorly coached, played badly and left hamstrung by poor special teams play and turnovers by the offense that left them with short fields to defend. In a season when the defense needed the offense and special teams to help them out, they got nothing.

They need help all over the defense. They have no big time DBs, they have no big time LBs, they have no big time DL or pass rushers. That side of the ball needs an experienced PAC 12 coach that KNOWS what diamonds in the rough look like and can recruit them. Banker was prob Rolo’s best hire.

I suspect that Rolo will do as he did at Hawaii; I'm predicting at least 4 juco recruits on D. At least.

 

[BiggsCoug]

I suspect that Rolo will do as he did at Hawaii; I'm predicting at least 4 juco recruits on D. At least.

At this point, if you cant get legit juco guys, move on. It’s 2020. If legit juco guys were gonna come to WSU it would have happened by now. I dunno that it’s time to give up on juco’s altogether, but for the volume of juco guys WSU has signed what is the ROI???

If Im Rolo I don't sign any juco guy that isn't a starter from day one.

If there was ever a time to take 25 high school kids it’s now. Take 3 safeties and 3 corners every year and start shoving $ into DB the same way Leach did the OL.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

The thing that I find most fascinating about this entire thread is the disconnect between the perception of Leach as a program builder and all of this talk about how freaking terrible our team is going to be this year. Great coaches and program builders don't have teams that are compared to a Paul Wulff roster six months after they left.

If our team is really as bad as you guys think it is, Leach is gonna get fuggin' stomped in the SEC and he's more of a gimmick coach than anything else. Price left Doba with a roster that competed for the Rose Bowl in 2003 and you guys feel like Leach left us with a 4-8 squad? Says a lot about the man's "program building".

 

[95coug]

If GM leads the team to more than 13 points it changes the fabric of the game. GM in year two calls better plays, gets the team in and out of plays, takes steps forward as a qb. If he puts up 26 against Utah and uw, is it enough to win? Maybe. But I don't think either of those teams score what they scored this year.

Cal is shit. Cal needed a pick 8 to win 33-20. And you're telling me that GM in year two doesn't beat them? No way.

WSU had UO beat and they let them off the hook with poor special teams coaching and play. GM beats them. UO isn't even in that position to win with 60 seconds left.

GM beats ASU too. AG looked a lot like CH to me. He might play QB but he has zero savvy or moxie. He turned the offense into the "Swing Pass Raid," not the Air Raid. What was the point in lining up MB in the backfield? Why not just play him at the slot?

Im not arguing that the defense is gonna beat people. Im arguing that poor special teams play, turnovers by the offense and bad offensive football didn't help them at all. In some cases, made it harder for them altogether. For example, 2 returns for touchdowns versus UCLA. How is that the defense's fault? All these turnovers??? If you give the other team a short field they will make a GOOD defense pay. UCLA is a case for the offense and special teams losing the game. Special teams doesn't give up 2 touchdowns, WSU wins. Offense doesn't turn the ball over 6 friggin' times, WSU wins. But somehow you point at the defense??? Whatever.

The volume of mistakes and poor coaching was just too much for this years defense to overcome. Were they a good unit? No. But to deny that there wasn't other things impacting their potential is crap.

At what point as a staff do you have a meeting about how you can help position the defense for more success? At what point as a staff do you acknowledge that you need to create as much field for the defense to defend as possible? At what point as a special teams coach do you find ways to limit the ability of the other team to return the ball? And I don't mean tackling. I mean kicking into the endzone or punting out of bounds. Something, anything to keep the returners from advancing the ball ~ giving the defense as long a field as possible to defend. At what point as an offensive staff do you talk about how to keep drives alive or stop the bleeding with all the turnovers??? Heaven forbid you run the ball with your back and grind out a little clock. Maybe give the other teams offense less time to score and your defense more time to rest. They're not the best but they won't be gassed.

Or how about scoring more than 13 fu$king points in two games??? QB, 2 WRs, 1 RB and 2 OL are gonna be in NFL camps. 6 of 11 positions and you can't score more than 13 points? Not much of a lead to defend even if the defense was GOOD. Offensive guru coach and they score 13, 13, 20 against Utah, uw and Cal. None of which are juggernauts. But blame the defense.

Millions of dollars shoved into the coaching staff and they had no answers on how to help the defense? No ideas?

Im not saying the defense was 10+ wins good. Im saying an offense with better play calling is. Smartly coached and called special teams gets them there. The meat left on the bone this season was aplenty.

