Tie a cement rock to the foot and throw him off Alcatraz on the way home ...
If Petersen needs any more proof to fire this clown, the first half + first drive of the second half should have broke the camel's back ...
Enough said on that and this game ...
I've been saying for a while that Smith (and Pease) should be fired at end of season ... failure to do so by Petersen puts it on him and would be a fireable event in my mind
Tie a cement rock to the foot and throw him off Alcatraz on the way home ...
If Petersen needs any more proof to fire this clown, the first half + first drive of the second half should have broke the camel's back ...
Enough said on that and this game ...
I've been saying for a while that Smith (and Pease) should be fired at end of season ... failure to do so by Petersen puts it on him and would be a fireable event in my mind
Agree!
Thank you for bumping shit that I said that was 100% accurate ... I should go on a Puppy style rant about how I'm so right so often (#sarkasm) ...
But there was no question that the WRs weren't getting better and Pease had to go ... he went.
Smith did just enough the last handful of games of the year to get the definitive "prove it" year. Personally, I would have looked around and seen if I could have found a better fit behind closed doors and if so would have made the move. But I don't think it is indefensible to give Smith another crack with a more experienced team and not risk setting back some still young players with a new playbook and system in Year #2.
Tie a cement rock to the foot and throw him off Alcatraz on the way home ...
If Petersen needs any more proof to fire this clown, the first half + first drive of the second half should have broke the camel's back ...
Enough said on that and this game ...
I've been saying for a while that Smith (and Pease) should be fired at end of season ... failure to do so by Petersen puts it on him and would be a fireable event in my mind
@Tequilla Oct 2015 - "I've been saying for a while that Smith (and Pease) should be fired at end of season ... failure to do so by Petersen puts it on him and would be a fireable event in my mind"
@Tequilla Feb 2016 - "But I don't think it is indefensible to give Smith another crack with a more experienced team and not risk setting back some still young players with a new playbook and system in Year #2."
I like to say that Petersen should be fired if he doesnt get rid of Smith and then say its not indefensible to give Smith another season... that is what I like to do.
@Tequilla Oct 2015 - "I've been saying for a while that Smith (and Pease) should be fired at end of season ... failure to do so by Petersen puts it on him and would be a fireable event in my mind"
@Tequilla Feb 2016 - "But I don't think it is indefensible to give Smith another crack with a more experienced team and not risk setting back some still young players with a new playbook and system in Year #2."
I like to say that Petersen should be fired if he doesnt get rid of Smith and then say its not indefensible to give Smith another season... that is what I like to do.
What changed? Other than the 2nd half of the season, nothing. But changing opinion based on demonstrated improvement in performance is an executable offense.
Regardless, @Tequilla was right. Who GAF what happened on the field over the 2nd half of the year. Petersen should be fired based on the fact that he retained Smith. Right?
@Tequilla Oct 2015 - "I've been saying for a while that Smith (and Pease) should be fired at end of season ... failure to do so by Petersen puts it on him and would be a fireable event in my mind"
@Tequilla Feb 2016 - "But I don't think it is indefensible to give Smith another crack with a more experienced team and not risk setting back some still young players with a new playbook and system in Year #2."
I like to say that Petersen should be fired if he doesnt get rid of Smith and then say its not indefensible to give Smith another season... that is what I like to do.
What changed? Other than the 2nd half of the season, nothing. But changing opinion based on demonstrated improvement in performanceplaying worse teams is an executable offense.
FTFY
"Tie a cement rock to the foot and throw him off [Smith] Alcatraz on the way home" to "Smith did just enough" because UW beat up on some of the worst defensive teams in the country to finish out the season.
You act like it was a surprise UW finished out the season against WSU, OSU, and some shit tier bowl team.
@Tequilla Oct 2015 - "I've been saying for a while that Smith (and Pease) should be fired at end of season ... failure to do so by Petersen puts it on him and would be a fireable event in my mind"
@Tequilla Feb 2016 - "But I don't think it is indefensible to give Smith another crack with a more experienced team and not risk setting back some still young players with a new playbook and system in Year #2."
