@Ice_Holmvik: I get it's a process. But we're still not seeing the big, important wins. UW's been "on the upswing" or "building" or "doing it the right way" ever since 2008. It's now 2016. Sark had his best, 9 win season before he left, but everyone knows that season's schedule had more to do with win #9 than team improvement. Truth is, UW plateaued under Sark, still losing the big games and going to shit-tier bowls.
CP is different, and recruiting is a great indicator of internal program strength. But the red flag-wearing elephant in the room is Smiff. That's the one, big decision that I question CP's reasoning on. The Tedford hire may yield positive results, but it also shines a spotlight on the truck full of "special needs" equipment and support Smiff requires, which is like dumping thousands into a jalopy car worth $500.
Point that I agree with Race and iDawg about, is that nobody should be sporting a sweat pants boner anymore, until we see UW beating at least 3 of 4 Cali teams, both AZ's and of course, Oregon. And we can't get there with the best D in the conference. We need a potent offense, not a weak, troubled, dysfunctional passing game that makes UW one dimensional like last year.
This could be "the year," but fans have been saying that since 2008. CP's a big boy, paid a lot of money, in his third year of doing a job he says he always wanted. It's show me time. No more boner teases.
This is a quality response. I understand completely what you are saying. But I do see a HUGE difference between how Sark built his teams and the culture he groomed compared to how Pete is building his team. This year should be a great barometer of where this team is headed.
Ty was a molder of men who built teams the right way until he wasn't.
Ty fancied himself a molder of men but that was a fallacy. Petersen has a track record at Boise that speaks for itself. BUT the big difference is that Pete's first two recruiting classes are better than all of Ty's recruiting classes combined. And it is not even close. You can mold men all you want. You still gotta have the Jimmie's and Joe's.
Fine.
Ron Zook was a great recruiter too. How did that work out?
@Ice_Holmvik: I get it's a process. But we're still not seeing the big, important wins. UW's been "on the upswing" or "building" or "doing it the right way" ever since 2008. It's now 2016. Sark had his best, 9 win season before he left, but everyone knows that season's schedule had more to do with win #9 than team improvement. Truth is, UW plateaued under Sark, still losing the big games and going to shit-tier bowls.
CP is different, and recruiting is a great indicator of internal program strength. But the red flag-wearing elephant in the room is Smiff. That's the one, big decision that I question CP's reasoning on. The Tedford hire may yield positive results, but it also shines a spotlight on the truck full of "special needs" equipment and support Smiff requires, which is like dumping thousands into a jalopy car worth $500.
Point that I agree with Race and iDawg about, is that nobody should be sporting a sweat pants boner anymore, until we see UW beating at least 3 of 4 Cali teams, both AZ's and of course, Oregon. And we can't get there with the best D in the conference. We need a potent offense, not a weak, troubled, dysfunctional passing game that makes UW one dimensional like last year.
This could be "the year," but fans have been saying that since 2008. CP's a big boy, paid a lot of money, in his third year of doing a job he says he always wanted. It's show me time. No more boner teases.
This is a quality response. I understand completely what you are saying. But I do see a HUGE difference between how Sark built his teams and the culture he groomed compared to how Pete is building his team. This year should be a great barometer of where this team is headed.
Ty was a molder of men who built teams the right way until he wasn't.
Ty fancied himself a molder of men but that was a fallacy. Petersen has a track record at Boise that speaks for itself. BUT the big difference is that Pete's first two recruiting classes are better than all of Ty's recruiting classes combined. And it is not even close. You can mold men all you want. You still gotta have the Jimmie's and Joe's.
Fine.
Ron Zook was a great recruiter too. How did that work out?
Great after they fired his ass and hired a real coach
Ron Zook was a great recruiter too. How did that work out?
Your original statement was Ty. But if you want to go with Ron Zook now all I can say is DAMN... It is obvious Petersen is not Zook. Look deeper into how the program is being built is all I can say.
Ty was a molder of men who built teams the right way until he wasn't.
Ty fancied himself a molder of men but that was a fallacy. Petersen has a track record at Boise that speaks for itself. BUT the big difference is that Pete's first two recruiting classes are better than all of Ty's recruiting classes combined. And it is not even close. You can mold men all you want. You still gotta have the Jimmie's and Joe's.