And let's not pretend like the schedule is top 10 either. Show me the murderers row on the 2019 schedule...

Leach pissed away 2019 and some of you are letting him off the hook by blaming the defense and completely ignoring the issues his offense and special teams had.

I’m not going to debate the game by game anymore, it’s pretty pointless. We’ll just have to disagree.
But, I’ve said all along that GM would have made the difference against UCLA. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that one. Also not arguing about AG. I started criticizing his limitations early in the season, but few wanted to hear it. He has no presence, no ability to improvise. Only uses half the field. Basically, he’s Nuke LaLoosh - million dollar arm and a ten cent head.
This D gave up a lot of yards and points to teams that weren’t that good. That’s more proof that they were bad. I know the QB is a critical position, and I understand that scoring changes the game strategy, but I don’t believe that GM gets this team to 10 wins. Not saddled with this crap D.

 

[MRICoug]

I think we drop an early game by not being familiar with the new system. I also think we start hitting stride a few games in and keep the bowl streak going.

 

[Cougsocal]

The thing that I find most fascinating about this entire thread is the disconnect between the perception of Leach as a program builder and all of this talk about how freaking terrible our team is going to be this year. Great coaches and program builders don't have teams that are compared to a Paul Wulff roster six months after they left.

If our team is really as bad as you guys think it is, Leach is gonna get fuggin' stomped in the SEC and he's more of a gimmick coach than anything else. Price left Doba with a roster that competed for the Rose Bowl in 2003 and you guys feel like Leach left us with a 4-8 squad? Says a lot about the man's "program building".

We fall into two positions and it relates to defense. No one is arguing that the offense isn't well stocked. But on defense, we are returning a team, that was the worst in the Pac-12 in virtually every statistical category, in conference play. What caused that? A lack on talent or a lack of leadership and poor coach. You say they latter, I say the former. I have stats on my side, you have intuition on yours. You are creating a straw man argument here. No one claims that Leach left the cupboard completely bare, but some, including me, say that it is bare or nearly so on defense.

 

[BiggsCoug]

I’m not going to debate the game by game anymore, it’s pretty pointless. We’ll just have to disagree.
But, I’ve said all along that GM would have made the difference against UCLA. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that one. Also not arguing about AG. I started criticizing his limitations early in the season, but few wanted to hear it. He has no presence, no ability to improvise. Only uses half the field. Basically, he’s Nuke LaLoosh - million dollar arm and a ten cent head.
This D gave up a lot of yards and points to teams that weren’t that good. That’s more proof that they were bad. I know the QB is a critical position, and I understand that scoring changes the game strategy, but I don’t believe that GM gets this team to 10 wins. Not saddled with this crap D.

What about the offense to blame? Everyone points at the defense.

To beat the uw the defense had to hold them to 12.

To beat Utah the defense had to hold them to 12.

To beat Cal the defense had to hold them to 19.

To beat Air Force the defense had to hold them to 20.

Did the Palouse Posse have to take the field this year to cover the offense’s ass?

Im not saying the defense was good. Im saying the offense played pretty badly too. So did the special teams. Those things combined made it even harder for the defense. Which is what people refuse to understand. Pick 8’s don’t make it easier for the defense. Returns for touchdowns don’t make it easier for the defense. Scoring 13 points with your so called guru coach don’t make it easier for the defense.

There was enough talent on the 2019 team to win 10. There wasn't enough coaching on the 2019 team to get it done. This was no murderers row on the schedule.

 

[CougPatrol]

If Im Rolo I don't sign any juco guy that isn't a starter from day one.

I've always held this opinion, and depending on the position, I feel similarly about incoming high school recruits. If you're a JC recruit and you can't immediately see time as a starter, or at the very least, crack the 2-deep, it's not worth it.

If you're a high school skill position recruit (this is more subjective based on position and other development factors) who plays cornerback, running back, or WR, and you're not a strong 3-deep contributor immediately, then the red flag is up with regard to their recruitment. Good P5 skill position recruits challenge for immediate playing time the moment they hit campus.

 

[BiggsCoug]

I've always held this opinion, and depending on the position, I feel similarly about incoming high school recruits. If you're a JC recruit and you can't immediately see time as a starter, or at the very least, crack the 2-deep, it's not worth it.

If you're a high school skill position recruit (this is more subjective based on position and other development factors) who plays cornerback, running back, or WR, and you're not a strong 3-deep contributor immediately, then the red flag is up with regard to their recruitment. Good P5 skill position recruits challenge for immediate playing time the moment they hit campus.

