Peak Performance for a first year coach isn't 5 wins?

MikeDamone

EwaDawg said:

sarktastic said:

I was told... by non-Husky, Husky experts, 5 wins in the first year of a new coach is the most you can expect.

Now we're learning 6 wins casts a pall of doom that suggests we have the wrong guy coaching.

If you are referring to the CUOGS, they are now saying Leech needs six years. I REALLY hope they give it to him.

OTOH, UW could win nine this year and it would be considered a step back from last year (obviously, it would involve five losses).

I hope leach is coach for life. He sucks at coaching. Law is his forte

MikeDamone

EwaDawg said:

sarktastic said:

I was told... by non-Husky, Husky experts, 5 wins in the first year of a new coach is the most you can expect.

Now we're learning 6 wins casts a pall of doom that suggests we have the wrong guy coaching.

If you are referring to the CUOGS, they are now saying Leech needs six years. I REALLY hope they give it to him.

OTOH, UW could win nine this year and it would be considered a step back from last year (obviously, it would involve five losses).

I can see it now. 9 wins this years is a step back for 9 wins last year. But Sark left the cupboard full.

Fuck you.

PurpleThrobber

MikeDamone said:

EwaDawg said:

sarktastic said:

I was told... by non-Husky, Husky experts, 5 wins in the first year of a new coach is the most you can expect.

Now we're learning 6 wins casts a pall of doom that suggests we have the wrong guy coaching.

If you are referring to the CUOGS, they are now saying Leech needs six years. I REALLY hope they give it to him.

OTOH, UW could win nine this year and it would be considered a step back from last year (obviously, it would involve five losses).

I hope leach is coach for life. He sucks at coaching. Law is his forte

Snake oil sales is his forte. The Great and Powerful Oz of college football.

EwaDawg

MikeDamone said:

EwaDawg said:

sarktastic said:

I was told... by non-Husky, Husky experts, 5 wins in the first year of a new coach is the most you can expect.

Now we're learning 6 wins casts a pall of doom that suggests we have the wrong guy coaching.

If you are referring to the CUOGS, they are now saying Leech needs six years. I REALLY hope they give it to him.

OTOH, UW could win nine this year and it would be considered a step back from last year (obviously, it would involve five losses).

I can see it now. 9 wins this years is a step back for 9 wins last year. But Sark left the cupboard full.

Fuck you.

Mike. I know you sell toilets for a living but you might want to learn beginners math.

9-5 (.643) <<<< 9-4 (.692)

I am not sure how nine wins wouldn't be a step back given the easier nature of the extended schedule for 2014.

Sark left enough in the cupboard to compete. Pete is decent at getting the most out of what he has. He took Sark's leftovers and added his OKGs. From my count, Pete has played roughly 8 of his own recruits with several making significant contributions.

I didn't say that a small step backward isn't acceptable. Or even not expected. You are taking exception to the multiple voices in your head - not to anything I said. It is your very vivid (but likely drug induced) imagination.

I long ago quit hoping for the day that Mike Damone is not a total dumbass retard. It just won't happen.

SevenEleven

With this schedule, and now with Halliday's injury and OSU completely off the cliff, there are 8 games on this schedule that are completely un-loseable. Peterman hasn't managed to lose any of these games.

On the flip side, he hasn't won a single game that wasn't un-loseable either. He's got 2 of each category left. LIPO

topdawgnc

MikeDamone said:

EwaDawg said:

sarktastic said:

I was told... by non-Husky, Husky experts, 5 wins in the first year of a new coach is the most you can expect.

Now we're learning 6 wins casts a pall of doom that suggests we have the wrong guy coaching.

If you are referring to the CUOGS, they are now saying Leech needs six years. I REALLY hope they give it to him.

OTOH, UW could win nine this year and it would be considered a step back from last year (obviously, it would involve five losses).

I can see it now. 9 wins this years is a step back for 9 wins last year. But Sark left the cupboard full.

Fuck you.

In the world of Doogs:

.540 > .885

whatshouldicareabout

EwaDawg said:

MikeDamone said:

EwaDawg said:

sarktastic said:

I was told... by non-Husky, Husky experts, 5 wins in the first year of a new coach is the most you can expect.

Now we're learning 6 wins casts a pall of doom that suggests we have the wrong guy coaching.

If you are referring to the CUOGS, they are now saying Leech needs six years. I REALLY hope they give it to him.

OTOH, UW could win nine this year and it would be considered a step back from last year (obviously, it would involve five losses).

I can see it now. 9 wins this years is a step back for 9 wins last year. But Sark left the cupboard full.

Fuck you.

Mike. I know you sell toilets for a living but you might want to learn beginners math.

9-5 (.643) Sark left enough in the cupboard to compete. Pete is decent at getting the most out of what he has. He took Sark's leftovers and added his OKGs. From my count, Pete has played roughly 8 of his own recruits with several making significant contributions.

I didn't say that a small step backward isn't acceptable. Or even not expected. You are taking exception to the multiple voices in your head - not to anything I said. It is your very vivid (but likely drug induced) imagination.

I long ago quit hoping for the day that Mike Damone is not a total dumbass retard. It just won't happen.

Sark left no one on the offense, and only 1 season's worth of players on the defense.

If you can't see we have depth and personnel issues moving forward, you are FS.

sarktastic

PurpleJ said:

PETERMAN DIDN"T HAVE TO DEAL WITH 0-12!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sark inherited 16 NFL players that were on his roster, left to him by Willingham. He inherited what was called a "bare cupboard" according to many non-husky, Husky experts. They hailed Sark for his amazing conquest of 5 wins his first year.

dnc

DerekJohnson said:

I'm firmly convinced UW is 3-6 or 4-5 under Sloppy Seven

I hate Sark as much as anybody but there's zero fucking chance he'd be 3-6 with this schedule.

WedgwoodDawg

topdawgnc said:

In the world of Doogs:

.540 > .885

Also in the world of doogs:

5-4>5-4>5-4>5-4>5-4