Fine.
Ron Zook was a great recruiter too. How did that work out?
You are going to try and compare Zook to Petersen???? Credibility denied!
Ty was a molder of men who built teams the right way until he wasn't.
Ty fancied himself a molder of men but that was a fallacy. Petersen has a track record at Boise that speaks for itself. BUT the big difference is that Pete's first two recruiting classes are better than all of Ty's recruiting classes combined. And it is not even close. You can mold men all you want. You still gotta have the Jimmie's and Joe's.
Fine.
Ron Zook was a great recruiter too. How did that work out?
You are going to try and compare Zook to Petersen???? Credibility denied!
Yeah and we had a GREAT defense and only went 7-6 (4-5). The metrics are pointing up. Pete sure did a hell of a job last year.
I know you're being sarcasmic but everything you said before the final sentence is true.
Pete is good at developing talent. In game coaching? He can get better.
True and accurate. Pac12 is way tougher, top to bottom, than the MW, where many of Pete's wins were in his pocket before the game started. Context matters for expectations.
Pete's #1 quality is as a sideline coach Turd. WTF, do you even watch college football? . 92-12 before he got to UW pretty much backs it up. I watched every notable game Pete coached at bsu. Simply a master in big games. Sometimes puppy just shakes his head at some of the shit that dribbles out your cunts out here (hi kim)
92-12 proved that he could inherit the dominant program in the WAC and beat retards.
Oklahomo, Oregon two years in a row, virgin tech, tcu twice, georgia Oregon st
Bill: You did not write Oregon State. No, you didn't. My eyes deceive me, right?
I don't understand all the hurt butts about CP. I'm a fan, and I believe we're watching him grow into a top-tier Pac12 coach. But he's not there yet so stop dumping 100% of the fault on "Sark's players" or "youth." Who brought us Smiff, huh? Maybe this is the year CP breaks through to the top of the league. Great. But he got caught with his pants down around his ankles several times in '14 and '15, because the Pac12 is way tougher to navigate week in and week out than the MW. Very seldom will there be cupcakes in Pac12 league like in the MW. And that's why CP was 92-12 and not 72-30, which is still fucking great and justifies hiring him.
Jesus Christ, are we really arguing the MW is equal in strength to the Pac12?
Uh Turd, those are the facts. This team was on par with ty's 0-12 team when Pete took over. Cyress was that bad. This team would have won 4 games last year with Sark and maybe 5-6 next year. Those are more facts.
Puppy, puppy, puppy....That's just FS and you know it. Sark left the cupboard bare in spots, no doubt, but Ty had no D worth a shit, even with good players on the team, and couldn't hold a candle to all the D studs on CP's first, well-coached defense at UW.
I like and share your optimism, Pup. But you can't keep up this "Move along, nothing to see here" about the last 15 years. We all know the difference between hype and results. Well, most of us, anyway.
How many games did Sark win with Ty's 0-12 team (basically same players)? Next topic?
Yeah and we had a GREAT defense and only went 7-6 (4-5). The metrics are pointing up. Pete sure did a hell of a job last year.
I know you're being sarcasmic but everything you said before the final sentence is true.
Pete is good at developing talent. In game coaching? He can get better.
True and accurate. Pac12 is way tougher, top to bottom, than the MW, where many of Pete's wins were in his pocket before the game started. Context matters for expectations.
Pete's #1 quality is as a sideline coach Turd. WTF, do you even watch college football? . 92-12 before he got to UW pretty much backs it up. I watched every notable game Pete coached at bsu. Simply a master in big games. Sometimes puppy just shakes his head at some of the shit that dribbles out your cunts out here (hi kim)
92-12 proved that he could inherit the dominant program in the WAC and beat retards.
Oklahomo, Oregon two years in a row, virgin tech, tcu twice, georgia Oregon st
Bill: You did not write Oregon State. No, you didn't. My eyes deceive me, right?