Im ok with giving a guy a couple years to develop. If you're a redshirt junior and you aren't a two deep player I wouldn't be surprised to see coaches move that kid on down the road. There comes a time when you are either in the mix or in the way. Roster management is a real thing. You cannot have 20 kids on scholarship that just aren't going to get on the field and contribute. At that point you are essentially a school on sanctions that's lost a full class.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

We fall into two positions and it relates to defense. No one is arguing that the offense isn't well stocked. But on defense, we are returning a team, that was the worst in the Pac-12 in virtually every statistical category, in conference play. What caused that? A lack on talent or a lack of leadership and poor coach. You say they latter, I say the former. I have stats on my side, you have intuition on yours. You are creating a straw man argument here. No one claims that Leach left the cupboard completely bare, but some, including me, say that it is bare or nearly so on defense.

If he left us with little or no talent on defense....that makes him a crappy head coach and bad "program builder". That's not a strawman argument.....it's a fact. If half of your team sucks...you're not a good head coach. I just think it's funny that we have people proudly proclaiming that Leach is great head coach and then those same people saying that we are hosed this year because we've got no talent on defense. Can't have it both ways. A head coach is responsible for the program...not half the team.

As far as the impact of a good defensive coordinator, our team gave up 100 fewer points in 2015 than they did in 2014 despite us playing an additional game in 2015. Grinch was our new DC in 2015. Schedule had a factor in that too, because 2015 had fewer 8+ win teams on the schedule than 2014 (5 instead of 8). Still, good coaching is critical and it feels like Claeys and the other guys left behind after Grinch left struggled with adapting to new players and teaching techniques and Claeys walked away because he didn't like the guys he was working with. FWIW, Grinch was the secondary coach in 2017 and we had only four coaches on the defensive side of the ball. In 2019, we had five coaches on the defensive side of the ball but none with more than 2 years of experience at WSU. In other words, attrition that took away coaching experience on that side of the ball was a significant issue (F#ck Oregon BTW).

Rolovich has two coaches for the DL, Leach had one in 2019. Leach did split the secondary duties by 2019 and Rolovich has continued that (cornerback and safety coaches are separate). Rolovich has a total of five assistants on the defensive side. Rolovich has defensive coaches that he knows and trusts and that he's worked with in the past or had success at improving the defense at Wyoming. Leach had a vacuum of leadership when it came to defensive coaching last year in comparison.

Who knows how 2020 will play out, but I think there is a lot of room for improvement with the change in leadership. We'll see.

 

[CougEd]

If he left us with little or no talent on defense....that makes him a crappy head coach and bad "program builder". That's not a strawman argument.....it's a fact. If half of your team sucks...you're not a good head coach. I just think it's funny that we have people proudly proclaiming that Leach is great head coach and then those same people saying that we are hosed this year because we've got no talent on defense. Can't have it both ways. A head coach is responsible for the program...not half the team.

As far as the impact of a good defensive coordinator, our team gave up 100 fewer points in 2015 than they did in 2014 despite us playing an additional game in 2015. Grinch was our new DC in 2015. Schedule had a factor in that too, because 2015 had fewer 8+ win teams on the schedule than 2014 (5 instead of 8). Still, good coaching is critical and it feels like Claeys and the other guys left behind after Grinch left struggled with adapting to new players and teaching techniques and Claeys walked away because he didn't like the guys he was working with. FWIW, Grinch was the secondary coach in 2017 and we had only four coaches on the defensive side of the ball. In 2019, we had five coaches on the defensive side of the ball but none with more than 2 years of experience at WSU. In other words, attrition that took away coaching experience on that side of the ball was a significant issue (F#ck Oregon BTW).

Rolovich has two coaches for the DL, Leach had one in 2019. Leach did split the secondary duties by 2019 and Rolovich has continued that (cornerback and safety coaches are separate). Rolovich has a total of five assistants on the defensive side. Rolovich has defensive coaches that he knows and trusts and that he's worked with in the past or had success at improving the defense at Wyoming. Leach had a vacuum of leadership when it came to defensive coaching last year in comparison.

Who knows how 2020 will play out, but I think there is a lot of room for improvement with the change in leadership. We'll see.

Why is it either or?

Very few coaches have longevity on their side. Some people their messages get stale. For others their staff is raided, and at WSU you miss on a class at DL, especially DT, it puts you in a bind. Miss two classes in a row and your record will be hurt.

