Posted by TyBeliever 8:19 AM, Dec 04, 2007 Thank you for the column. I agree and more. I'm getting tired and bored of the naysayers. Most of the naysayers minimally haven't attended UW, or going one step further haven't received a degree. They don't contribute financially to the unversity or the athletic programs. They don't buy season tickets. They just complain. And, Mora is totally, and I mean totally unqualified as a recruiter and recruiting is over one-half of the college coaching universe.
This comment wins I don't see how you could get any dumber than this looking back.
I also see a "peter" in there. Is that Chest by any chance? He had a good rant towards Brewer. Damn I still can't believe that so many were defending an 11-25 coach who had only won 6 conference games to that point as well and was 1-8 vs the PNW.
You new guys wonder why so many are jaded around here it's this thread that Sven linked to is why.
Posted by Sven 10:50 AM, Dec 04, 2007 Ty had no problem terminating players early because of underperformance.
He should have no problem with Washington terminating him for underperformance.
College football is a cold, cruel business as Ty himself has demonstrated throughout his tenure at Washington.
Those of you arguing that termination now is unfair are hypocritically ignoring Ty's own record.
Posted by Sven 11:14 AM, Dec 04, 2007 The program will be worse off if Ty is fired after the 2008 rather than now:
His replacement will only have one year to build the team up for a big run in 2009. The odds of going on a big run there are far lower than they are if you give Ty's replacement an extra year to build up to that run.
2009 is the key year because it's Jake's fourth year and the odd numbered years are the years where UW gets the tough Pac-10 teams at home.
Giving Ty another year to prove what we already know about him from his first 13 years as a head coach is a waste of an extremely valuable year for Washington's hopes of doing big things with Jake Locker
This was a really good argument by Sven at the time and holds true. I didn't understand the loyalty towards him when he showed no loyalty to his own players.
Posted by Sven 10:50 AM, Dec 04, 2007 Ty had no problem terminating players early because of underperformance.
He should have no problem with Washington terminating him for underperformance.
College football is a cold, cruel business as Ty himself has demonstrated throughout his tenure at Washington.
Those of you arguing that termination now is unfair are hypocritically ignoring Ty's own record.
This was a really good argument by Sven at the time and holds true. I didn't understand the loyalty towards him when he showed no loyalty to his own players.
Posted by Sven 10:50 AM, Dec 04, 2007 Ty had no problem terminating players early because of underperformance.
He should have no problem with Washington terminating him for underperformance.
College football is a cold, cruel business as Ty himself has demonstrated throughout his tenure at Washington.
Those of you arguing that termination now is unfair are hypocritically ignoring Ty's own record.
This was a really good argument by Sven at the time and holds true. I didn't understand the loyalty towards him when he showed no loyalty to his own players.
Who the fuck is Sven and does he ever post here?
I hear you should never open up a link that he posts. Other than that, never seen him.
Posted by Sven 11:14 AM, Dec 04, 2007 The program will be worse off if Ty is fired after the 2008 rather than now:
His replacement will only have one year to build the team up for a big run in 2009. The odds of going on a big run there are far lower than they are if you give Ty's replacement an extra year to build up to that run.
2009 is the key year because it's Jake's fourth year and the odd numbered years are the years where UW gets the tough Pac-10 teams at home.
Giving Ty another year to prove what we already know about him from his first 13 years as a head coach is a waste of an extremely valuable year for Washington's hopes of doing big things with Jake Locker
Wait, that story about the douche turning to his lover and saying 'thank god Tyrone Willingham is our coach...'
can't be real...can't be real...can't be real
are you shitting me
lol
Oh it's real. It was a running joke for at least two years.
Man, I must have missed out on a lot of hilarious shit. I never even heard of HHB or this site until someone messaged my pop's Dawgman account in August lol. And when I was a student at UW I never paid attention to websites outside of the ST, although in hindsight I regret it. This place circa 2008 must have been insane. Did people here like Sarkisian from the beginning?
Most of us HHBs hated the Sarkisian hire. UW went cheap and overpaid at the same time.
I remember Fetters thought Sark was going to be the OC (when his name came up). It was a terribly underwhelming hire.
The longer Sark is here, the worse the hire will be in retrospect.
It's amazing how the Doog excuses in 2013 are just like the Doog excuses in 2007.