I don't understand all the hurt butts about CP. I'm a fan, and I believe we're watching him grow into a top-tier Pac12 coach. But he's not there yet so stop dumping 100% of the fault on "Sark's players" or "youth." Who brought us Smiff, huh? Maybe this is the year CP breaks through to the top of the league. Great. But he got caught with his pants down around his ankles several times in '14 and '15, because the Pac12 is way tougher to navigate week in and week out than the MW. Very seldom will there be cupcakes in Pac12 league like in the MW. And that's why CP was 92-12 and not 72-30, which is still fucking great and justifies hiring him.
Jesus Christ, are we really arguing the MW is equal in strength to the Pac12?
I'm not butt hurt.m I'm Puppy's brother, remember? Some criticism is warranted and Smith probably should have been fired, and the Sark excuse (used by tons on here, but not me) is flimsy. Youth was more legitimate. I agree, he's probably 72-30 in the Pac 12.
There are people here who are just entrenched in their own narratives and thinking from 2008 or they're just trying hard to fit and be funny (usually failing) in or not rock the boat. I'm done with that shit. Tell me I'm wrong.
You are not wrong.
Except he is wrong, unless you believe 4-5 > 4-5 > 5-4 > 5-4 > 5-4 > 5-4
Nobody knows what's going to happen. That's the fucking point. Instead of just giving up and being as negative as possible for all 8 months of the offseason, I'll choose to see what happens. Signs are pointing to something better than the usual 7 or 8 win season. If not, we know CP is just another Boise CC coach who feasted on the NM States of the world. I'm on record as saying he's at least a good coach (probably not elite like Kelly or Meyer). If he's not fine. I'm wrong occasionally.
Good stuff Billy, and well put. This is how dawg fans used to think. They had pride in their team, their head coach. Then boofs like J, Nacho, Race came along.
If our coach is worth having pride in, he'll win the North this year and pop off.
If not, fire Peterman and get a coach worth supporting.
If he wins 9 games that will be an improvement in year 3, during a difficult rebuilding job. And a nice springboard into year 4, 5 and 6
@Ice_Holmvik: I get it's a process. But we're still not seeing the big, important wins. UW's been "on the upswing" or "building" or "doing it the right way" ever since 2008. It's now 2016. Sark had his best, 9 win season before he left, but everyone knows that season's schedule had more to do with win #9 than team improvement. Truth is, UW plateaued under Sark, still losing the big games and going to shit-tier bowls.
CP is different, and recruiting is a great indicator of internal program strength. But the red flag-wearing elephant in the room is Smiff. That's the one, big decision that I question CP's reasoning on. The Tedford hire may yield positive results, but it also shines a spotlight on the truck full of "special needs" equipment and support Smiff requires, which is like dumping thousands into a jalopy car worth $500.
Point that I agree with Race and iDawg about, is that nobody should be sporting a sweat pants boner anymore, until we see UW beating at least 3 of 4 Cali teams, both AZ's and of course, Oregon. And we can't get there with the best D in the conference. We need a potent offense, not a weak, troubled, dysfunctional passing game that makes UW one dimensional like last year.
This could be "the year," but fans have been saying that since 2008. CP's a big boy, paid a lot of money, in his third year of doing a job he says he always wanted. It's show me time. No more boner teases.
This is a quality response. I understand completely what you are saying. But I do see a HUGE difference between how Sark built his teams and the culture he groomed compared to how Pete is building his team. This year should be a great barometer of where this team is headed.
Ty was a molder of men who built teams the right way until he wasn't.
Ty fancied himself a molder of men but that was a fallacy. Petersen has a track record at Boise that speaks for itself. BUT the big difference is that Pete's first two recruiting classes are better than all of Ty's recruiting classes combined. And it is not even close. You can mold men all you want. You still gotta have the Jimmie's and Joe's.
Isn't their record the difference? FMFYFE.
Sark was better than Ty, too.
Sark WAS better than TY. I am thankful for having Sarkisian at UW. He came to us at 0-12 and was exactly the boost of energy the program needed after the tyranny of Ty. He bropught back the spirit of "Say Who, Say What?" Who else was coming to UW at that time? He got us to the point where we could hire a Chris Petersen. Sark plateaued here but in the history of UW going forward he should be remembered as a an important piece in the rebuild of UW. Thank God Hayden hired him when he did and he imploded at USC not UW or his time here would not be seen as favorably.
