DNC, once again, I like Mora. I have said many times, he is doing a good job at UCLA, and has a lot of potential. His recruiting has been great, and his on field results have been good. If he was our coach, based on his recruiting alone, I would give him 4 or 5 years to prove he could get it done.
That said, they have not been great. He lost 5 games last year, with a couple being plunger rapes. I brought up only beating one team that finished in the top 25 (#23 Nebraska) because it's a fact. It seems stupid to me to crown a coach who has merely beating teams that he should be beating. The next step is beating the Oregon's, Stanford's, and other top teams. UCLA is not there yet.
You provided some nice stats, and I agree that so far, the trend line is going up. I think the ASU and UW games are games that a good coach should win, and will be a decent indicator of how good of a job Mora is doing. I am LIFPO with him before I crown him. In general, he has been very good at UCLA, but there have also been some bad results (Cal plunger, Baylor, 3 losses in a row to Stanford). What is wrong with acknowledging those and pointing them out, as well as acknowledging the good?
We are going to have to disagree about some of the Mora love being doogish. Getting excited about interviews (a very good one), is very doogish and similar to when doogs ate up Sark's early press conferences. Linking a post about someone donating one million because they believe in Mora is doogish. There are boosters who give hundreds of thousands to millions that support Sark and believe in him, so who gives a shit if some schmuck donates one million to UCLA?
Great coaches take their program has far as the Iron Laws allow. Pinkel has taken Missouri far higher than any coach has taken that program since Dan Devine left 40 years ago. UW is a historic top 25 program, Missouri is not.
Pinkel would not have been 7-5 at UW. He would not have been a .500 coach. He would've taken Lambo's recruits to Rose Bowls in 1999, 2000, and 2001 (you realize Skippy was one win away in '99, 01) and the program would never have fallen off.
If he would leave Missouri I would take him in a heartbeat.
First of all this isn't factual. In 2001 the Rose Bowl was the national title game and UW was 8-3 in the regular season while Oregon was 10-1. UW had no shot at a BCS game.
In 1999 the team started off 0-2 then Rick decided to switch his entire offense to the option as he tried to win the worst Pac-10 ever.
I don't think Pinkel would have done what Rick did in 2000. That wasn't a great talented team. It had good talent but we saw teams like 1994, 1996 and 1997 achieve less with much talent.
I think Pinkel would have been exactly what Lambo was. Have a solid W-L record but would always have some bad losses.
Like Lambright had a 9-2 regular season but mostly he was a 7-4 coach. That's Gary Pinkel IMO.
He's correct. The 2001 Rose Bowl followed the 2000 season. This was Rick's RB team. Aubs is contending that Pinkel would have made 3 straight RBs following the 98, 99, and 00 seasons.
He would've taken Lambo's recruits to Rose Bowls in 1999, 2000, and 2001 (you realize Skippy was one win away in '99, 01) and the program would never have fallen off.
That's what he said and the 2001 season you couldn't go to the Rose Bowl unless you were playing for a national title. That team was 8-3 with a terrible blowout loss to Miami on national t.v. That team had no shot at a BCS game.
In 1999 that was the worst Pac-10 ever and I think Rick did a good job of coaching that year actually.
Replacing a coach with a .500 conference record with a coach who has a .520 conference record is a massive waste of time.
Replacing a coach that can't beat Oregon and Stanford, with a coach that can't beat Oregon and Stanford but stumbled into a Pac 12 south title during a down Pac 12 south year is a massive waste of time.
When did Jim L. Mora lose to Oregon, LOSER?
When did he beat them? We will see Sat how good he is, I'm predicting his relative performance we be similar to his relative performance against Furd.
And no, this isn't IMALOSER.
He's going to get plungered. The dooginess over Mora on this site is a bit much. I think he has potential and has done a failrly good job so far, but some on here are as bad as Doogs are about Sark, hence why they creamed in their pants over Mora's Kick ass Presser on Brock and Danny, and linked a story about a former player donating one million to UCLA's program.
You don't get it.
What don't I get? Explain to me what I am missing. I like Mora, just want to LIFPO before I crown him like some already have. He has beaten one team that finished the year in the top 25 (Nebraska) the past two years. What game has he won that was a "wow" game?
You continue to look at it objectively. There is a history here.
