Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Matt Calkins: Why the Huskies need Lorenzo Romar

124

Comments

  • TurdBomberTurdBomber Member Posts: 19,971 Standard Supporter
    Swaye and the Pope. Poetry slam. Book it.
  • ThomasFremontThomasFremont Member Posts: 13,325
    Doogles said:

    This has to be trolling. Comparing 2 years of football to over a decade of basketball?

    Your boy Saban didn't win shit in 6 years at MSU and lost to an FCS school year 1 at Bama.

    You're like a 50 year old talking shit to a 3 year old for not having a 401k.


    Petersen has underwhelmed, but his program has just begun. He'll win 10 next year or deserve to be shit canned. Can't fast forward time to the next season.

    Nope. Direct comparison.

    In first 2 years, Romar > Petersen.

    Then in year 3 Romar hit the jackpot. Petersen (the coach everyone loves to love) has a LOT of work to do to match Lorenzo (the coach everyone loves to hate).

    I'm saying now, he won't do it.

    And don't give me any BS about Petersen having to rebuild from nothing. He took over a 9 win team. Romar inherited a team that won 11 games.
  • ThomasFremontThomasFremont Member Posts: 13,325
    Doogles said:

    Doogles said:

    This has to be trolling. Comparing 2 years of football to over a decade of basketball?

    Your boy Saban didn't win shit in 6 years at MSU and lost to an FCS school year 1 at Bama.

    You're like a 50 year old talking shit to a 3 year old for not having a 401k.


    Petersen has underwhelmed, but his program has just begun. He'll win 10 next year or deserve to be shit canned. Can't fast forward time to the next season.

    Nope. Direct comparison.

    In first 2 years, Romar > Petersen.

    Then in year 3 Romar hit the jackpot. Petersen (the coach everyone loves to love) has a LOT of work to do to match Lorenzo (the coach everyone loves to hate).

    I'm saying now, he won't do it.

    And don't give me any BS about Petersen having to rebuild from nothing. He took over a 9 win team. Romar inherited a team that won 11 games.
    You don't understand how sports work. Managing a roster of 105 for 22+ different positions is way harder than 12 for 5 spots.

    A teenager can be an all-star in the NBA. No teenager has ever been allowed in the NFL.

    This discussion is over. You're officially lumped into the D2D and Hondo category of idiotic posters.
    So you're saying it's hard?
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,956 Founders Club
    It's hard

    We could do worse

    Husky Football! Feel the lack of excitement!
  • Fire_Marshall_BillFire_Marshall_Bill Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 23,917 Founders Club

    Tequilla said:

    I don't think that the writer had a single tangible thought in the entire article ...

    For those that use the whole "what was the program before Romar" argument in looking at relevance ... how many people are showing up to watch the games now? In other words, they aren't relevant now. So what Romar has really done is taken a program from irrelevant, made it somewhat relevant, pushed his chips into the middle for one and done guys, failed, and now has turned the program relatively irrelevant again.

    Sounds like Petersen, minus the "somewhat relevant" moment...
    And just in the event you're being half serious, CP has put more guys in the nfl than most elite programs and actually won more BCS games than 95% of elite top 5 conference programs. I'll be the first to say I have no fucing clue if he makes it at UW, but to even place romar on CP's level is an embarrassment to CP. At least he has taken a lot less talent, made it better and actually won games. Where as Romar has taken far superior talent, middled or worse, and won nothing resembling a big game in his career.
    Romar has put a lot of players into the NBA relative to most power 5 programs. Now you are saying having had NFL talent makes Pete good. But that was listed earlier as a reason why Romar sucks. Can't have it both ways.

    Nobody fucking cares what Pete did at Boise junior college anymore. So far he is a total failure at UW. However, Romar has had some highlights at the Pac-12 level (conference championships, tournament runs). Levels of success Pete hasn't even sniffed while coaching at the big boy table.

    That is pretty fucking sad when you think about it. Romar is better than Petersen. And Romar should be coaching at some private 1A church high school at best.

    But, as always, I support coach Romar.
    So you're killing Petersen after 25 months and two seasons, albeit disappointing seasons, but Romar, who hasn't made a tournament in five years is better somehow?

    At least give Petersen next year before you start putting him under fucking Romar. If he's 6-6 and in some crap bowl again, fine. He's definitely another Boise CC fraud. Romar has done less with more than any other Pac 12 coach I can think of....maybe Lavin is close...and I've been watching the conference since 1987 or so.
    Romar's failures are numerous and well documented.