Yeah and we had a GREAT defense and only went 7-6 (4-5). The metrics are pointing up. Pete sure did a hell of a job last year.
I know you're being sarcasmic but everything you said before the final sentence is true.
Pete is good at developing talent. In game coaching? He can get better.
True and accurate. Pac12 is way tougher, top to bottom, than the MW, where many of Pete's wins were in his pocket before the game started. Context matters for expectations.
Pete's #1 quality is as a sideline coach Turd. WTF, do you even watch college football? . 92-12 before he got to UW pretty much backs it up. I watched every notable game Pete coached at bsu. Simply a master in big games. Sometimes puppy just shakes his head at some of the shit that dribbles out your cunts out here (hi kim)
92-12 proved that he could inherit the dominant program in the WAC and beat retards.
Oklahomo, Oregon two years in a row, virgin tech, tcu twice, georgia Oregon st
Bill: You did not write Oregon State. No, you didn't. My eyes deceive me, right?
I don't understand all the hurt butts about CP. I'm a fan, and I believe we're watching him grow into a top-tier Pac12 coach. But he's not there yet so stop dumping 100% of the fault on "Sark's players" or "youth." Who brought us Smiff, huh? Maybe this is the year CP breaks through to the top of the league. Great. But he got caught with his pants down around his ankles several times in '14 and '15, because the Pac12 is way tougher to navigate week in and week out than the MW. Very seldom will there be cupcakes in Pac12 league like in the MW. And that's why CP was 92-12 and not 72-30, which is still fucking great and justifies hiring him.
Jesus Christ, are we really arguing the MW is equal in strength to the Pac12?
I'm not butt hurt.m I'm Puppy's brother, remember? Some criticism is warranted and Smith probably should have been fired, and the Sark excuse (used by tons on here, but not me) is flimsy. Youth was more legitimate. I agree, he's probably 72-30 in the Pac 12.
There are people here who are just entrenched in their own narratives and thinking from 2008 or they're just trying hard to fit and be funny (usually failing) in or not rock the boat. I'm done with that shit. Tell me I'm wrong.
You are not wrong.
Except he is wrong, unless you believe 4-5 > 4-5 > 5-4 > 5-4 > 5-4 > 5-4
Nobody knows what's going to happen. That's the fucking point. Instead of just giving up and being as negative as possible for all 8 months of the offseason, I'll choose to see what happens. Signs are pointing to something better than the usual 7 or 8 win season. If not, we know CP is just another Boise CC coach who feasted on the NM States of the world. I'm on record as saying he's at least a good coach (probably not elite like Kelly or Meyer). If he's not fine. I'm wrong occasionally.
Good stuff Billy, and well put. This is how dawg fans used to think. They had pride in their team, their head coach. Then boofs like J, Nacho, Race came along.
If our coach is worth having pride in, he'll win the North this year and pop off.
If not, fire Peterman and get a coach worth supporting.
If he wins 9 games that will be an improvement in year 3, during a difficult rebuilding job. And a nice springboard into year 4, 5 and 6
Reusing the incremental progress argument from the Sark era is always special.
Yeah and we had a GREAT defense and only went 7-6 (4-5). The metrics are pointing up. Pete sure did a hell of a job last year.
I know you're being sarcasmic but everything you said before the final sentence is true.
Pete is good at developing talent. In game coaching? He can get better.
True and accurate. Pac12 is way tougher, top to bottom, than the MW, where many of Pete's wins were in his pocket before the game started. Context matters for expectations.
Pete's #1 quality is as a sideline coach Turd. WTF, do you even watch college football? . 92-12 before he got to UW pretty much backs it up. I watched every notable game Pete coached at bsu. Simply a master in big games. Sometimes puppy just shakes his head at some of the shit that dribbles out your cunts out here (hi kim)
92-12 proved that he could inherit the dominant program in the WAC and beat retards.
Oklahomo, Oregon two years in a row, virgin tech, tcu twice, georgia Oregon st
Bill: You did not write Oregon State. No, you didn't. My eyes deceive me, right?
