Response to CF's Claim That Petersen's Process Is Already Burning Bridges ...
With such a damning headline (which is also essentially the thesis statement of his article), you'd expect a hard hitting link early in the article identifying who, what, when, and where the bridges are being burnt. If you follow this logic, you'd conclude that Fetters is trying to insinuate that it is Marcus Peters who is in a "burning bridge" state with Petersen given the benching that Petersen gave after Peters' penalty in the 2nd half that allowed an Eastern Washington drive to continue and eventually lead to 7 points. Fetters describes Peters' behavior during that sequence as "getting jacked" and "adding some spice of a purple and gold decoration." Fetters then jumps to quoting Petersen's comments on the situation (paraphrasing that it's an easy decision for him to bench someone that isn't playing how they want to play) before immediately moving on talking about the Husky offense executing down the stretch of the game and talking about how good Vernon Adams played.
In the above paragraph, there's a very important missing piece of information - and that's the comments of one Marcus Peters. Fetters very clearly insinuates based on the title of the article and then leading the article with the Peters situation that Peters is at minimum very disgruntled at how Petersen's "punishment" was enforced. This is a classic bait and switch tactic employed by the DM staff where they insinuate messages without ever specifically coming out and saying anything. Then, when called out on their insinuations they fall back on the fact that their words that don't really say anything and claim that their comments are being twisted, misinterpreted, or whatnot.
Fetters does eventually pick up on the Peters angle again later in the article when talking about how Petersen is all about the "process," including his comments about "process" during his postgame remarks where Fetters notes that it was a message directed to the entire team but were a "blunt instrument in the direction of the defense or Mr. Peters in particular" and noting that LAST YEAR the actions of Peters would have been met with "some extra gassers or extra practice conditioning." I'll address the reference to "last year" later in this. However, the usage of "Mr Peters" in his comments is also very tactical and calculated by Fetters. The usage of "Mr" when addressing someone is normally a sign to note the distinguished nature of an individual and as a sign of respect. In fact, when looking at reporting, you tend to only find the use of "Mr" in a reporting format when it comes to publications such as the Wall Street Journal when talking consistently about C-level executives of Fortune 500 companies, leaders of the global financial industry, etc. "Mr. Peters" is a college student who while he happens to be a very good football player, has definitely not reached a level of distinguished achievement yet in life to have earned such a title in being reported about. But the other side to this is that the building up of Peters in this case is also served to be a propping up of Peters in his plight against Petersen because Fetters' main thesis in looking at the title of the article is tied into discrediting the performance of Chris Petersen. The subtle drop in of the "Mr" in front of Peters is subtly trying to get a reader to side or identify with the plight of Peters at the expense of the (over)reaction of Petersen.
Fetters next touches in on the "Petersen Process" and notes how the performance wasn't good enough yet the players need to come back and learn from their mistakes (which btw is what happens to any well coached team week in and week out - even for a World Championship caliber team like the Seahawks). In describing the process, Fetters notes the play, and suspension, earned by QB Cyler Miles based on his off-field actions after the Super Bowl. In reading through the comments from Miles, you don't get a single impression from him that he feels like there have been bridges burned between him and his coach while instead noting that the punishment was tough but he was happy that he could come back and help the team. And this is a telling comment. When the punishment is severe enough to dissuade you from making comparable mistakes in the future, you think twice about whether or not the action matches the punishment. It's called discipline.
After providing a brief recap of a few other key points/players of the game and a week to week comparison of the Hawaii results to that of the Eastern game, Fetters proceeds to continue talking about Monday's while citing that "Monday's are there to tell the truth." For those carefully paying attention, "Tell the Truth Monday's" were a hallmark of the former coach of the University of Washington ... they have nothing to do with the current coach. And this in reality isn't surprising considering that what follows is remarking that the performance seen on Saturday "wasn't Washington Football in any way, shape, or form - at least Washington Football the way it was in 2013."