    And yet Romar's accomplishments far outshine Petersen's.
    If you're only counting what they've done at Washington, yes.
  • ThomasFremontThomasFremont Member Posts: 13,325
    edited January 2016

    Tequilla said:

    I don't think that the writer had a single tangible thought in the entire article ...

    For those that use the whole "what was the program before Romar" argument in looking at relevance ... how many people are showing up to watch the games now? In other words, they aren't relevant now. So what Romar has really done is taken a program from irrelevant, made it somewhat relevant, pushed his chips into the middle for one and done guys, failed, and now has turned the program relatively irrelevant again.

    Sounds like Petersen, minus the "somewhat relevant" moment...
    And just in the event you're being half serious, CP has put more guys in the nfl than most elite programs and actually won more BCS games than 95% of elite top 5 conference programs. I'll be the first to say I have no fucing clue if he makes it at UW, but to even place romar on CP's level is an embarrassment to CP. At least he has taken a lot less talent, made it better and actually won games. Where as Romar has taken far superior talent, middled or worse, and won nothing resembling a big game in his career.
    Romar has put a lot of players into the NBA relative to most power 5 programs. Now you are saying having had NFL talent makes Pete good. But that was listed earlier as a reason why Romar sucks. Can't have it both ways.

    Nobody fucking cares what Pete did at Boise junior college anymore. So far he is a total failure at UW. However, Romar has had some highlights at the Pac-12 level (conference championships, tournament runs). Levels of success Pete hasn't even sniffed while coaching at the big boy table.

    That is pretty fucking sad when you think about it. Romar is better than Petersen. And Romar should be coaching at some private 1A church high school at best.

    But, as always, I support coach Romar.
    So you're killing Petersen after 25 months and two seasons, albeit disappointing seasons, but Romar, who hasn't made a tournament in five years is better somehow?

    At least give Petersen next year before you start putting him under fucking Romar. If he's 6-6 and in some crap bowl again, fine. He's definitely another Boise CC fraud. Romar has done less with more than any other Pac 12 coach I can think of....maybe Lavin is close...and I've been watching the conference since 1987 or so.
    Romar's failures are numerous and well documented.

    And yet Romar's accomplishments far outshine Petersen's.
    If you're only counting what they've done at Washington, yes.
    I think I've made that pretty clear.

    It is sad when the only defense for Petersen is "he was good at Boise" "he needs more time to get his guys in there" and "Sark left him nothing".

    Replace Boise with USC and Sark with Ty, and these are word for word the same excuses used to prop up Sark despite his shit record.

    But this time is "different"

    #WhyIStayed
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,956 Founders Club
    Ty won multiple Rose Bowls at Stanford
  • Fire_Marshall_BillFire_Marshall_Bill Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 23,917 Founders Club

    Tequilla said:

    I don't think that the writer had a single tangible thought in the entire article ...

    For those that use the whole "what was the program before Romar" argument in looking at relevance ... how many people are showing up to watch the games now? In other words, they aren't relevant now. So what Romar has really done is taken a program from irrelevant, made it somewhat relevant, pushed his chips into the middle for one and done guys, failed, and now has turned the program relatively irrelevant again.

    Sounds like Petersen, minus the "somewhat relevant" moment...
    And just in the event you're being half serious, CP has put more guys in the nfl than most elite programs and actually won more BCS games than 95% of elite top 5 conference programs. I'll be the first to say I have no fucing clue if he makes it at UW, but to even place romar on CP's level is an embarrassment to CP. At least he has taken a lot less talent, made it better and actually won games. Where as Romar has taken far superior talent, middled or worse, and won nothing resembling a big game in his career.
    Romar has put a lot of players into the NBA relative to most power 5 programs. Now you are saying having had NFL talent makes Pete good. But that was listed earlier as a reason why Romar sucks. Can't have it both ways.

    Nobody fucking cares what Pete did at Boise junior college anymore. So far he is a total failure at UW. However, Romar has had some highlights at the Pac-12 level (conference championships, tournament runs). Levels of success Pete hasn't even sniffed while coaching at the big boy table.

    That is pretty fucking sad when you think about it. Romar is better than Petersen. And Romar should be coaching at some private 1A church high school at best.

    But, as always, I support coach Romar.
    So you're killing Petersen after 25 months and two seasons, albeit disappointing seasons, but Romar, who hasn't made a tournament in five years is better somehow?

    At least give Petersen next year before you start putting him under fucking Romar. If he's 6-6 and in some crap bowl again, fine. He's definitely another Boise CC fraud. Romar has done less with more than any other Pac 12 coach I can think of....maybe Lavin is close...and I've been watching the conference since 1987 or so.
    Romar's failures are numerous and well documented.