They never change. They talk about stability, point out 1-11 when defending Ty, point out 0-12 when defending Sark, the old coach did irreparable damage, recruiting will get fucked with a new coach, we will have to start all over with a new coach, who are we going to get, etc. These fucks truly will defend anyone until it's far too late and something like 0-12 happens.
It's amazing how the Doog excuses in 2013 are just like the Doog excuses in 2007.
They never change. They talk about stability, point out 1-11 when defending Ty, point out 0-12 when defending Sark, the old coach did irreparable damage, recruiting will get fucked with a new coach, we will have to start all over with a new coach, who are we going to get, etc. These fucks truly will defend anyone until it's far too late and something like 0-12 happens.
Those same fuckers will be the first ones to claim they never liked Sark once he is fired and bring up all his failures for why the next coach can't be expected to succeed right away.
Just a few days ago, Aubbie posted on Doogman about 8 names to replace Sark at the behest of Kim.
Kim said he, "Chuckled at some of the names."
Really Kim? Just like you "chuckled" when you were told Sark was being interviewed? That you didn't think that was serious? Just like how you dipshits didn't even have Sark on your gay "Coaching Search Primer" back in '08?
I mean, Christ, we just had to have APAG bare pickle an old woman to come up with Sark.
And we only had Damone's drunk father in law on the couch break the news to out scoop your dumbass website.
Kim just never learns his fucking lessons. I can't wait until he's out scooped on the next coaching hire.
Comments
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/brewer/2007/12/keep_willingham.html
8:19 AM, Dec 04, 2007
Thank you for the column. I agree and more. I'm getting tired and bored of the naysayers. Most of the naysayers minimally haven't attended UW, or going one step further haven't received a degree. They don't contribute financially to the unversity or the athletic programs. They don't buy season tickets. They just complain. And, Mora is totally, and I mean totally unqualified as a recruiter and recruiting is over one-half of the college coaching universe.
This comment wins I don't see how you could get any dumber than this looking back.
You new guys wonder why so many are jaded around here it's this thread that Sven linked to is why.
10:50 AM, Dec 04, 2007
Ty had no problem terminating players early because of underperformance.
He should have no problem with Washington terminating him for underperformance.
College football is a cold, cruel business as Ty himself has demonstrated throughout his tenure at Washington.
Those of you arguing that termination now is unfair are hypocritically ignoring Ty's own record.
Posted by Sven
11:14 AM, Dec 04, 2007
The program will be worse off if Ty is fired after the 2008 rather than now:
His replacement will only have one year to build the team up for a big run in 2009. The odds of going on a big run there are far lower than they are if you give Ty's replacement an extra year to build up to that run.
2009 is the key year because it's Jake's fourth year and the odd numbered years are the years where UW gets the tough Pac-10 teams at home.
Giving Ty another year to prove what we already know about him from his first 13 years as a head coach is a waste of an extremely valuable year for Washington's hopes of doing big things with Jake Locker
This was a really good argument by Sven at the time and holds true. I didn't understand the loyalty towards him when he showed no loyalty to his own players.
Posted by Sven
11:14 AM, Dec 04, 2007
The program will be worse off if Ty is fired after the 2008 rather than now:
His replacement will only have one year to build the team up for a big run in 2009. The odds of going on a big run there are far lower than they are if you give Ty's replacement an extra year to build up to that run.
2009 is the key year because it's Jake's fourth year and the odd numbered years are the years where UW gets the tough Pac-10 teams at home.
Giving Ty another year to prove what we already know about him from his first 13 years as a head coach is a waste of an extremely valuable year for Washington's hopes of doing big things with Jake Locker
The longer Sark is here, the worse the hire will be in retrospect.
Kim said he, "Chuckled at some of the names."
Really Kim? Just like you "chuckled" when you were told Sark was being interviewed? That you didn't think that was serious? Just like how you dipshits didn't even have Sark on your gay "Coaching Search Primer" back in '08?
I mean, Christ, we just had to have APAG bare pickle an old woman to come up with Sark.
And we only had Damone's drunk father in law on the couch break the news to out scoop your dumbass website.
Kim just never learns his fucking lessons. I can't wait until he's out scooped on the next coaching hire.
Oh btw, Don James died. The cancer won.