And now we're at the crux of the entire article. The "betrayal" and "burned bridges" isn't in reference to the players as there's not a single comment from any single player (at minimum on the record) that suggests that this is even close to the truth. But instead, the "burned bridges" is a burning of anything in Petersen's program tied to anything Steve Sarkisian did (which Fetters' website has a well known strong relationship with). The following comments made by Fetters are very telling:
"That may just be the point"
"Sarkisian built Washington back from 0-12 to 9-4 village complete with a shiny new house and resources galore"
"Petersen is in the process of burning it all to the ground"
"For those of us - myself included - who thought that Petersen would simply take the community left by Sarkisian and immediately put his stamp on it and take it to the next level we were sorely mistaken"
"We were duped"
This is where Fetters then picks back up on Peters and the punishment that he would have received LAST YEAR that I mentioned previously. Last year doesn't matter anymore. There's a new sheriff in town and the only punishment that is relevant is what is in the here and now. This is where the entire crux of Fetters' opinion is tied up. He uses Peters as the poster child for an "unjust punishment" in his eyes. He cites what he views as poor on-field performance as being a direct result of Petersen's focus on "the process." And he offers up that those that are being betrayed are those that were so loyal to Sarkisian who are standing by and watching seemingly everything that he did and watch it be burned at the 50 yard line.
Fetters then concludes by offering up that "Petersen was touted as the closest thing to Don James in this era," noting that James was 11-11 in his first 2 years, and saying that "Petersen can't afford 11-11." After noting that some of the changes Petersen has made have been successful while others have either been failures or works in process, Fetters concludes his article with the usual DM.com double speak by saying that "Petersen and his staff should be given all the time in the world to find that sweet spot ... but right now it looks like they are in demolition mode. And it's confusing."
Simply put, you can't write an article where your title talks about the coach burning bridges (without really providing a direct and identifiable candidate of whose bridges are being burned ANYWHERE in your article) and then conclude the article by saying that the coach deserves all the time in the world to implement his system. That's just flat out double speak of the highest order. When your opinion article is that, then you're better off just flat out not even writing it.
And, in conclusion, I'll be more than happy to educate Fetters on why all of this is confusing to him. Petersen's won multiple conference titles and played in some of the biggest games that you can in college football. He KNOWS what it takes as a head coach to win at the highest of levels. What he inherited from Sarkisian was a team full of talented players that lacked discipline, didn't know how to execute when it counted, handle adversity, or consistently perform at a high level. That's not really an opinion. That can be seen by Sarkisian's in-season conference record of 4-5, 5-4, 5-4, 5-4, and 5-4 in his 5 years on Montlake; by his 34-29 record (excluding the 2013 bowl game since he had already taken the SC job at that point), and that his record in road/neutral games while the head coach at the UW was 9-21. Putting it mildly, Sarkisian has yet to prove in any way, shape, or form that he is anything more than a mediocre head coach and he has a long way to go to match Chris Petersen's resume or 94-12 career record as a head coach. If forced to make a decision to back one coach or another, given the resumes, it's almost impossible to objectively not have more faith in the track record of Chris Petersen. If he sees problems in a team, decides he needs to break it down to build it back up, etc., then you have to provide the man the opportunity to do the job that he was hired to do without meddling into his decisions or whether or not you agree or disagree with him. His report card will be judged on his performance on the field with the scoreboard ... which is how a coach should be judged.
Comments
-
TL, DR.
WTF for needing 27 paragraphs to explain F3 is a fucking idiot.
Some of you fucks really need to SSBIAFF for your Doucheman shit. -
Well done, I read it!!!
Also, great point about how he never pointed out who the burning of bridges was being done to. But it is very clear that the bridges being burnt that are butt hurting the LPT is the bridges that existed between the old staff and them. -
@IrishDawg22
It has everything to do with exposing how dangerous to the program that people like Fetters, Kim Jong Vino, etc are to the University of Washington when they run their mouth on topics that are completely based on hyperbole and insinuation. It was one of the WORST articles that I've ever read in that regard.
I'd have absolutely ZERO problem if my response was forwarded to the Athletic Department. It's the reason I tried to keep it 100% classy and not go down the road of doing any discrediting of any individual or site other than noting their classic bait and switch of double talk and twisting.