I don't understand all the hurt butts about CP. I'm a fan, and I believe we're watching him grow into a top-tier Pac12 coach. But he's not there yet so stop dumping 100% of the fault on "Sark's players" or "youth." Who brought us Smiff, huh? Maybe this is the year CP breaks through to the top of the league. Great. But he got caught with his pants down around his ankles several times in '14 and '15, because the Pac12 is way tougher to navigate week in and week out than the MW. Very seldom will there be cupcakes in Pac12 league like in the MW. And that's why CP was 92-12 and not 72-30, which is still fucking great and justifies hiring him.
Jesus Christ, are we really arguing the MW is equal in strength to the Pac12?
Uh Turd, those are the facts. This team was on par with ty's 0-12 team when Pete took over. Cyress was that bad. This team would have won 4 games last year with Sark and maybe 5-6 next year. Those are more facts.
Puppy, puppy, puppy....That's just FS and you know it. Sark left the cupboard bare in spots, no doubt, but Ty had no D worth a shit, even with good players on the team, and couldn't hold a candle to all the D studs on CP's first, well-coached defense at UW.
I like and share your optimism, Pup. But you can't keep up this "Move along, nothing to see here" about the last 15 years. We all know the difference between hype and results. Well, most of us, anyway.
How many games did Sark win with Ty's 0-12 team (basically same players)? Next topic?
More conference games in two years than Peterman did with Sark's players.
Either you are arguing that Ty is a better recruiter than Sark, Sark is a better coach than Peterman, or abundance.
Yeah and we had a GREAT defense and only went 7-6 (4-5). The metrics are pointing up. Pete sure did a hell of a job last year.
I know you're being sarcasmic but everything you said before the final sentence is true.
Pete is good at developing talent. In game coaching? He can get better.
True and accurate. Pac12 is way tougher, top to bottom, than the MW, where many of Pete's wins were in his pocket before the game started. Context matters for expectations.
Pete's #1 quality is as a sideline coach Turd. WTF, do you even watch college football? . 92-12 before he got to UW pretty much backs it up. I watched every notable game Pete coached at bsu. Simply a master in big games. Sometimes puppy just shakes his head at some of the shit that dribbles out your cunts out here (hi kim)
92-12 proved that he could inherit the dominant program in the WAC and beat retards.
Oklahomo, Oregon two years in a row, virgin tech, tcu twice, georgia Oregon st
Bill: You did not write Oregon State. No, you didn't. My eyes deceive me, right?
I don't understand all the hurt butts about CP. I'm a fan, and I believe we're watching him grow into a top-tier Pac12 coach. But he's not there yet so stop dumping 100% of the fault on "Sark's players" or "youth." Who brought us Smiff, huh? Maybe this is the year CP breaks through to the top of the league. Great. But he got caught with his pants down around his ankles several times in '14 and '15, because the Pac12 is way tougher to navigate week in and week out than the MW. Very seldom will there be cupcakes in Pac12 league like in the MW. And that's why CP was 92-12 and not 72-30, which is still fucking great and justifies hiring him.
Jesus Christ, are we really arguing the MW is equal in strength to the Pac12?
Uh Turd, those are the facts. This team was on par with ty's 0-12 team when Pete took over. Cyress was that bad. This team would have won 4 games last year with Sark and maybe 5-6 next year. Those are more facts.
Puppy, puppy, puppy....That's just FS and you know it. Sark left the cupboard bare in spots, no doubt, but Ty had no D worth a shit, even with good players on the team, and couldn't hold a candle to all the D studs on CP's first, well-coached defense at UW.
I like and share your optimism, Pup. But you can't keep up this "Move along, nothing to see here" about the last 15 years. We all know the difference between hype and results. Well, most of us, anyway.
How many games did Sark win with Ty's 0-12 team (basically same players)? Next topic?
More conference games in two years than Peterman did with Sark's players.
Either you are arguing that Ty is a better recruiter than Sark, Sark is a better coach than Peterman, or abundance.
Im just arguing that you dont understand any of this stuff. Its comedy for me, provides quality material. Ill patiently wait for you to attempt to jump on the pup-pete wagon next year. Predicting game 5. Will be enjoyable.
