Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Washington/Coleman 2014 are better than Polk 2009..deserves own thread
Comments
-
MikeDamoneFS (see what I did there)...keep beating away...still think you are comparing apples and oranges.
Same thing was said about Sankey when he took over for Polk and he ended up better. You just don't know. You can't make an apples to apples comparison when you are comparing the full career of one (Polk) to the projected career of a RSFr with 5 games worth of data. It's FS. You can cut the data size down to the same time frame (since they were both RSFr the years in question) and there isn't much difference so far from the two, but its still a pretty meaningless form of mental masturbation.
And I'm still trying to figure out why this is important to some? If Sark was the coach with this team the expectation would be 10 wins...with Peterman as the coach the expectation should be 10 wins...are we now trying to find a reason (blame the talent...need 3 more years) why the expectation shouldn't be 10 wins? And yes, its FS to say the expectation of the 2009 team should have been 10 wins...that team had some talent holes a mile wide that this team doesn't. Comparing apples and oranges...
-
The expectation every year should be 10 wins. If you can't meet that 3 out of 5 years in an age of preseason scheduling of retard schools and bowels for everyone, you have the wrong Coach.