There's absolutely nothing good that an article like this does for the UW Athletic Dept or UW Football Program. For better or worse, these individuals have an audience and a base that will believe these kinds of stories. It's important that the UW understands fully what the people that they credential are saying publicly about the program and that they are in a position to respond to those kinds of stories accordingly.
You'll notice that rarely do I jump on those individuals or site for anything more than being very direct in how they act in direction to the program, particularly when their actions are tied to lies and propaganda. -
I think in the comment threads where he was called out for the burnt bridge comments, he does his usual passive-aggressive bullshit "you didn't understand the metaphor" or whatever. Hopefully Dickus shows up with his cut-and-paster soon
-
That was the thing that pissed me off the most reading the article ... it'd earn a C at best in any UW English class simply because there's no connection between the thesis and anything being written in the story. It's just flat out rambling.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:Well done, I read it!!!
Also, great point about how he never pointed out who the burning of bridges was being done to. But it is very clear that the bridges being burnt that are butt hurting the LPT is the bridges that existed between the old staff and them. -
Well done.
But I have to ask.
Do you ever get laid? -
@Tequilla. I haven't read it yet because it is a novella. I did upvote it and rated it as awesome because you right solid poasts.
-
It's easy to write that when you're watching a 24-7 dreckfest on TVtopdawgnc said:Well done.
But I have to ask.
Do you ever get laid?
HTH -
Tequila this is great if you posted it on DM.c. I'm not sure what good it's doing here.
-
Nice work @Tequilla.
Re-reading Fetter's argument is akin to verbal jousting with my passive-aggressive know-it-all mother-in-law. Ironically, she hasn't worked a day in her life but knows how businesses and economies are run. Not dissimilar to Fetter's rambling about how a Division 1 coach with a decade of experience should implement his coaching philosophy and/or discipline an out-of-line player.
Let the Coach stick to what he knows best and let the wannabe "Op-ed" typist stick to what he knows best...where to find the best heart-attack triple decker hamburger, or the juiciest plate of squeeze-cheeze nachos around. -
-
I live in the parents basement wearing stained sweatpants ... what do you think?topdawgnc said: -
I want to awesome this many more times.IrishDawg22 said:
-
Well reasoned rebuttal, Tequilla, but holy shit TL.
-
Jk. I read it. Just wanted to post that. -
YOU WANNA TAKE THE GLOVES OFF, FETTERS? LET'S DO THIS. LET'S ROLL.
-
It probably didn't take him all day to write all that like it would have taken you, toppy.topdawgnc said:Well done.
But I have to ask.
Do you ever get laid?
It was a long poast to say water is wet, though.
-
Cliff Notes version?
-
Golf clap for Tequila 's mom.
I hope she sneaks into the basement to use his account more often. -
Fetters using the DM.com classic tactic of double talk and innuendo to imply something without saying anything without having any sources as usual ...HeretoBeatmyChest said:Cliff Notes version?
Entire premise of the article being that Petersen is burning bridges without identifying anybody with the closest "person" who Petersen is burning bridges of being anybody that was a supporter/believer in Seven Win Steve -
Dawgman is on borrowed time, or at least the writers there are. They will be the sacrificial
lambselephants when the site is really hemorrhaging subscriptions. Like the tool that I am, I listened to their show on the drive up to Seattle, and the only thing Kim could say about the coaching staff was, "You just never know what you're gonna get from Pete!" Wow, that is radio gold right there. Then they bumbled on about some high school recruits showing up to the game and whether UW could steal Joyner like they did with Sankey. They literally have nothing nowadays.
They're already fucked. -
I'll say a couple things... firstly, well written and well said tequilla... second, tl:dr (as usual)... third, why do any of you care what a 500 lb nacho vacuum + a 350 pound TBS + a 138 lb winetard with a football from Big 5 Sporting Goods - all of whom have never played a down of real football nor any of whom (used whom not who to gain street cred with Tequilla) went to UW, actually have to say about the UW football program?
.
.
.