Yeah and we had a GREAT defense and only went 7-6 (4-5). The metrics are pointing up. Pete sure did a hell of a job last year.
And a 17 year old qb with hairless armpits, 2 freshmen bookends (1 true) on the Oline, and 1 ok WR . Golly gee I wonder why we went 7-6. Oh with the #1 pick in the NFL draft taking snaps for cal, senior qb's at Stanford, Oregon and Utah...are you really this cunttarded J? Fuck Base, there's an open space for a new poster with a minimal football IQ. J's days are numbered. Fucking idiot
Sounds like a lot of tired excuses. Your fucktard man crush Peterman can't figure out how to win with a good defense and stud running back in college football. Instead, he leans on the pre-pubescent boy wonder that he doused in anointing oil and set aflame with his half baked offensive philosophy.
Lest we forget about the 2014 throw away season with the a defense that had three first rounders + one second rounder and practice squad legend Andrew Hudson
And an offense that could never give them a breather. Football 101. You're still in remedials is what it appears
@Ice_Holmvik: I get it's a process. But we're still not seeing the big, important wins. UW's been "on the upswing" or "building" or "doing it the right way" ever since 2008. It's now 2016. Sark had his best, 9 win season before he left, but everyone knows that season's schedule had more to do with win #9 than team improvement. Truth is, UW plateaued under Sark, still losing the big games and going to shit-tier bowls.
CP is different, and recruiting is a great indicator of internal program strength. But the red flag-wearing elephant in the room is Smiff. That's the one, big decision that I question CP's reasoning on. The Tedford hire may yield positive results, but it also shines a spotlight on the truck full of "special needs" equipment and support Smiff requires, which is like dumping thousands into a jalopy car worth $500.
Point that I agree with Race and iDawg about, is that nobody should be sporting a sweat pants boner anymore, until we see UW beating at least 3 of 4 Cali teams, both AZ's and of course, Oregon. And we can't get there with the best D in the conference. We need a potent offense, not a weak, troubled, dysfunctional passing game that makes UW one dimensional like last year.
This could be "the year," but fans have been saying that since 2008. CP's a big boy, paid a lot of money, in his third year of doing a job he says he always wanted. It's show me time. No more boner teases.
This is a quality response. I understand completely what you are saying. But I do see a HUGE difference between how Sark built his teams and the culture he groomed compared to how Pete is building his team. This year should be a great barometer of where this team is headed.
Hell yes CP is different, and better than Sark. But for two years, he hasn't been at his best, or where he needs to be to succeed at UW and in the Pac12. I think he's on his way, but I also think the UW job and Pac12 competition, top to bottom, was a big step up for CP, and he got smacked around while his staff got exposed. He's cleaned and refined most of his staff, but, to Pup's disdain, I'm betting against Smiff. There's a reason Tedford is running alongside him, holding the seat and handlebars without letting go.
Yeah and we had a GREAT defense and only went 7-6 (4-5). The metrics are pointing up. Pete sure did a hell of a job last year.
I know you're being sarcasmic but everything you said before the final sentence is true.
Pete is good at developing talent. In game coaching? He can get better.
True and accurate. Pac12 is way tougher, top to bottom, than the MW, where many of Pete's wins were in his pocket before the game started. Context matters for expectations.
Pete's #1 quality is as a sideline coach Turd. WTF, do you even watch college football? . 92-12 before he got to UW pretty much backs it up. I watched every notable game Pete coached at bsu. Simply a master in big games. Sometimes puppy just shakes his head at some of the shit that dribbles out your cunts out here (hi kim)
92-12 proved that he could inherit the dominant program in the WAC and beat retards.
Oklahomo, Oregon two years in a row, virgin tech, tcu twice, georgia Oregon st
Bill: You did not write Oregon State. No, you didn't. My eyes deceive me, right?
