A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
This post is half right.
You can't compare 1994-2006 BSU to 2007-2013 BSU. They were in the Big Sky and Big West until 2001.
If ya wanna go 2001-2006 then so be it.
The big thing is that Peterman had the HUGE advantage of recruiting the talented academic dumpster fires that couldn't get in to Pac 12 schools. His player development is good. But so is just about every other Pac 12 coaches'.
And As you mentioned, he only had 1-2 tough games to get ready for every year.
Koetter set the plate for Hawkins who served up a 37-3 program for Petersen.
Petersen took that and ran with 2 BCS wins.
But Petersen is just one of about 9 or 10 quality coaches in the Pac 12 now. Given the Dubs recent history, it will be an accomplishment to get consistently much more over the hump than Sark got.
You all hate to hear it but it's true.
Those that think Peterman is the ticket to the 2-4 Rose Bowl per decade years are in for disappointment.
It's equivalent to thinking the Cougs will now be auto-perennial 8-10 game winners every year because Mike Leach is the coach.
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not.
TL; DR version: Stop living in the past.
(they've been told this before, but they don't listen. well, some of them do, but most don't)
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
This post is half right.
You can't compare 1994-2006 BSU to 2007-2013 BSU. They were in the Big Sky and Big West until 2001.
If ya wanna go 2001-2006 then so be it.
The big thing is that Peterman had the HUGE advantage of recruiting the talented academic dumpster fires that couldn't get in to Pac 12 schools. His player development is good. But so is just about every other Pac 12 coaches'.
And As you mentioned, he only had 1-2 tough games to get ready for every year.
Koetter set the plate for Hawkins who served up a 37-3 program for Petersen.
Petersen took that and ran with 2 BCS wins.
But Petersen is just one of about 9 or 10 quality coaches in the Pac 12 now. Given the Dubs recent history, it will be an accomplishment to get consistently much more over the hump than Sark got.
You all hate to hear it but it's true.
Those that think Peterman is the ticket to the 2-4 Rose Bowl per decade years are in for disappointment.
It's equivalent to thinking the Cougs will now be auto-perennial 8-10 game winners every year because Mike Leach is the coach.
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not.
Let me understand you.
Putting more first rounders in the NFL in Oregon over comparable periods ...
Academic dumpster fires ... those kids could only go to Boise State? Why couldn't they get into Wazzu? BSU has one of the highest academic ranks in the country ... so these kids suddenly learn ... that is great coaching too!
Mike Leach was a one eyed king in the land of the blind ...
You're dribble is nothing but sour grapes that your one eyed king sucks balls.
My post wasn't about sour grapes at all. It's reality. And if you really believe the gem you posted below... I can't help you.
BSU has one of the highest academic ranks in the country
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
This post is half right.
You can't compare 1994-2006 BSU to 2007-2013 BSU. They were in the Big Sky and Big West until 2001.
If ya wanna go 2001-2006 then so be it.
The big thing is that Peterman had the HUGE advantage of recruiting the talented academic dumpster fires that couldn't get in to Pac 12 schools. His player development is good. But so is just about every other Pac 12 coaches'.
And As you mentioned, he only had 1-2 tough games to get ready for every year.
Koetter set the plate for Hawkins who served up a 37-3 program for Petersen.
Petersen took that and ran with 2 BCS wins.
But Petersen is just one of about 9 or 10 quality coaches in the Pac 12 now. Given the Dubs recent history, it will be an accomplishment to get consistently much more over the hump than Sark got.
You all hate to hear it but it's true.
Those that think Peterman is the ticket to the 2-4 Rose Bowl per decade years are in for disappointment.
It's equivalent to thinking the Cougs will now be auto-perennial 8-10 game winners every year because Mike Leach is the coach.
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not.
Let me understand you.
Putting more first rounders in the NFL in Oregon over comparable periods ...
Academic dumpster fires ... those kids could only go to Boise State? Why couldn't they get into Wazzu? BSU has one of the highest academic ranks in the country ... so these kids suddenly learn ... that is great coaching too!
Mike Leach was a one eyed king in the land of the blind ...
You're dribble is nothing but sour grapes that your one eyed king sucks balls.
My post wasn't about sour grapes at all. It's reality. And if you really believe the gem you posted below... I can't help you.