    And yet Romar's accomplishments far outshine Petersen's.
    If you're only counting what they've done at Washington, yes.
    I think I've made that pretty clear.

    It is sad when the only defense for Petersen is "he was good at Boise" "he needs more time to get his guys in there" and "Sark left him nothing".

    Replace Boise with USC and Sark with Ty, and these are word for word the same excuses used to prop up Sark despite his shit record.

    But this time is "different"

    #WhyIStayed
    Fair point

    I think he will do good things though
  • ThomasFremontThomasFremont Member Posts: 13,325

    Tequilla said:

    I don't think that the writer had a single tangible thought in the entire article ...

    For those that use the whole "what was the program before Romar" argument in looking at relevance ... how many people are showing up to watch the games now? In other words, they aren't relevant now. So what Romar has really done is taken a program from irrelevant, made it somewhat relevant, pushed his chips into the middle for one and done guys, failed, and now has turned the program relatively irrelevant again.

    Sounds like Petersen, minus the "somewhat relevant" moment...
    And just in the event you're being half serious, CP has put more guys in the nfl than most elite programs and actually won more BCS games than 95% of elite top 5 conference programs. I'll be the first to say I have no fucing clue if he makes it at UW, but to even place romar on CP's level is an embarrassment to CP. At least he has taken a lot less talent, made it better and actually won games. Where as Romar has taken far superior talent, middled or worse, and won nothing resembling a big game in his career.
    Romar has put a lot of players into the NBA relative to most power 5 programs. Now you are saying having had NFL talent makes Pete good. But that was listed earlier as a reason why Romar sucks. Can't have it both ways.

    Nobody fucking cares what Pete did at Boise junior college anymore. So far he is a total failure at UW. However, Romar has had some highlights at the Pac-12 level (conference championships, tournament runs). Levels of success Pete hasn't even sniffed while coaching at the big boy table.

    That is pretty fucking sad when you think about it. Romar is better than Petersen. And Romar should be coaching at some private 1A church high school at best.

    But, as always, I support coach Romar.
    So you're killing Petersen after 25 months and two seasons, albeit disappointing seasons, but Romar, who hasn't made a tournament in five years is better somehow?

    At least give Petersen next year before you start putting him under fucking Romar. If he's 6-6 and in some crap bowl again, fine. He's definitely another Boise CC fraud. Romar has done less with more than any other Pac 12 coach I can think of....maybe Lavin is close...and I've been watching the conference since 1987 or so.
    Romar's failures are numerous and well documented.

    And yet Romar's accomplishments far outshine Petersen's.
    If you're only counting what they've done at Washington, yes.
    I think I've made that pretty clear.

    It is sad when the only defense for Petersen is "he was good at Boise" "he needs more time to get his guys in there" and "Sark left him nothing".

    Replace Boise with USC and Sark with Ty, and these are word for word the same excuses used to prop up Sark despite his shit record.

    But this time is "different"

    #WhyIStayed
    Fair point

    I think he will do good things though
    Whether you think he will do good things or not isn't the point.
  • HuskyInAZHuskyInAZ Member Posts: 1,732
    This shit is so tired.
  • Fire_Marshall_BillFire_Marshall_Bill Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 23,917 Founders Club

    Tequilla said:

    I don't think that the writer had a single tangible thought in the entire article ...

    For those that use the whole "what was the program before Romar" argument in looking at relevance ... how many people are showing up to watch the games now? In other words, they aren't relevant now. So what Romar has really done is taken a program from irrelevant, made it somewhat relevant, pushed his chips into the middle for one and done guys, failed, and now has turned the program relatively irrelevant again.

    Sounds like Petersen, minus the "somewhat relevant" moment...
    And just in the event you're being half serious, CP has put more guys in the nfl than most elite programs and actually won more BCS games than 95% of elite top 5 conference programs. I'll be the first to say I have no fucing clue if he makes it at UW, but to even place romar on CP's level is an embarrassment to CP. At least he has taken a lot less talent, made it better and actually won games. Where as Romar has taken far superior talent, middled or worse, and won nothing resembling a big game in his career.
    Romar has put a lot of players into the NBA relative to most power 5 programs. Now you are saying having had NFL talent makes Pete good. But that was listed earlier as a reason why Romar sucks. Can't have it both ways.

    Nobody fucking cares what Pete did at Boise junior college anymore. So far he is a total failure at UW. However, Romar has had some highlights at the Pac-12 level (conference championships, tournament runs). Levels of success Pete hasn't even sniffed while coaching at the big boy table.

    That is pretty fucking sad when you think about it. Romar is better than Petersen. And Romar should be coaching at some private 1A church high school at best.