Believe me, if it ever becomes clear that Mora isn't a great coach, we will be there saying that no one ever brings up the times when we were right. Race will write a scathing DFI calling for Mora to be fired the day after he's fired. Sven will have been as critical of Mora as anyone. You will have no idea the damage the Mora implosion did to the program.
It's been a long time, man. It's been a long fucking time. This one matters to us. Mora's our guy.
You are right. It needs to play out. But there is a history here.
I will knife Mora in the back if he turns out to be just like Sark with no remorse whatsoever.
DNC, once again, I like Mora. I have said many times, he is doing a good job at UCLA, and has a lot of potential. His recruiting has been great, and his on field results have been good. If he was our coach, based on his recruiting alone, I would give him 4 or 5 years to prove he could get it done.
That said, they have not been great. He lost 5 games last year, with a couple being plunger rapes. I brought up only beating one team that finished in the top 25 (#23 Nebraska) because it's a fact. It seems stupid to me to crown a coach who has merely beating teams that he should be beating. The next step is beating the Oregon's, Stanford's, and other top teams. UCLA is not there yet.
You provided some nice stats, and I agree that so far, the trend line is going up. I think the ASU and UW games are games that a good coach should win, and will be a decent indicator of how good of a job Mora is doing. I am LIFPO with him before I crown him. In general, he has been very good at UCLA, but there have also been some bad results (Cal plunger, Baylor, 3 losses in a row to Stanford). What is wrong with acknowledging those and pointing them out, as well as acknowledging the good?
We are going to have to disagree about some of the Mora love being doogish. Getting excited about interviews (a very good one), is very doogish and similar to when doogs ate up Sark's early press conferences. Linking a post about someone donating one million because they believe in Mora is doogish. There are boosters who give hundreds of thousands to millions that support Sark and believe in him, so who gives a shit if some schmuck donates one million to UCLA?
Right, but you said "in two years" even though a) the second season hasn't fully been played b) the final rankings are weeks away and c) one of the teams he has beaten this year is currently in the top 25.
Saying he has beaten one team that finished the year in the top 25 the past two years was classic IMYOURMOM territory.
And the difference between getting excited about Mora's interviews versus Sark's pressers is that people are getting excited about Mora demonstrating that he gets what WASHINGTON is all about and actually wants to be here. If you've been told for the past six years that the coach you want doesn't want to coach here and then he goes on the radio and gushes about your school you get excited because you knew you were right all along.
Comments
That said, they have not been great. He lost 5 games last year, with a couple being plunger rapes. I brought up only beating one team that finished in the top 25 (#23 Nebraska) because it's a fact. It seems stupid to me to crown a coach who has merely beating teams that he should be beating. The next step is beating the Oregon's, Stanford's, and other top teams. UCLA is not there yet.
You provided some nice stats, and I agree that so far, the trend line is going up. I think the ASU and UW games are games that a good coach should win, and will be a decent indicator of how good of a job Mora is doing. I am LIFPO with him before I crown him. In general, he has been very good at UCLA, but there have also been some bad results (Cal plunger, Baylor, 3 losses in a row to Stanford). What is wrong with acknowledging those and pointing them out, as well as acknowledging the good?
We are going to have to disagree about some of the Mora love being doogish. Getting excited about interviews (a very good one), is very doogish and similar to when doogs ate up Sark's early press conferences. Linking a post about someone donating one million because they believe in Mora is doogish. There are boosters who give hundreds of thousands to millions that support Sark and believe in him, so who gives a shit if some schmuck donates one million to UCLA?
That's what he said and the 2001 season you couldn't go to the Rose Bowl unless you were playing for a national title. That team was 8-3 with a terrible blowout loss to Miami on national t.v. That team had no shot at a BCS game.
In 1999 that was the worst Pac-10 ever and I think Rick did a good job of coaching that year actually.
Saying he has beaten one team that finished the year in the top 25 the past two years was classic IMYOURMOM territory.
And the difference between getting excited about Mora's interviews versus Sark's pressers is that people are getting excited about Mora demonstrating that he gets what WASHINGTON is all about and actually wants to be here. If you've been told for the past six years that the coach you want doesn't want to coach here and then he goes on the radio and gushes about your school you get excited because you knew you were right all along.
This is nothing like jizzing over Sark's barking.