I will reference Wulff and the dline. He left the cupboard with enough players to bridge the gap for Leach's classes to get up and running at that position. Long was done in 12, but Paulo and Pole and Cooper had time for Barber and Destiny to get ready.

When Leach missed on Toki and several others, it created a gap and talent shortage WITH experience.

Leach is what WSU needed, he is a great coach, but like Walden before him he started to wear on people and knew when to leave. Like I said, I just wish he left earlier, left the program a little deeper in talent , and give the next guy momentum. And for him, I would much rather he coach at Tennessee than Ole Miss.

 

[95coug]

What about the offense to blame? Everyone points at the defense.

To beat the uw the defense had to hold them to 12.

To beat Utah the defense had to hold them to 12.

To beat Cal the defense had to hold them to 19.

To beat Air Force the defense had to hold them to 20.

Did the Palouse Posse have to take the field this year to cover the offense’s ass?

Im not saying the defense was good. Im saying the offense played pretty badly too. So did the special teams. Those things combined made it even harder for the defense. Which is what people refuse to understand. Pick 8’s don’t make it easier for the defense. Returns for touchdowns don’t make it easier for the defense. Scoring 13 points with your so called guru coach don’t make it easier for the defense.

There was enough talent on the 2019 team to win 10. There wasn't enough coaching on the 2019 team to get it done. This was no murderers row on the schedule.

Yes, there were coaching issues....especially on defense. We had starters lining up out of position in the bowl game. 13 games in, and they don't know where to be on the field.

UW, Utah, and Cal were the best 3 defenses we saw this season. They were talented and physical, and our offense didn't handle them well. Sure, you can argue the coaches didn't prepare them - but game planning doesn't make your OL block much better, doesn't make your receivers faster, and doesn't make your QB see the field better.

On the other hand, Cal and Utah were not good offenses, and they both had no trouble scoring.

 

[Cougsocal]

If he left us with little or no talent on defense....that makes him a crappy head coach and bad "program builder". That's not a strawman argument.....it's a fact. If half of your team sucks...you're not a good head coach. I just think it's funny that we have people proudly proclaiming that Leach is great head coach and then those same people saying that we are hosed this year because we've got no talent on defense. Can't have it both ways. A head coach is responsible for the program...not half the team.

As far as the impact of a good defensive coordinator, our team gave up 100 fewer points in 2015 than they did in 2014 despite us playing an additional game in 2015. Grinch was our new DC in 2015. Schedule had a factor in that too, because 2015 had fewer 8+ win teams on the schedule than 2014 (5 instead of 8). Still, good coaching is critical and it feels like Claeys and the other guys left behind after Grinch left struggled with adapting to new players and teaching techniques and Claeys walked away because he didn't like the guys he was working with. FWIW, Grinch was the secondary coach in 2017 and we had only four coaches on the defensive side of the ball. In 2019, we had five coaches on the defensive side of the ball but none with more than 2 years of experience at WSU. In other words, attrition that took away coaching experience on that side of the ball was a significant issue (F#ck Oregon BTW).

Rolovich has two coaches for the DL, Leach had one in 2019. Leach did split the secondary duties by 2019 and Rolovich has continued that (cornerback and safety coaches are separate). Rolovich has a total of five assistants on the defensive side. Rolovich has defensive coaches that he knows and trusts and that he's worked with in the past or had success at improving the defense at Wyoming. Leach had a vacuum of leadership when it came to defensive coaching last year in comparison.

Who knows how 2020 will play out, but I think there is a lot of room for improvement with the change in leadership. We'll see.

If not being a good recruiter makes you a bad HC, Leach is a bad HC. If being a bad HC means coaching down the talent you have, Helton fashion, Leach probably is the farthest thing therefrom. No one does more with less than Mike Leach, but he needs to. Mike Leach is a coaching genius, but his personality tends to beat recruits away with a stick. Anyone who can take a step back and evaluate Leach, dispassionately, thinks that. Leach's proven high powered O reputation tended to balance things out on that side of the ball, but his prickly personality combined with his lengthy history of revolving door defense just murdered us when it came to signing Pac-12 calibre defensive players.

The question is not whether Leach is a good or bad coach, that's stupid, the question is whether we are suffering from his recruiting limitations on the defensive side of the ball. You say no, I say yes. I ask you, who are the players we have who could start for anyone in the conference? Champ Simmons, far from a star at WSU, left and started for a USC team that won a national championship. Mark Field and Keith Millard could and would have played and starred for any team in the country. Price left Doba a better D than the one that got us to the Rose Bowl. Who are the elite guys on defense that are stocking Rolo's cupboard, who were just under coached and lacking leadership?