    But, as always, I support coach Romar.
    So you're killing Petersen after 25 months and two seasons, albeit disappointing seasons, but Romar, who hasn't made a tournament in five years is better somehow?

    At least give Petersen next year before you start putting him under fucking Romar. If he's 6-6 and in some crap bowl again, fine. He's definitely another Boise CC fraud. Romar has done less with more than any other Pac 12 coach I can think of....maybe Lavin is close...and I've been watching the conference since 1987 or so.
    Romar's failures are numerous and well documented.

    And yet Romar's accomplishments far outshine Petersen's.
    If you're only counting what they've done at Washington, yes.
    I think I've made that pretty clear.

    It is sad when the only defense for Petersen is "he was good at Boise" "he needs more time to get his guys in there" and "Sark left him nothing".

    Replace Boise with USC and Sark with Ty, and these are word for word the same excuses used to prop up Sark despite his shit record.

    But this time is "different"

    #WhyIStayed
    Fair point

    I think he will do good things though
    Whether you think he will do good things or not isn't the point.
    I get it.

    Most don't judge coaches on two years though.
  • HuskyInAZHuskyInAZ Member Posts: 1,732
    edited January 2016

    HuskyInAZ said:

    This shit is so tired.

    So am I from riding your mom.
    My mom died 40 years ago. It's not surprising that riding her has been a bit boring.
  • FreeChavezFreeChavez Member Posts: 3,223
    Swaye said:

    HuskyInAZ said:

    HuskyInAZ said:

    This shit is so tired.

    So am I from riding your mom.
    My mom died 40 years ago. It's not surprising that riding her has been a bit boring.
    @necrophiliadawg true?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
    Is a wood smash needed if it's skeleton only?
  • Fire_Marshall_BillFire_Marshall_Bill Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 23,917 Founders Club
    Swaye said:

    HuskyInAZ said:

    HuskyInAZ said:

    This shit is so tired.

    So am I from riding your mom.
    My mom died 40 years ago. It's not surprising that riding her has been a bit boring.
    @necrophiliadawg true?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
    Poasts like that are why I can't give you up Hardcore Husky
  • DugtheDoogDugtheDoog Member Posts: 3,180
    Thomas, when you say in year 3 Romar hit the jackpot, that's not exactly true. He hit the jackpot when he took the job. There were 3 NBA players on the roster, one being ROTY and all-star before he even signed on the dotted line. 4/5 starters in his "magical" year 3 were here because of Bender. As has been pointed out, it takes a whole lot more effort to turn around a team of 85 than a team of 12. Petersen inherited no pac12 level QBs, 1 returning starter on the OL and only 1 player in the secondary with significant game experience.

    And Romar did not "win the conference" in year 3. Arizona did. Washington won the gimmick pac10 tournament after the regular season. So even when Petermen doesn't win the Pac12 this year, he won't have the opportunity to claim a 2nd chance championship.
  • doogsinparadisedoogsinparadise Member Posts: 9,320
    Tequilla said:

    haie said:

    Tequilla said:

    haie said:

    Tequilla said:

    If Petersen wins 4-5 conference games next year, he should be fired

    If he competes for, and wins the PAC North next year, the entire argument as to whether he's the right guy for this program at this time should vanish.

    The other argument that is completely fucktarded to me is the whole well if you hand the ball off earlier in the year more you might have got another win or two like it is a linear argument. This year was all about developing players and the team. If you can't see that the development of this team, and in particular offensively, grew as the year went on, then you just flat out aren't paying attention.

    It's more than likely that he goes 4-5 next year or maybe a game better. He sucks.

    You think we're beating Oregon and Stanford next year? I don't.
    I would be surprised if we didn't beat at least one of them
    Neither team broke a sweat this year and they have been ahead in terms of athletes for awhile now. It's already been shown that we aren't out-coaching them either. They would both have to have massively disappointing seasons at the same time for UW to have a chance. And I'm not satisfied with just beating 1 and then getting a 8-9 win season out of it. We're not the coogs.
    Teams we play next year with new QBs starting for them:

    Oregon
    Stanford
    Cal
    USC
    Arizona St
    Utah

    That's 6 of 9 QBs on our PAC schedule

    3 OOC games should be some rather easily wins.

    Oregon St is Oregon St.

    Arizona can't play defense.

    That leaves the Cougs.

    If you can't that next year is shaping up to be a great year for the Dawgs, you also probably think that Clay Helton will get USC turned in the right direction.
    Screenshot taken.

    (Not really, because I'm not Sven. But you get the point.)
Sign In or Register to comment.