I don't understand all the hurt butts about CP. I'm a fan, and I believe we're watching him grow into a top-tier Pac12 coach. But he's not there yet so stop dumping 100% of the fault on "Sark's players" or "youth." Who brought us Smiff, huh? Maybe this is the year CP breaks through to the top of the league. Great. But he got caught with his pants down around his ankles several times in '14 and '15, because the Pac12 is way tougher to navigate week in and week out than the MW. Very seldom will there be cupcakes in Pac12 league like in the MW. And that's why CP was 92-12 and not 72-30, which is still fucking great and justifies hiring him.
Jesus Christ, are we really arguing the MW is equal in strength to the Pac12?
Uh Turd, those are the facts. This team was on par with ty's 0-12 team when Pete took over. Cyress was that bad. This team would have won 4 games last year with Sark and maybe 5-6 next year. Those are more facts.
Puppy, puppy, puppy....That's just FS and you know it. Sark left the cupboard bare in spots, no doubt, but Ty had no D worth a shit, even with good players on the team, and couldn't hold a candle to all the D studs on CP's first, well-coached defense at UW.
I like and share your optimism, Pup. But you can't keep up this "Move along, nothing to see here" about the last 15 years. We all know the difference between hype and results. Well, most of us, anyway.
How many games did Sark win with Ty's 0-12 team (basically same players)? Next topic?
More conference games in two years than Peterman did with Sark's players.
Either you are arguing that Ty is a better recruiter than Sark, Sark is a better coach than Peterman, or abundance.
Im just arguing that you dont understand any of this stuff. Its comedy for me, provides quality material. Ill patiently wait for you to attempt to jump on the pup-pete wagon next year. Predicting game 5. Will be enjoyable.
If I don't jump on this year, I'm never jumping on.
Your arguments suck by the way. Pick one and stick to it.
Yeah and we had a GREAT defense and only went 7-6 (4-5). The metrics are pointing up. Pete sure did a hell of a job last year.
And a 17 year old qb with hairless armpits, 2 freshmen bookends (1 true) on the Oline, and 1 ok WR . Golly gee I wonder why we went 7-6. Oh with the #1 pick in the NFL draft taking snaps for cal, senior qb's at Stanford, Oregon and Utah...are you really this cunttarded J? Fuck Base, there's an open space for a new poster with a minimal football IQ. J's days are numbered. Fucking idiot
Sounds like a lot of tired excuses. Your fucktard man crush Peterman can't figure out how to win with a good defense and stud running back in college football. Instead, he leans on the pre-pubescent boy wonder that he doused in anointing oil and set aflame with his half baked offensive philosophy.
Lest we forget about the 2014 throw away season with the a defense that had three first rounders + one second rounder and practice squad legend Andrew Hudson
And an offense that could never give them a breather. Football 101. You're still in remedials is what it appears
And Peterman has done fuckall to fix that offense since.
Turd, ok points but Pete goes as his talent goes. As they improve so will his record. (Jimmys and joes not x's and o's) ever heard that? That's HEAD FUCKING COACH-speak, NOT message board fags. You dipshits never cease to amaze me.
Ron Zook was a great recruiter too. How did that work out?
Your original statement was Ty. But if you want to go with Ron Zook now all I can say is DAMN... It is obvious Petersen is not Zook. Look deeper into how the program is being built is all I can say.
That a babe Ice. You might not only be rookie of the year, but A contender for splitters 6th-man. Wheres ballsacky?
Comments
Ron Zook was a great recruiter too. How did that work out?
Fine.
Ron Zook was a great recruiter too. How did that work out?
Your original statement was Ty. But if you want to go with Ron Zook now all I can say is DAMN... It is obvious Petersen is not Zook. Look deeper into how the program is being built is all I can say.
Fine.
Ron Zook was a great recruiter too. How did that work out?
You are going to try and compare Zook to Petersen???? Credibility denied!
It's not fair to Zook, I know.
Fine.
Ron Zook was a great recruiter too. How did that work out?
You are going to try and compare Zook to Petersen???? Credibility denied!
Zook coached in a Rose Bowl.
It is a bad comparison
Either you are arguing that Ty is a better recruiter than Sark, Sark is a better coach than Peterman, or abundance.
Your arguments suck by the way. Pick one and stick to it.
That a babe Ice. You might not only be rookie of the year, but
A contender for splitters 6th-man. Wheres ballsacky?