 

[BiggsCoug]

Yes, there were coaching issues....especially on defense. We had starters lining up out of position in the bowl game. 13 games in, and they don't know where to be on the field.

UW, Utah, and Cal were the best 3 defenses we saw this season. They were talented and physical, and our offense didn't handle them well. Sure, you can argue the coaches didn't prepare them - but game planning doesn't make your OL block much better, doesn't make your receivers faster, and doesn't make your QB see the field better.

On the other hand, Cal and Utah were not good offenses, and they both had no trouble scoring.

Utah, Cal and uw were not amazing teams. It is inexcusable for the offense to score so few against them.

Which is worse? A poorly coached defense with not much for dudes? Or a poorly coached offense with 7 NFL guys on it?

As much as people like to blame the defense for losing games, you cannot avoid pointing out that the defense would have to have held Utah and uw to 12 and Cal to 19 for WSU to win with its offensive output.

Leach turned his offense into the equivalent of a baseball pitcher that only throws the fastball. Hitters know what's coming. They know there will never be anything different. While they may take a while to catch up, they will eventually tee off because they know nothing is changing.

What will defenses do this fall when the WSU qb has a run game, a play action series and the ability to run the ball himself? I am optimistic that if the kids can pick up the scheme an offense with more to defend and better play calling will help ease any loss of talent.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

If not being a good recruiter makes you a bad HC, Leach is a bad HC. If being a bad HC means coaching down the talent you have, Helton fashion, Leach probably is the farthest thing therefrom. No one does more with less than Mike Leach, but he needs to. Mike Leach is a coaching genius, but his personality tends to beat recruits away with a stick. Anyone who can take a step back and evaluate Leach, dispassionately, thinks that. Leach's proven high powered O reputation tended to balance things out on that side of the ball, but his prickly personality combined with his lengthy history of revolving door defense just murdered us when it came to signing Pac-12 calibre defensive players.

The question is not whether Leach is a good or bad coach, that's stupid, the question is whether we are suffering from his recruiting limitations on the defensive side of the ball. You say no, I say yes. I ask you, who are the players we have who could start for anyone in the conference? Champ Simmons, far from a star at WSU, left and started for a USC team that won a national championship. Mark Field and Keith Millard could and would have played and starred for any team in the country. Price left Doba a better D than the one that got us to the Rose Bowl. Who are the elite guys on defense that are stocking Rolo's cupboard, who were just under coached and lacking leadership?

According to Athlon, Jahad Woods, Skylar Thomas, and Will Rodgers III made their preseason All Pac-12 teams (2nd, 3rd and 4th respectively). Are they elite? Probably not, but not scrubs. Cosmas Kwete looked very promising as a true freshman on the DL. Justus Rogers showed a lot of improvement, but if I'm thinking right, he was one who needs to learn how to read and react faster. I think that George Hicks III would have a shot at playing on most teams in the conference. Langford showed some decent moments at CB.

Are we loaded with talent? No. I would argue that we need to see how these guys play with a different staff before we consider them all worthless and in need of replacement. But maybe that's just me.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

If not being a good recruiter makes you a bad HC, Leach is a bad HC. If being a bad HC means coaching down the talent you have, Helton fashion, Leach probably is the farthest thing therefrom. No one does more with less than Mike Leach, but he needs to. Mike Leach is a coaching genius, but his personality tends to beat recruits away with a stick. Anyone who can take a step back and evaluate Leach, dispassionately, thinks that. Leach's proven high powered O reputation tended to balance things out on that side of the ball, but his prickly personality combined with his lengthy history of revolving door defense just murdered us when it came to signing Pac-12 calibre defensive players.

The question is not whether Leach is a good or bad coach, that's stupid, the question is whether we are suffering from his recruiting limitations on the defensive side of the ball. You say no, I say yes. I ask you, who are the players we have who could start for anyone in the conference? Champ Simmons, far from a star at WSU, left and started for a USC team that won a national championship. Mark Field and Keith Millard could and would have played and starred for any team in the country. Price left Doba a better D than the one that got us to the Rose Bowl. Who are the elite guys on defense that are stocking Rolo's cupboard, who were just under coached and lacking leadership?