BSU has one of the highest academic ranks in the country
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
This post is half right.
You can't compare 1994-2006 BSU to 2007-2013 BSU. They were in the Big Sky and Big West until 2001.
If ya wanna go 2001-2006 then so be it.
The big thing is that Peterman had the HUGE advantage of recruiting the talented academic dumpster fires that couldn't get in to Pac 12 schools. His player development is good. But so is just about every other Pac 12 coaches'.
And As you mentioned, he only had 1-2 tough games to get ready for every year.
Koetter set the plate for Hawkins who served up a 37-3 program for Petersen.
Petersen took that and ran with 2 BCS wins.
But Petersen is just one of about 9 or 10 quality coaches in the Pac 12 now. Given the Dubs recent history, it will be an accomplishment to get consistently much more over the hump than Sark got.
You all hate to hear it but it's true.
Those that think Peterman is the ticket to the 2-4 Rose Bowl per decade years are in for disappointment.
It's equivalent to thinking the Cougs will now be auto-perennial 8-10 game winners every year because Mike Leach is the coach.
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not.
Let me understand you.
Putting more first rounders in the NFL in Oregon over comparable periods ...
Academic dumpster fires ... those kids could only go to Boise State? Why couldn't they get into Wazzu? BSU has one of the highest academic ranks in the country ... so these kids suddenly learn ... that is great coaching too!
Mike Leach was a one eyed king in the land of the blind ...
You're dribble is nothing but sour grapes that your one eyed king sucks balls.
My post wasn't about sour grapes at all. It's reality. And if you really believe the gem you posted below... I can't help you.
BSU has one of the highest academic ranks in the country
I was referring to the football team, but ...
Facts suck:
Top 63 very respectable.
Christ.
Reading is fundamental.
Your vaunted new Vandy of the west is rated #63...... regionally.
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
This post is half right.
You can't compare 1994-2006 BSU to 2007-2013 BSU. They were in the Big Sky and Big West until 2001.
If ya wanna go 2001-2006 then so be it.
The big thing is that Peterman had the HUGE advantage of recruiting the talented academic dumpster fires that couldn't get in to Pac 12 schools. His player development is good. But so is just about every other Pac 12 coaches'.
And As you mentioned, he only had 1-2 tough games to get ready for every year.
Koetter set the plate for Hawkins who served up a 37-3 program for Petersen.
Petersen took that and ran with 2 BCS wins.
But Petersen is just one of about 9 or 10 quality coaches in the Pac 12 now. Given the Dubs recent history, it will be an accomplishment to get consistently much more over the hump than Sark got.
You all hate to hear it but it's true.
Those that think Peterman is the ticket to the 2-4 Rose Bowl per decade years are in for disappointment.
It's equivalent to thinking the Cougs will now be auto-perennial 8-10 game winners every year because Mike Leach is the coach.
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not.
Let me understand you.
Putting more first rounders in the NFL in Oregon over comparable periods ...
Academic dumpster fires ... those kids could only go to Boise State? Why couldn't they get into Wazzu? BSU has one of the highest academic ranks in the country ... so these kids suddenly learn ... that is great coaching too!
Mike Leach was a one eyed king in the land of the blind ...
You're dribble is nothing but sour grapes that your one eyed king sucks balls.
My post wasn't about sour grapes at all. It's reality. And if you really believe the gem you posted below... I can't help you.
BSU has one of the highest academic ranks in the country
I was referring to the football team, but ...
Facts suck:
Top 63 very respectable.
Christ.
Reading is fundamental.
Your vaunted new Vandy of the west is rated #63...... regionally.
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not.
Agree about Oregon, but disagree overall. Stanford is clearly on the demise and if fucking Utah can win in this league, any school can, seeing that they aren't a Pac12 south school in the sense of weather and commitment. Coaching is still the main ingredient, and both Washington schools have shown a willingness to go out and get the required coach. It's obviously easier said than done and both coaches might not pan out, but both schools are trying to win games and are tired of playing second fiddle to the Oregon schools. This is why OSU is afraid to fire Riley; they know they are a Wulff or Willingham away from being in this position.
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not.