.
christ -
We really didn't want to get into it on here, but expect a call from the Fox lawyers first thing tomorrow morning.
-
Not in the middle of the store?fauxdawgman said:We really didn't want to get into it on here, but expect a call from the Fox lawyers first thing tomorrow morning.
-
This whole bored is slipping, by the way.
You want to take the gloves off Race? You want to get down in a pissing match? Let's do it. Let's roll.
I'm getting completely fed up with your hate, negativity, and throwing people under the bus.
Quite frankly Race, I'm very, VERY happy that I don't know you. I'm quite happy that I don't lead what appears to be such a pathetic life that is faced with looking for the negativity in every situation. You need to go find something to smile at. Last I checked, it's summertime. The weather in Seattle seems to be pretty damn good right now - why don't you go check that out.
You are pretty damn wrong about things. You may think that the amount of time that you keep spewing your views that that you've now heard it enough times that you are right. Doesn't make you right.
You talk about 12-47 like that happened out of the blue sky. I've never seen you once suggest that the process of the downfall of this program began well before Emmert arrived.
You want facts? You want truth? Here's your truth.
Emmert came to the UW prior to the GLORIOUS 1-10 season under Gilby. The year before that (2003) Gilby managed to do enough to get us to 6-6, but that included the debacle at Cal where we gave up 700 yards (or thereabouts). It was an indifferent team that pretty much was at best mediocre. We lost 5 of our last 8, including the blowout to Cal, the blowout to UCLA, and a home loss to NEVADA. Yep, the program was heading in the right direction.
The 2002 season under Slick was another sterling season example that is most remembered for the "Northwest Championship." That was great. But it hid the fact that going into the "Northwest Championship" we were a 4-5 football team that was pretty much a joke at 1-4 in the conference. In both 2002 and 2003, we finished the season with a 4-4 conference record.
These weren't good football teams. The trend was heading downhill.
Emmert comes on board and immediately gets sadled with the Gilby 1-10 debacle.
Prior to Emmert coming on board, Babs jumps ship after a decade of mis-management, including allowing the stadium to begin the erosion process.
Throughout 2003, we're faced with Slick leaving and the subsequent lawsuit(s), Dr. Feelgood, and a whole mess with the softball program and Teresa Wilson.
Now keep in mind the following: ALL THIS HAPPENED BEFORE EMMERT WAS ANYWHERE NEAR BEING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON.
Things were not in great shape. I think just about everybody knew that.
A search committee is formed to replace Babs. The BOR, upper campus, and the big donor supporters of the school are sick of the egg showing up on their face. They are sick of the country club that Babs ran and the loose way she ran the department - particularly in light of what went on with Slick. They wanted someone prim, proper, and who they could count on would not sully the University name. ENTER TODD TURNER.
Now, this pretty much gets you up to the point where Emmert was hired. Did he have to sign off on the hiring of Turner? Most likely. But whatever.
At this point, Emmert isn't responsible for the on-field performance of the football program. There is a coach in place. It's not Emmert's job to oversee the football program or any other program in the athletic department. That job belongs to Todd Turner. It's Emmert's job to monitor the job performance of Todd Turner.
So 1-10 happens. Gilby is canned by Turner (rightfully so). Yes, the program went 1-10. But the actions of those charged with overseeing the program were correct. Turner fired the coach for poor performance. If I'm in Emmert's shoes, I can't complain.
Coaching search takes place and Turner has his heart set on Tyrone Willingham. It's Turner's hire. It's not Emmert's hire. Surely Emmert had to sign off on the hire. That's fine. You want to throw some blame on him for not having the foresight to negate the hire. That's fine. But the hire isn't Emmert's responsibility. It's Turner's responsibility. It's Emmert's responsibility to hold Turner accountable for the hire (which he did 3 years later when it was obvious that Tyrone wasn't the answer).
So Tyrone goes 2-9 the first year after a 1-10 year. Not great. Warning signs start going off, particularly with some poor performance to close games. But it's the first year of the regime and really hard to get too critical.