Do you consider Doba to be a good head coach? He won 10 games in 2003 and would have gone 6-6 (or better) if we didn't have to open on the road against Wisconsin. Should he have been pushed out?

Most people would agree that our decline was because of poor recruiting while he dealt with his wife's cancer.

 

[Wasichus]

Do you consider Doba to be a good head coach? He won 10 games in 2003 and would have gone 6-6 (or better) if we didn't have to open on the road against Wisconsin. Should he have been pushed out?

Most people would agree that our decline was because of poor recruiting while he dealt with his wife's cancer.

Bill Doba was a fine man and an excellent defensive coordinator.

But, even before his wife became so ill he had made the decision to try and change the focus of the offense towards a little more of a game managing type strategy than the quick strike offense it had been previously.

He did that in large part because his background was defense first. He thought keeping the ball longer would help the defense.

Maybe he was right? But it ultimately engendered the oft criticized “dink and dunk” offensive style. I don’t really know what effect it had on scoring stats, or even time of possession, etc? But it’s (more “ball control”) what he stated as one of his goals at a meeting I was at not long after he was hired.

Right? Wrong? IDK? What I do know is that things did seem to regress on offenses over the time he was HC.

Another factor in his tenure was the decision to change the approach in recruiting. They had been burned by perhaps misevaluating a few guys they had offered schollies based on what they saw during WSU’s summer football camp. That was an important contributing factor in Doba’s decision to back away from “early offers” at a time when pretty much everyone else was moving toward that direction.

And IIRC, he also felt that the then recent changes that were made in eligiblility, etc, would mean that more really good players would be headed to JC ranks. So a bigger focus was supposedly put on that aspect of recruiting (again, no stats to back this up, it’s just from memory). A number of those guys ended up not making the grade, either from academics or citizenship.

Another recruiting factor was the approach that staff took towards putting a lot of time and effort into going head to head “with the big boys” for highly rated recruits.

That’s great if you get your share. Or, if you have really good second options. I don’t believe either was the case. We came in second on some highly rated guys, and IMHO, didn’t have good enough fall backs. Call that the Pfleugrad plan.....but it was on Doba’s watch. Would he have let the staff follow the pathways they did in recruiting (ranging from guys not doing much at all, to going after big names only to miss at the end).....would the same have happened if Judy wasn’t so ill that it shifted (rightfully so) Doha’s entire focus?

So it’s hard for me to judge just how good a HC he was? I honestly don’t think his burning desire was to be a HC? And that gig ended up complicated by his wife’s illness AND some program decisions he made.

Still, things were looking great the first year he was HC, with the big win over Texas in the bowl at the end.

But it sure seemed to slide downhill after that, with win/loss records of 5-6, 4-7, 6-6 and 5-7. Not total disasters, like the “he who shall not be named” era.

But, considering where we had just been, and the overall state of the program at that point (2007), things were in need of a change.

 

[etowncoug]

Do you consider Doba to be a good head coach? He won 10 games in 2003 and would have gone 6-6 (or better) if we didn't have to open on the road against Wisconsin. Should he have been pushed out?

Most people would agree that our decline was because of poor recruiting while he dealt with his wife's cancer.

Doba was fine but lacked the recruiting prowess necessary to win here. The offense remained potent but defensively they fell off. No coach was better set up for success than Price's successor. Doba, in retrospect, was a huge mistake.

I don't blame Doba for his struggles though. This is a hard job.

 

[dgibbons]

If not being a good recruiter makes you a bad HC, Leach is a bad HC. If being a bad HC means coaching down the talent you have, Helton fashion, Leach probably is the farthest thing therefrom. No one does more with less than Mike Leach, but he needs to. Mike Leach is a coaching genius, but his personality tends to beat recruits away with a stick. Anyone who can take a step back and evaluate Leach, dispassionately, thinks that. Leach's proven high powered O reputation tended to balance things out on that side of the ball, but his prickly personality combined with his lengthy history of revolving door defense just murdered us when it came to signing Pac-12 calibre defensive players.

The question is not whether Leach is a good or bad coach, that's stupid, the question is whether we are suffering from his recruiting limitations on the defensive side of the ball. You say no, I say yes. I ask you, who are the players we have who could start for anyone in the conference? Champ Simmons, far from a star at WSU, left and started for a USC team that won a national championship. Mark Field and Keith Millard could and would have played and starred for any team in the country. Price left Doba a better D than the one that got us to the Rose Bowl. Who are the elite guys on defense that are stocking Rolo's cupboard, who were just under coached and lacking leadership?

