Softy interviewing the CEO

90sDawg

First, the CEO has so much respect for Softy and his journalism prowess that he makes him do the interview in the kitchen - that right there is a big slap in the face to the softmeister....

Then the softmeister decides to show his deep knowledge of college football and recruiting and proceeds to ask the CEO that since he only took 3 OL would he be moving the DL guys over and questioned why he doesn't take 5, 6, 7, or even 8 OL a year. The CEO promptly bitch slaps the softmeister with " I want three a year....because 3 times 5 = 15" clearly knowing that softy can't do that caliber of math.

Complete embarrassment of an interview by sir softmeister and loved the CEO making him look like a fool. No wonder the CEO doesn't do more interviews with the local media.

This after the CEO refusing to answer Grinolds question in the presser...Pete LOVES the local media guys...just loves them.

BallSacked

3 a year sounds low to me. Probably should above 4 a year on average, because that position has lots of attrition and scouting busts.

RaceBannon

Bumper crop next year

I hear

Meek

he just needs more tim....the UW tagline.

BayDawg

BallSacked said:

3 a year sounds low to me. Probably should above 4 a year on average, because that position has lots of attrition and scouting busts.

It might be a bit low, but not to far off if you are actually doing your due dilligence on guys.
Its definitely way too low for triple chins, he had to account for the washouts from taking a guy he'd never seen play in the final hour. Every year...

ThomasFremont

3 a year is fine if he develops them, something Sark could never do.

Sark's O-linemen quit or got hurt or sucked almost 100% of the time.

MisterEm

#AtoeTop5Pick

H_D

Kim Grinolds is the only CEO in my book.

greenblood

I agree, that three a year is low. Three a year is perfect unless you use the variable method. Meaning on top of senior guaduates, you have to account for early NFL departures, transfers, and retirements due to injury (which is common among linemen).

chuck

Three a year is low, but I doubt he plans on holding to that as a hard and fast rule. I'm sure he would have taken four this year if the right guys had pulled the trigger.

I think 18 is a good number. 20+ sounds good to people who are scarred by the Sark method of loading up one year (with 1-2 decent and 5 spot fillers) then taking two years off. I'd rather have 18 decent prospects with an even distribution of eligibility.

FreeChavez

Um, you have to have at least 5 ol a class with Ivan blowing every acl and shoulder in sight

Passion

BallSacked said:

3 a year sounds low to me. Probably should above 4 a year on average, because that position has lots of attrition and scouting busts.

Any rumors where banner and garnett are leaning?

BabsGilbyTawdTy

Get too many OL on scholarship — say more than 17 or 18 — and the numbers start getting thin on special teams when it comes to covering and returning punts and kickoffs.

... unless we want to risk a lot of starters on those units, which Peterson probably doesn't want to continue to do going forward.

HoustonHusky

Can nobody count? We took 4 last year (Matt James, Jesse Sosebee, John Turner, and now Kaleb McGary), and 4 this year with Burleson grayshirting.

Did Softy really ask such a stupid question?

bananasnblondes

After the interview, the CEO invited Softy over to his kitchen to do some cooking

HeretoBeatmyChest

HoustonHusky said:

Can nobody count? We took 4 last year (Matt James, Jesse Sosebee, John Turner, and now Kaleb McGary), and 4 this year with Burleson grayshirting.

Did Softy really ask such a stupid question?

If anyone listened to the interview they'd have heard Pete saying it was really 4 when you count Burleson.

whatshouldicareabout

I feel awful for Softy.

I know we all like to make fun of him for his inane homerisms, but at least he's a professional. At least he has a real job on the radio. At least he has a real job related to sports. And for him to interview Kim?

I imagine this is akin to those TV interviews where the news reporter is at the scene and asks some homeless alcoholic what they thought about something.

bananasnblondes

whatshouldicareabout said:

I feel awful for Softy.

I know we all like to make fun of him for his inane homerisms, but at least he's a professional. At least he has a real job on the radio. At least he has a real job related to sports. And for him to interview Kim?

I imagine this is akin to those TV interviews where the news reporter is at the scene and asks some homeless alcoholic what they thought about something.

strongly disagree

dnc

whatshouldicareabout said:

I feel awful for Softy.

I know we all like to make fun of him for his inane homerisms, but at least he's a professional. At least he has a real job on the radio. At least he has a real job related to sports. And for him to interview Kim?

I imagine this is akin to those TV interviews where the news reporter is at the scene and asks some homeless alcoholic what they thought about something.

Wrong CEO

unfrozencaveman

Peterman put him on kitchen patrol, lol

WilburHooksHands

bananasnblondes said:

whatshouldicareabout said:

I feel awful for Softy.

I know we all like to make fun of him for his inane homerisms, but at least he's a professional. At least he has a real job on the radio. At least he has a real job related to sports. And for him to interview Kim?

I imagine this is akin to those TV interviews where the news reporter is at the scene and asks some homeless alcoholic what they thought about something.

strongly disagree

https://twitter.com/softykjr/status/563559168234110976