The next year the program goes 5-7 and has 2 significant events. The first significant event is the loss of the QB to injury. I think many could argue that without the loss of Isaiah that year, we go 6-6. The second event that was significant was the "suddenly senior" day and the unexplicable loss to Stanford with the most emotionless football team anybody had ever seen. Again, there's not enough there to fire Tyrone at that point. There are warning signs. There is ground to pretty much tell Tyrone that the following year is an action year where something needs to happen. He's on a short leash at this point in my opinion.
The following year we lose games in ways that are unexplainable. Blow a huge loss to Arizona - a game we should have never lost. The most ridiculous ending to an Apple Cup I've ever seen where a guy was open by 20 yards coming out of a timeout. Blowing a pair of 21 point leads to Hawai'i. It was pretty obvious at this point that things weren't working. Coaching change was in order. Perhaps an AD change was also in order. The coaching change was blocked and complicated. The AD's head fell - and rightfully so due to some other issues that he had and such a terrible hire of a head coach.
Prior to the decision to fire Tyrone after 2007, it's really hard to argue with ANYTHING that Emmert had done with respect to the football program.
I will say that bringing Tyrone back for 2008 was a disasterous mistake. It should have never happened. You want to throw 0-12 on Emmert - I'm all for it. I think if you caught Emmert in a reflective, truthful moment, he would tell you in hindsight that he should have made the move and that it wasn't worth the carnage of 0-12.
Throw Emmert under the bus for 2008. That's his responsibility. 2004-2007? Not so much. By all means, please, please tell me where he has responsibility for 2004 and 2007 other than the fact that he's the University President. Please tell me what specific actions that he did to undermine the program. You aren't going to find them - they aren't there.
Your criticism of Emmert is ridiculous. Your criticism of Woodward is just downright comical.
Where has Woodward screwed this program? He has only been responsible for this program in the summer of 2008 in a full-time role. Are you going to hold him to the fire for being the interim AD for the first half of 2008? How is he responsible for anything from 2004-2007 when he wasn't even involved with the Athletic Department? Talk about conspiracy theories. This may be one of the greatest conspiracy theories I've ever seen.
I don't like losing. I don't like what I've seen the last 5 years. It's made me sick to my stomach many times over. But unlike you, I can at least take a step back and realize that the genesis of this problem began well before Mark Emmert became President of the University of Washington.
If I spent my time being a "mindless Race Bannon minion," then I'd be convinced that the only logical explanation for our failures have been Mark Emmert and Scott Woodward.
Quite frankly, that opinion is one of the most idiotic insanely stupid opinions that I've ever seen in my life.
I don't defend the "wrong targets." There is blame to be thrown Emmert's way. I readily acknowledge that. But it isn't his full blame. Babs deserves blame. Gerberding deserves blame. McCormick deserves some blame. Slick deserves some blame. Gilby deserves some blame. Turner deserves some blame. Tyrone deserves some blame. Of the names I've listed, only 3 of those names have any timeline that extends into any portion of Emmert's tenure. That's less than half of those names.
Quite frankly Race, you are a world class donkey. When I hear people bitch and moan about the people in the State of Washington - you are a crystal example of why people bitch about the State of Washington. When I hear people that bitch about the fans of the University of Washington and what their complaints are, you represent what those complaints are.
In my opinion, you are not good for the University of Washington. You aren't helping the program. You aren't helping the University. You are entirely self-serving and a pompous, egotistical jerk.
You are barking up the wrong tree if you are going after me. I'm not naive enough to shove my head so far up my arse to ignore what I am seeing. I don't think that there is anybody that knows me that would say that I wouldn't call a spade a spade.
All that paying for and attending games longer than I've been alive has done for you is given you a perceived ability to go be a bitter old man. Congrats on that.
Thanks for showing those of us in a younger generation how not to act in 20-30 years when we are in your shoes. -
Wouldn't it have to actually be seen by F3 and all the other dozen of DM.c customers who read F3's piece to be considered a rebuttal? My critique of Tequila's fine work, which seemed to not meet with his approval, is that it's kind of a hollow answer if it's only shared with us here. Nobody here stands to gain anything or change their mind. Most of us never read F3's piece. Teq's effort is kind of wasted here.EsophagealFeces said:Well reasoned rebuttal, Tequilla, but holy shit TL.