I referred to it as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Leach is able to do more with less, so his recruiting classes look like less.

 

[dgibbons]

If not being a good recruiter makes you a bad HC, Leach is a bad HC. If being a bad HC means coaching down the talent you have, Helton fashion, Leach probably is the farthest thing therefrom. No one does more with less than Mike Leach, but he needs to. Mike Leach is a coaching genius, but his personality tends to beat recruits away with a stick. Anyone who can take a step back and evaluate Leach, dispassionately, thinks that. Leach's proven high powered O reputation tended to balance things out on that side of the ball, but his prickly personality combined with his lengthy history of revolving door defense just murdered us when it came to signing Pac-12 calibre defensive players.

The question is not whether Leach is a good or bad coach, that's stupid, the question is whether we are suffering from his recruiting limitations on the defensive side of the ball. You say no, I say yes. I ask you, who are the players we have who could start for anyone in the conference? Champ Simmons, far from a star at WSU, left and started for a USC team that won a national championship. Mark Field and Keith Millard could and would have played and starred for any team in the country. Price left Doba a better D than the one that got us to the Rose Bowl. Who are the elite guys on defense that are stocking Rolo's cupboard, who were just under coached and lacking leadership?

I will also say that you’re cherry picking guys on the D side, and comparing them to one of the worst defenses we’ve had in a long time. Getting to a bowl with a bad D is something Price could never figure out. When it looked like Lamont Thompson’s career could have been over it was pretty bleak on the D side in 98 and 99.

Jalen Thompson could have played for anyone in the conference. Hercules was pretty damn good too.

 

[BiggsCoug]

Bill Doba was a fine man and an excellent defensive coordinator.

But, even before his wife became so ill he had made the decision to try and change the focus of the offense towards a little more of a game managing type strategy than the quick strike offense it had been previously.

He did that in large part because his background was defense first. He thought keeping the ball longer would help the defense.

Maybe he was right? But it ultimately engendered the oft criticized “dink and dunk” offensive style. I don’t really know what effect it had on scoring stats, or even time of possession, etc? But it’s (more “ball control”) what he stated as one of his goals at a meeting I was at not long after he was hired.

Right? Wrong? IDK? What I do know is that things did seem to regress on offenses over the time he was HC.

Another factor in his tenure was the decision to change the approach in recruiting. They had been burned by perhaps misevaluating a few guys they had offered schollies based on what they saw during WSU’s summer football camp. That was an important contributing factor in Doba’s decision to back away from “early offers” at a time when pretty much everyone else was moving toward that direction.

And IIRC, he also felt that the then recent changes that were made in eligiblility, etc, would mean that more really good players would be headed to JC ranks. So a bigger focus was supposedly put on that aspect of recruiting (again, no stats to back this up, it’s just from memory). A number of those guys ended up not making the grade, either from academics or citizenship.

Another recruiting factor was the approach that staff took towards putting a lot of time and effort into going head to head “with the big boys” for highly rated recruits.

That’s great if you get your share. Or, if you have really good second options. I don’t believe either was the case. We came in second on some highly rated guys, and IMHO, didn’t have good enough fall backs. Call that the Pfleugrad plan.....but it was on Doba’s watch. Would he have let the staff follow the pathways they did in recruiting (ranging from guys not doing much at all, to going after big names only to miss at the end).....would the same have happened if Judy wasn’t so ill that it shifted (rightfully so) Doha’s entire focus?

So it’s hard for me to judge just how good a HC he was? I honestly don’t think his burning desire was to be a HC? And that gig ended up complicated by his wife’s illness AND some program decisions he made.

Still, things were looking great the first year he was HC, with the big win over Texas in the bowl at the end.

But it sure seemed to slide downhill after that, with win/loss records of 5-6, 4-7, 6-6 and 5-7. Not total disasters, like the “he who shall not be named” era.

But, considering where we had just been, and the overall state of the program at that point (2007), things were in need of a change.

BD had 3 seasons with non con games WSU should never have scheduled. CU, AU, Wiscy. All losses. All basically scheduling WSU for an uphill battle to bowl eligibility.

The 2005 season had just as much missed opportunity as 2019. Maybe 5 games they lost by 4 points or less?

Leach had the luxury of scheduling. And even then he pissed away games to PSU and EWU. No WSU coach has had such friendly non con scheduling.