I like to say that Petersen should be fired if he doesnt get rid of Smith and then say its not indefensible to give Smith another season... that is what I like to do.
I like to take shit out of context and forget to put this part in front of a Feb 2016 comment because including it destroys my entire argument ... but that's what I like to do if my name is HouHuskyFS
Personally, I would have looked around and seen if I could have found a better fit behind closed doors and if so would have made the move.
@Tequilla Oct 2015 - "I've been saying for a while that Smith (and Pease) should be fired at end of season ... failure to do so by Petersen puts it on him and would be a fireable event in my mind"
@Tequilla Feb 2016 - "But I don't think it is indefensible to give Smith another crack with a more experienced team and not risk setting back some still young players with a new playbook and system in Year #2."
I like to say that Petersen should be fired if he doesnt get rid of Smith and then say its not indefensible to give Smith another season... that is what I like to do.
I like to take shit out of context and forget to put this part in front of a Feb 2016 comment because including it destroys my entire argument ... but that's what I like to do if my name is HouHuskyFS
Personally, I would have looked around and seen if I could have found a better fit behind closed doors and if so would have made the move.
you act like teams like Middle Tennessee State, Appalachian State, Temple, Air Force, Idaho, Georgia Southern, Marshall, San Jose State, Minnesota, Utah State, or Toledo (along with 75+ other teams) didnt field significantly better offenses than Smith and Petersen did.
Just so we are clear, are you rolling out the "BUT WHO ELSE WOULD WE HIRE??!" doog argument or the "BUT EVERYONE ELSE HAS A CONTRACT??!" doog argument
With how often you spend lowering the basket and defending Romar Im surprised you have all this time to move the goal posts too. I guess its easy when you just recycle the same arguments.
@Houhusky you're a certifiable idiot in trying to read shit into what I say that I haven't said.
I've been on record numerous times as saying that I personally would have replaced Smith. After the season, I would have gone through my short list of contacts for replacements (which if we're being honest everybody has at hand) to gauge interest. I would have considered the pluses of making the move versus the negatives. If I got the right person in place and liked the fit, I would have made the move. I'm not sure what is so difficult for you to understand in that.
That being said, Petersen either decided that Smith needed another year to prove it to him or he wasn't particularly thrilled with some element of making a change whether it was he wasn't able to get the OC that he wanted, the disruption to the offense of learning a new offense when so many of them just spent a year trying to learn the current offense, etc.
I don't think it's indefensible for Petersen to make the decision that he made. He has his reasons and given what he's done so far in 2 years here he deserves the benefit of the doubt (and yes, the positives are way more than the negatives). I do think he has sent a message by giving Smith a 1 year deal while everybody else has a 2 year deal. If I was Petersen's superior in such a situation and this was his stance, I would have no problem conceding the point to Petersen provided that we established clear objectives about what expectations were for the following year. Who knows whether or not someone in the AD had such a conversation with Pete or not, but I'd be shocked if Pete didn't have a similar type of conversation with Smith.
And while I seriously doubt that the decision to retain Smith came down to this and only this, given what I consider to be some decent revenue shortcomings in the Athletic Department, it wouldn't shock me if the $$$ were tight and at least played some kind of ancillary role in the decision. If they weren't, then I do think that there'd be a greater chance that you'd actually be seeing a legit AD search instead of the defaulting to Jen Cohen.
@Houhusky you're a certifiable idiot in trying to read shit into what I say that I haven't said.
I've been on record numerous times as saying that I personally would have replaced Smith. After the season, I would have gone through my short list of contacts for replacements (which if we're being honest everybody has at hand) to gauge interest. I would have considered the pluses of making the move versus the negatives. If I got the right person in place and liked the fit, I would have made the move. I'm not sure what is so difficult for you to understand in that.