If I missed something and this was posted on DM.c or sent to Fetters and the rest of the staff/LP3s then my apologies.
-
I don't post over there anymore as it's pointless given their levels of censorship ...
The forum here is the proper place ... there's a lot of cross-over of people on this board that still look at things over there and vice versa.
The point as a whole is that there's a critique and counter-balance of the diatribe that is being posted out by the LP Trio. -
Huh?Tequilla said:A common theme in making headlines is to make a headline that has some "shock and awe" to them that makes a reader want to read the story. However, it's usual and customary that the headline actually has SOMETHING to do with the actual story. The biggest problem that exists in the CF hatchet job is that at no point in the article does he ever in any way, shape, or form identify who it is that Petersen is burning bridges with.
With such a damning headline (which is also essentially the thesis statement of his article), you'd expect a hard hitting link early in the article identifying who, what, when, and where the bridges are being burnt. If you follow this logic, you'd conclude that Fetters is trying to insinuate that it is Marcus Peters who is in a "burning bridge" state with Petersen given the benching that Petersen gave after Peters' penalty in the 2nd half that allowed an Eastern Washington drive to continue and eventually lead to 7 points. Fetters describes Peters' behavior during that sequence as "getting jacked" and "adding some spice of a purple and gold decoration." Fetters then jumps to quoting Petersen's comments on the situation (paraphrasing that it's an easy decision for him to bench someone that isn't playing how they want to play) before immediately moving on talking about the Husky offense executing down the stretch of the game and talking about how good Vernon Adams played.
In the above paragraph, there's a very important missing piece of information - and that's the comments of one Marcus Peters. Fetters very clearly insinuates based on the title of the article and then leading the article with the Peters situation that Peters is at minimum very disgruntled at how Petersen's "punishment" was enforced. This is a classic bait and switch tactic employed by the DM staff where they insinuate messages without ever specifically coming out and saying anything. Then, when called out on their insinuations they fall back on the fact that their words that don't really say anything and claim that their comments are being twisted, misinterpreted, or whatnot.
Fetters does eventually pick up on the Peters angle again later in the article when talking about how Petersen is all about the "process," including his comments about "process" during his postgame remarks where Fetters notes that it was a message directed to the entire team but were a "blunt instrument in the direction of the defense or Mr. Peters in particular" and noting that LAST YEAR the actions of Peters would have been met with "some extra gassers or extra practice conditioning." I'll address the reference to "last year" later in this. However, the usage of "Mr Peters" in his comments is also very tactical and calculated by Fetters. The usage of "Mr" when addressing someone is normally a sign to note the distinguished nature of an individual and as a sign of respect. In fact, when looking at reporting, you tend to only find the use of "Mr" in a reporting format when it comes to publications such as the Wall Street Journal when talking consistently about C-level executives of Fortune 500 companies, leaders of the global financial industry, etc. "Mr. Peters" is a college student who while he happens to be a very good football player, has definitely not reached a level of distinguished achievement yet in life to have earned such a title in being reported about. But the other side to this is that the building up of Peters in this case is also served to be a propping up of Peters in his plight against Petersen because Fetters' main thesis in looking at the title of the article is tied into discrediting the performance of Chris Petersen. The subtle drop in of the "Mr" in front of Peters is subtly trying to get a reader to side or identify with the plight of Peters at the expense of the (over)reaction of Petersen.
Fetters next touches in on the "Petersen Process" and notes how the performance wasn't good enough yet the players need to come back and learn from their mistakes (which btw is what happens to any well coached team week in and week out - even for a World Championship caliber team like the Seahawks). In describing the process, Fetters notes the play, and suspension, earned by QB Cyler Miles based on his off-field actions after the Super Bowl. In reading through the comments from Miles, you don't get a single impression from him that he feels like there have been bridges burned between him and his coach while instead noting that the punishment was tough but he was happy that he could come back and help the team. And this is a telling comment. When the punishment is severe enough to dissuade you from making comparable mistakes in the future, you think twice about whether or not the action matches the punishment. It's called discipline.