WSU scheduled its way out of bowl games in the BD era.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Doba was fine but lacked the recruiting prowess necessary to win here. The offense remained potent but defensively they fell off. No coach was better set up for success than Price's successor. Doba, in retrospect, was a huge mistake.

I don't blame Doba for his struggles though. This is a hard job.

You just beat around the bush and said that Doba wasn't a good head coach. He's a nice guy and people don't want to take a dump on him. I get that and it's fine. Regardless, if his recruiting prowess wasn't up to snuff, was it right to push him out?

For 8 years, I was told that Leach was building a winning culture and a talent base that was going to put WSU in bowl games every year even if we didn't have the talent to win a conference championship every year (or ever apparently). We go 11-2 and everyone is excited for the future. We go from "let's hope we make a bowl game" to "anything less than 7 wins is a failure". We go 6-7 and he leaves, and suddenly, that 8 years of excitement about Leach is just a bunch of hot air BS and we were living a lie?

Up above, I was asked "what players on the WSU defense would start somewhere else?". I was thinking about that and it's not like we had tons of NFL talent on defense when we were good, so how relevant is that question? Since 2015, we've had a total of three defensive players drafted. Take a look at our 2015 depth chart and show me the guys on the pre-season depth chart that we "knew" would start for other teams. For the record, here is the list of starters:

E: Paulo, Sr (never started before 2015)
NT: Barber, Jr (one start, 7 career tackles before 2015)
T: Vaeao, Sr (we knew he was good)
RUSH: McClennan, Sr (JC transfer with 21 tackes in 2014)
WIL: Allison, Sr (he was the 2015 version of Jahad Woods)
MIKE: Pelleur, So (he was promising as a freshman in 2014)
N: Dotson, So (4 career tackles prior to 2015)
CB: Molton, Fr (no experience)
FS: Luani, Jr (juco transfer that year, no D1 experience, was highly rated though)
SS: Taliulu, Sr (experienced player)
CB: White, So (promising as a redshirt freshman in 2014)

This years team

DE: Kwete, So (promising as a freshman with 20 tackles)
NT: Hobbs, Jr (13 tackles, 2 sacks and 5.5 tackles for loss in 2019)
T: Rodgers III, Sr (27 tackles, 4 sacks and 6 TFL in 2019)
RUSH: Taylor III, Jr (decent experience and solid player)
WIL: Woods, Jr (concrete shoes in terms of speed but well regarded)
MIKE: Rogers, Sr (lots of experience)
N: Brown, So or Marsh, Jr (Brown showed a lot of promise late in the season as a freshman)
CB: Langford, Jr (ok as a juco transfer in 2019, well regarded as a juco)
FS: Davis, Jr (juco transfer who played a limited role in 2019, definite question mark)
SS: Thomas, Sr (4 Ints in 2019, solid player)
CB: Hicks III, Sr (tied for team lead with 5 pass breakups, fairly experienced)

When you look at the two teams, that 2015 squad had three players heading into the season that we knew would be good and were experienced, two guys that looked good as freshmen and a promising juco transfer in Luani. There was no reason to expect that defense to be 100 points better than the prior year's defense. We had four guys on that team that hadn't made any real contributions prior to that season (Barber, Paulo, Molton and Dotson). Now, to be fair, that 2015 team had Ekuale, Mata'afa (future stud), Luvu and Dale in the depth chart that ended up being good players, but there was no reason to expect them to be good prior to 2015. Ekuale is the only one that had shown anything prior.

This year, we have nine upperclassmen starting and a lot of guys who've been out there and have tape to learn from. Woods, Thomas and Rodgers have already received preseason recognition from Athlons. You guys can choose to take a dump on these players and assume that they are a lost cause, but I see a group that needed better leadership more than anything else. You can make the argument that the unknowns about 2015 were more reassuring because that meant that we didn't have preset expectations about those players, but when it comes down to it, you'd be lying if you claim that you had looked at our defense in June 2015 and said, "we are going to contending for the Pac-12 North with these guys". We have a lot of young guys that we've never seen that we have no way to know where they'll be in the future.

You have to choose what type of fan that you want to be. I get that you don't want to set up ridiculous expectations and then be angry if we fail to meet them in Rolovich's first year, but I remember when we had fans yelling, "12-0 until it's not!" not that long ago. It's ok to be excited about the team. Being a fan is to be fanatical and unrealistically optimistic. I'm not blown away by Leach's recruiting, but I think coaching and schedule are just as important as the jimmy's and joes and I think we can be ok this year with what we've got.