Confessions of a doog

Gladstone

What was Samek's reasoning behind going undefeated?

chuck

Gladstone said:

What was Samek's reasoning behind going undefeated?

Senior QB, prolific passing offense that Gilby was going to toughen up a bit, and a pretty favorable schedule. All *we had to do was let Pickett and RW steam roll tOSU and it would be smooth sailing.

As it turned out I wanted Gilby fires and flayed at the 50 after *our first offensive series in Columbus. The hype died with me right then and there.

dnc

Gladstone said:

What was Samek's reasoning behind going undefeated?

2003 was going to be special

dnc

chuck said:

Senior QB, prolific passing offense that Gilby was going to toughen up a bit, and a pretty favorable schedule. All *we had to do was let Pickett and RW steam roll tOSU and it would be smooth sailing.

As it turned out I wanted Gilby fires and flayed at the 50 after *our first offensive series in Columbus. The hype died with me right then and there.

That might have become the claim later on, but his 12-0 prediction for 03 started in like 2001. He stuck with it even after RN was fired, but it originated while RN was here.

AlCzervik

dnc said:

chuck said:

Senior QB, prolific passing offense that Gilby was going to toughen up a bit, and a pretty favorable schedule. All *we had to do was let Pickett and RW steam roll tOSU and it would be smooth sailing.

As it turned out I wanted Gilby fires and flayed at the 50 after *our first offensive series in Columbus. The hype died with me right then and there.

That might have become the claim later on, but his 12-0 prediction for 03 started in like 2001. He stuck with it even after RN was fired, but it originated while RN was here.

The general line of thinking was that we had absolutely killed it in recruiting in 2001 and 2002.

I even thought Dash Crutchley was going to be a good player.

Doogles

chuck said:

This thread is pretty fun. It's so long now I can't remember if I already posted my confession. Here are a few things I haven't selectively forgotten:

I stayed quiet but was cautiously optimistic about Gilby and Ty when first hired.

I kinda bought in to the Gilby undefeated hype stirred up by Samek.

I thought president Emmert was going to be good for the program.

I did speak up in defense of Ty in years 1-2 when his louder critics hammered on things that didn't seem justified. One example would be his shit canning Hemphill and Braunstein, both of whom sucked so I was right. Still doogish.

I thought UW might hire Herm Edwards.

I liked Locker and made excuses for him, same as I did for Stanback.

I got excited about what I saw in Sark's first game against LSU...classic moral victory.

I thought keeping Wilcox and the rest of the staff might be a good idea when Sark left.

I thought we might have a chance against Oregon EVERY year during the streak.

I'm sure there were plenty of others.

Hemphill didn't suck.

RoadDawg55

Doogles said:

chuck said:

This thread is pretty fun. It's so long now I can't remember if I already posted my confession. Here are a few things I haven't selectively forgotten:

I stayed quiet but was cautiously optimistic about Gilby and Ty when first hired.

I kinda bought in to the Gilby undefeated hype stirred up by Samek.

I thought president Emmert was going to be good for the program.

I did speak up in defense of Ty in years 1-2 when his louder critics hammered on things that didn't seem justified. One example would be his shit canning Hemphill and Braunstein, both of whom sucked so I was right. Still doogish.

I thought UW might hire Herm Edwards.

I liked Locker and made excuses for him, same as I did for Stanback.

I got excited about what I saw in Sark's first game against LSU...classic moral victory.

I thought keeping Wilcox and the rest of the staff might be a good idea when Sark left.

I thought we might have a chance against Oregon EVERY year during the streak.

I'm sure there were plenty of others.

Hemphill didn't suck.

How was he good? Just because some players on the team said he was?

With some of the guys, it's hard to tell. It's hard to look good with shitty coaching. That said, shitty teams normally have poor talent. Hemphill did not do anything post UW to make anyone believe he was any good.

Gladstone

irrelevant

the manner in which ty cut them was pretty low class and alienated the team. probably permanently

why are we talking about this in december of 2016

backthepack

TommySQC said:

TTJ said:

Dugdawg said:

I started buying season tickets in 1992. This whole thing is my fault.

I actually haven't missed a home game since the start of the '93 season. So I may be more to blame than you.

And although I hated the Sark hire, I got completely got swept up in the "moral victory" talk after that opening loss to LSU. And the USC win. And the St. Tosh Day Massacre.

2 games since '96. Once I was in a wedding (they got divorced like 4 years later) and the other was Dad's weekend at WSU and I had missed the previous year and made my daughter cry.

FYFMFE

Pics of daugther?

Doogles

RoadDawg55 said:

Doogles said:

chuck said:

This thread is pretty fun. It's so long now I can't remember if I already posted my confession. Here are a few things I haven't selectively forgotten:

I stayed quiet but was cautiously optimistic about Gilby and Ty when first hired.

I kinda bought in to the Gilby undefeated hype stirred up by Samek.

I thought president Emmert was going to be good for the program.

I did speak up in defense of Ty in years 1-2 when his louder critics hammered on things that didn't seem justified. One example would be his shit canning Hemphill and Braunstein, both of whom sucked so I was right. Still doogish.

I thought UW might hire Herm Edwards.

I liked Locker and made excuses for him, same as I did for Stanback.

I got excited about what I saw in Sark's first game against LSU...classic moral victory.

I thought keeping Wilcox and the rest of the staff might be a good idea when Sark left.

I thought we might have a chance against Oregon EVERY year during the streak.

I'm sure there were plenty of others.

Hemphill didn't suck.

How was he good? Just because some players on the team said he was?

With some of the guys, it's hard to tell. It's hard to look good with shitty coaching. That said, shitty teams normally have poor talent. Hemphill did not do anything post UW to make anyone believe he was any good.

He was the best safety on the team and produced greatly when given the opportunity.

You try maximizing your skills when the authority figure intrusted in your development puts you in the doghouse.

Willingham actively cost guys who had a chance millions.