After providing a brief recap of a few other key points/players of the game and a week to week comparison of the Hawaii results to that of the Eastern game, Fetters proceeds to continue talking about Monday's while citing that "Monday's are there to tell the truth." For those carefully paying attention, "Tell the Truth Monday's" were a hallmark of the former coach of the University of Washington ... they have nothing to do with the current coach. And this in reality isn't surprising considering that what follows is remarking that the performance seen on Saturday "wasn't Washington Football in any way, shape, or form - at least Washington Football the way it was in 2013."
And now we're at the crux of the entire article. The "betrayal" and "burned bridges" isn't in reference to the players as there's not a single comment from any single player (at minimum on the record) that suggests that this is even close to the truth. But instead, the "burned bridges" is a burning of anything in Petersen's program tied to anything Steve Sarkisian did (which Fetters' website has a well known strong relationship with). The following comments made by Fetters are very telling:
"That may just be the point"
"Sarkisian built Washington back from 0-12 to 9-4 village complete with a shiny new house and resources galore"
"Petersen is in the process of burning it all to the ground"
"For those of us - myself included - who thought that Petersen would simply take the community left by Sarkisian and immediately put his stamp on it and take it to the next level we were sorely mistaken"
"We were duped"
This is where Fetters then picks back up on Peters and the punishment that he would have received LAST YEAR that I mentioned previously. Last year doesn't matter anymore. There's a new sheriff in town and the only punishment that is relevant is what is in the here and now. This is where the entire crux of Fetters' opinion is tied up. He uses Peters as the poster child for an "unjust punishment" in his eyes. He cites what he views as poor on-field performance as being a direct result of Petersen's focus on "the process." And he offers up that those that are being betrayed are those that were so loyal to Sarkisian who are standing by and watching seemingly everything that he did and watch it be burned at the 50 yard line.
Fetters then concludes by offering up that "Petersen was touted as the closest thing to Don James in this era," noting that James was 11-11 in his first 2 years, and saying that "Petersen can't afford 11-11." After noting that some of the changes Petersen has made have been successful while others have either been failures or works in process, Fetters concludes his article with the usual DM.com double speak by saying that "Petersen and his staff should be given all the time in the world to find that sweet spot ... but right now it looks like they are in demolition mode. And it's confusing."
Simply put, you can't write an article where your title talks about the coach burning bridges (without really providing a direct and identifiable candidate of whose bridges are being burned ANYWHERE in your article) and then conclude the article by saying that the coach deserves all the time in the world to implement his system. That's just flat out double speak of the highest order. When your opinion article is that, then you're better off just flat out not even writing it.
And, in conclusion, I'll be more than happy to educate Fetters on why all of this is confusing to him. Petersen's won multiple conference titles and played in some of the biggest games that you can in college football. He KNOWS what it takes as a head coach to win at the highest of levels. What he inherited from Sarkisian was a team full of talented players that lacked discipline, didn't know how to execute when it counted, handle adversity, or consistently perform at a high level. That's not really an opinion. That can be seen by Sarkisian's in-season conference record of 4-5, 5-4, 5-4, 5-4, and 5-4 in his 5 years on Montlake; by his 34-29 record (excluding the 2013 bowl game since he had already taken the SC job at that point), and that his record in road/neutral games while the head coach at the UW was 9-21. Putting it mildly, Sarkisian has yet to prove in any way, shape, or form that he is anything more than a mediocre head coach and he has a long way to go to match Chris Petersen's resume or 94-12 career record as a head coach. If forced to make a decision to back one coach or another, given the resumes, it's almost impossible to objectively not have more faith in the track record of Chris Petersen. If he sees problems in a team, decides he needs to break it down to build it back up, etc., then you have to provide the man the opportunity to do the job that he was hired to do without meddling into his decisions or whether or not you agree or disagree with him. His report card will be judged on his performance on the field with the scoreboard ... which is how a coach should be judged. -
tLPT