Agree about Oregon, but disagree overall. Stanford is clearly on the demise and if fucking Utah can win in this league, any school can, seeing that they aren't a Pac12 south school in the sense of weather and commitment. Coaching is still the main ingredient, and both Washington schools have shown a willingness to go out and get the required coach. It's obviously easier said than done and both coaches might not pan out, but both schools are trying to win games and are tired of playing second fiddle to the Oregon schools. This is why OSU is afraid to fire Riley; they know they are a Wulff or Willingham away from being in this position.
A coach's record in a mid-major can be picked apart. He doesn't have the every day struggles of the Power 5. He only has to get "up" for one big game a year ... 92-12 is equivalent to 54-50 at a big time school. And if he gets one good player, well that one kid can win all those games himself.
So, let's look at talent. Across the board what is the one governing body who doesn't care about school status, but cares only about talent. The NFL.
From 2006 to 2013 Peterman coached Boise State ... from 2007 until 2014 the NFL drafted 20 players from his squads. Four of those players went 1st round. Four wend 2nd round.
How does that compare to the other guys from BSU who have gone on to other jobs? From 1994 until 2006 BSU had a total of 7 players drafted. The location in the draft ... 6th, 5th, 7th, 6th, 5th, 6th, and 2nd.
Compared to the two time defending 2nd place North team ... Oregon. 2007 until 2014 they had 29 players drafted ... 3 in the first round, and 6 in the second round.
If we turn the argument on its head ... one would guess Oregon would hold a large advantage in players sent to the draft. And Peterman would have not seen an explosion from 2007 on in his drafted players.
Something tells me he develops players, which leads to winning records.
I could be wrong.
Things have changed dramatically in the years since both of our Rose bowl appearances. With the emergence of Oregon, Stanford and the recent resurgence of the Pac 12 South, it will be tough for either Washington schools to be REAL title contenders more than once per decade.
It's the new normal whether you like it or not.
Agree about Oregon, but disagree overall. Stanford is clearly on the demise and if fucking Utah can win in this league, any school can, seeing that they aren't a Pac12 south school in the sense of weather and commitment. Coaching is still the main ingredient, and both Washington schools have shown a willingness to go out and get the required coach. It's obviously easier said than done and both coaches might not pan out, but both schools are trying to win games and are tired of playing second fiddle to the Oregon schools. This is why OSU is afraid to fire Riley; they know they are a Wulff or Willingham away from being in this position.
Why would OSU fire Riley?
I guess that's a matter of expectations. Beaver fans I talk to want more than what Riley is giving them, but that school is deathly afraid they will go the way of UW and Wazzu if they go for another coach and miss. They are afraid to fuck up *one* hire, and UW and Wazzu have already fucked up 3 and 2, respectively. So for me it's easy to look at the Washington schools and make a case that times have changed and they can't be successful. But shitty hires set your school back, and it's much harder to A) Get the right coach first and Change the culture and personnel of the team into winners, than it is to fuck up once and go into a dark age.
I don't really buy the cold weather argument about the Washington schools; not saying your entire point was based on that though. The schools just need the right coaching to go along with their new facilities and either could be back to competing for the North. And regarding Oregon, yes they mouth fucked UW but they had a lot of guys returning this year just to win a championship, and they are still in jeopardy of not even making the playoffs. Many teams in the south are held back by mediocre coaching, and won't get much better, imo. Either WA schools could certainly come back into the fold.
Comments
(they've been told this before, but they don't listen. well, some of them do, but most don't)
My post wasn't about sour grapes at all. It's reality. And if you really believe the gem you posted below... I can't help you.
BSU has one of the highest academic ranks in the country
Facts suck:
Top 63 very respectable.
Reading is fundamental.
Your vaunted new Vandy of the west is rated #63...... regionally.
Why would OSU fire Riley?
I don't really buy the cold weather argument about the Washington schools; not saying your entire point was based on that though. The schools just need the right coaching to go along with their new facilities and either could be back to competing for the North. And regarding Oregon, yes they mouth fucked UW but they had a lot of guys returning this year just to win a championship, and they are still in jeopardy of not even making the playoffs. Many teams in the south are held back by mediocre coaching, and won't get much better, imo. Either WA schools could certainly come back into the fold.
Coogs gonna coog
I can see that you are fucktarded as ever.
Fuckin fire extinguisher selling fox news watching fleahead.
Haven't watched Fox News in years.