That being said, Petersen either decided that Smith needed another year to prove it to him or he wasn't particularly thrilled with some element of making a change whether it was he wasn't able to get the OC that he wanted, the disruption to the offense of learning a new offense when so many of them just spent a year trying to learn the current offense, etc.
I don't think it's indefensible for Petersen to make the decision that he made. He has his reasons and given what he's done so far in 2 years here he deserves the benefit of the doubt (and yes, the positives are way more than the negatives). I do think he has sent a message by giving Smith a 1 year deal while everybody else has a 2 year deal. If I was Petersen's superior in such a situation and this was his stance, I would have no problem conceding the point to Petersen provided that we established clear objectives about what expectations were for the following year. Who knows whether or not someone in the AD had such a conversation with Pete or not, but I'd be shocked if Pete didn't have a similar type of conversation with Smith.
And while I seriously doubt that the decision to retain Smith came down to this and only this, given what I consider to be some decent revenue shortcomings in the Athletic Department, it wouldn't shock me if the $$$ were tight and at least played some kind of ancillary role in the decision. If they weren't, then I do think that there'd be a greater chance that you'd actually be seeing a legit AD search instead of the defaulting to Jen Cohen.
Disagree. Defaulting is what UW does best.
HC Gilby Default. AD Woodward Default. President Cauce Default. AD Cohen Default. Stadium Default.
Gilby was a disaster because of the timing of Slick getting fired. I get what they were trying to do but that was just the flat out wrong call. But Babs was pretty much in retirement mode anyway so whatever.
Woodward got the job after a fairly lengthy search. Can debate on how legit the search was but there was a search.
Cauce was interim president for about 7 months I believe. Reports show that there was a decent search process conducted and a number of candidates contacted.
I'm 81% sure that Cohen's getting the job because they don't want to pay for a top level AD given the current AD budget issues.
Stadium Default is all dependent on how shitty the AD gets run and whether Pete can't get the job done. I don't think it will ever get to that point.
If there's a criticism to give of the UW in this regards, it's that it often acts like it is interested in outside voices but defaults to those that know the status quo. But then again, with some of the recent hires that they've made from the outside, the results have been fairly piss poor.
Tie a cement rock to the foot and throw him off Alcatraz on the way home ...
If Petersen needs any more proof to fire this clown, the first half + first drive of the second half should have broke the camel's back ...
Enough said on that and this game ...
I've been saying for a while that Smith (and Pease) should be fired at end of season ... failure to do so by Petersen puts it on him and would be a fireable event in my mind
@Houhusky you're a certifiable idiot in trying to read shit into what I say that I haven't said.
I've been on record numerous times as saying that I personally would have replaced Smith. After the season, I would have gone through my short list of contacts for replacements (which if we're being honest everybody has at hand) to gauge interest. I would have considered the pluses of making the move versus the negatives. If I got the right person in place and liked the fit, I would have made the move. I'm not sure what is so difficult for you to understand in that.
That being said, Petersen either decided that Smith needed another year to prove it to him or he wasn't particularly thrilled with some element of making a change whether it was he wasn't able to get the OC that he wanted, the disruption to the offense of learning a new offense when so many of them just spent a year trying to learn the current offense, etc.
I don't think it's indefensible for Petersen to make the decision that he made. He has his reasons and given what he's done so far in 2 years here he deserves the benefit of the doubt (and yes, the positives are way more than the negatives). I do think he has sent a message by giving Smith a 1 year deal while everybody else has a 2 year deal. If I was Petersen's superior in such a situation and this was his stance, I would have no problem conceding the point to Petersen provided that we established clear objectives about what expectations were for the following year. Who knows whether or not someone in the AD had such a conversation with Pete or not, but I'd be shocked if Pete didn't have a similar type of conversation with Smith.
And while I seriously doubt that the decision to retain Smith came down to this and only this, given what I consider to be some decent revenue shortcomings in the Athletic Department, it wouldn't shock me if the $$$ were tight and at least played some kind of ancillary role in the decision. If they weren't, then I do think that there'd be a greater chance that you'd actually be seeing a legit AD search instead of the defaulting to Jen Cohen.
Comments
But there was no question that the WRs weren't getting better and Pease had to go ... he went.
Smith did just enough the last handful of games of the year to get the definitive "prove it" year. Personally, I would have looked around and seen if I could have found a better fit behind closed doors and if so would have made the move. But I don't think it is indefensible to give Smith another crack with a more experienced team and not risk setting back some still young players with a new playbook and system in Year #2.
@Tequilla Feb 2016 - "But I don't think it is indefensible to give Smith another crack with a more experienced team and not risk setting back some still young players with a new playbook and system in Year #2."
I like to say that Petersen should be fired if he doesnt get rid of Smith and then say its not indefensible to give Smith another season... that is what I like to do.
Regardless, @Tequilla was right. Who GAF what happened on the field over the 2nd half of the year. Petersen should be fired based on the fact that he retained Smith. Right?
Give it a fucking rest.
"Tie a cement rock to the foot and throw him off [Smith] Alcatraz on the way home" to "Smith did just enough" because UW beat up on some of the worst defensive teams in the country to finish out the season.
You act like it was a surprise UW finished out the season against WSU, OSU, and some shit tier bowl team.
Personally, I would have looked around and seen if I could have found a better fit behind closed doors and if so would have made the move.
Just so we are clear, are you rolling out the "BUT WHO ELSE WOULD WE HIRE??!" doog argument or the "BUT EVERYONE ELSE HAS A CONTRACT??!" doog argument
With how often you spend lowering the basket and defending Romar Im surprised you have all this time to move the goal posts too. I guess its easy when you just recycle the same arguments.
I've been on record numerous times as saying that I personally would have replaced Smith. After the season, I would have gone through my short list of contacts for replacements (which if we're being honest everybody has at hand) to gauge interest. I would have considered the pluses of making the move versus the negatives. If I got the right person in place and liked the fit, I would have made the move. I'm not sure what is so difficult for you to understand in that.
That being said, Petersen either decided that Smith needed another year to prove it to him or he wasn't particularly thrilled with some element of making a change whether it was he wasn't able to get the OC that he wanted, the disruption to the offense of learning a new offense when so many of them just spent a year trying to learn the current offense, etc.
I don't think it's indefensible for Petersen to make the decision that he made. He has his reasons and given what he's done so far in 2 years here he deserves the benefit of the doubt (and yes, the positives are way more than the negatives). I do think he has sent a message by giving Smith a 1 year deal while everybody else has a 2 year deal. If I was Petersen's superior in such a situation and this was his stance, I would have no problem conceding the point to Petersen provided that we established clear objectives about what expectations were for the following year. Who knows whether or not someone in the AD had such a conversation with Pete or not, but I'd be shocked if Pete didn't have a similar type of conversation with Smith.
And while I seriously doubt that the decision to retain Smith came down to this and only this, given what I consider to be some decent revenue shortcomings in the Athletic Department, it wouldn't shock me if the $$$ were tight and at least played some kind of ancillary role in the decision. If they weren't, then I do think that there'd be a greater chance that you'd actually be seeing a legit AD search instead of the defaulting to Jen Cohen.
HC Gilby Default.
AD Woodward Default.
President Cauce Default.
AD Cohen Default.
Stadium Default.
The default is basically the default.
Woodward got the job after a fairly lengthy search. Can debate on how legit the search was but there was a search.
Cauce was interim president for about 7 months I believe. Reports show that there was a decent search process conducted and a number of candidates contacted.
I'm 81% sure that Cohen's getting the job because they don't want to pay for a top level AD given the current AD budget issues.
Stadium Default is all dependent on how shitty the AD gets run and whether Pete can't get the job done. I don't think it will ever get to that point.
If there's a criticism to give of the UW in this regards, it's that it often acts like it is interested in outside voices but defaults to those that know the status quo. But then again, with some of the recent hires that they've made from the outside, the results have been fairly piss poor.