Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
A new annoyance
TierbsHsotBoobs
Member Posts: 39,680
Thanks to @Bread for finding this annoyance
You want to take the gloves off Race? You want to get down in a pissing match? Let's do it. Let's roll.
I'm getting completely fed up with your hate, negativity, and throwing people under the bus.
Quite frankly Race, I'm very, VERY happy that I don't know you. I'm quite happy that I don't lead what appears to be such a pathetic life that is faced with looking for the negativity in every situation. You need to go find something to smile at. Last I checked, it's summertime. The weather in Seattle seems to be pretty damn good right now - why don't you go check that out.
You are pretty damn wrong about things. You may think that the amount of time that you keep spewing your views that that you've now heard it enough times that you are right. Doesn't make you right.
You talk about 12-47 like that happened out of the blue sky. I've never seen you once suggest that the process of the downfall of this program began well before Emmert arrived.
You want facts? You want truth? Here's your truth.
Emmert came to the UW prior to the GLORIOUS 1-10 season under Gilby. The year before that (2003) Gilby managed to do enough to get us to 6-6, but that included the debacle at Cal where we gave up 700 yards (or thereabouts). It was an indifferent team that pretty much was at best mediocre. We lost 5 of our last 8, including the blowout to Cal, the blowout to UCLA, and a home loss to NEVADA. Yep, the program was heading in the right direction.
The 2002 season under Slick was another sterling season example that is most remembered for the "Northwest Championship." That was great. But it hid the fact that going into the "Northwest Championship" we were a 4-5 football team that was pretty much a joke at 1-4 in the conference. In both 2002 and 2003, we finished the season with a 4-4 conference record.
These weren't good football teams. The trend was heading downhill.
Emmert comes on board and immediately gets sadled with the Gilby 1-10 debacle.
Prior to Emmert coming on board, Babs jumps ship after a decade of mis-management, including allowing the stadium to begin the erosion process.
Throughout 2003, we're faced with Slick leaving and the subsequent lawsuit(s), Dr. Feelgood, and a whole mess with the softball program and Teresa Wilson.
Now keep in mind the following: ALL THIS HAPPENED BEFORE EMMERT WAS ANYWHERE NEAR BEING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON.
Things were not in great shape. I think just about everybody knew that.
A search committee is formed to replace Babs. The BOR, upper campus, and the big donor supporters of the school are sick of the egg showing up on their face. They are sick of the country club that Babs ran and the loose way she ran the department - particularly in light of what went on with Slick. They wanted someone prim, proper, and who they could count on would not sully the University name. ENTER TODD TURNER.
Now, this pretty much gets you up to the point where Emmert was hired. Did he have to sign off on the hiring of Turner? Most likely. But whatever.
At this point, Emmert isn't responsible for the on-field performance of the football program. There is a coach in place. It's not Emmert's job to oversee the football program or any other program in the athletic department. That job belongs to Todd Turner. It's Emmert's job to monitor the job performance of Todd Turner.
So 1-10 happens. Gilby is canned by Turner (rightfully so). Yes, the program went 1-10. But the actions of those charged with overseeing the program were correct. Turner fired the coach for poor performance. If I'm in Emmert's shoes, I can't complain.
Coaching search takes place and Turner has his heart set on Tyrone Willingham. It's Turner's hire. It's not Emmert's hire. Surely Emmert had to sign off on the hire. That's fine. You want to throw some blame on him for not having the foresight to negate the hire. That's fine. But the hire isn't Emmert's responsibility. It's Turner's responsibility. It's Emmert's responsibility to hold Turner accountable for the hire (which he did 3 years later when it was obvious that Tyrone wasn't the answer).
So Tyrone goes 2-9 the first year after a 1-10 year. Not great. Warning signs start going off, particularly with some poor performance to close games. But it's the first year of the regime and really hard to get too critical.
The next year the program goes 5-7 and has 2 significant events. The first significant event is the loss of the QB to injury. I think many could argue that without the loss of Isaiah that year, we go 6-6. The second event that was significant was the "suddenly senior" day and the unexplicable loss to Stanford with the most emotionless football team anybody had ever seen. Again, there's not enough there to fire Tyrone at that point. There are warning signs. There is ground to pretty much tell Tyrone that the following year is an action year where something needs to happen. He's on a short leash at this point in my opinion.
The following year we lose games in ways that are unexplainable. Blow a huge loss to Arizona - a game we should have never lost. The most ridiculous ending to an Apple Cup I've ever seen where a guy was open by 20 yards coming out of a timeout. Blowing a pair of 21 point leads to Hawai'i. It was pretty obvious at this point that things weren't working. Coaching change was in order. Perhaps an AD change was also in order. The coaching change was blocked and complicated. The AD's head fell - and rightfully so due to some other issues that he had and such a terrible hire of a head coach.
Prior to the decision to fire Tyrone after 2007, it's really hard to argue with ANYTHING that Emmert had done with respect to the football program.
I will say that bringing Tyrone back for 2008 was a disasterous mistake. It should have never happened. You want to throw 0-12 on Emmert - I'm all for it. I think if you caught Emmert in a reflective, truthful moment, he would tell you in hindsight that he should have made the move and that it wasn't worth the carnage of 0-12.
Throw Emmert under the bus for 2008. That's his responsibility. 2004-2007? Not so much. By all means, please, please tell me where he has responsibility for 2004 and 2007 other than the fact that he's the University President. Please tell me what specific actions that he did to undermine the program. You aren't going to find them - they aren't there.
Your criticism of Emmert is ridiculous. Your criticism of Woodward is just downright comical.
Where has Woodward screwed this program? He has only been responsible for this program in the summer of 2008 in a full-time role. Are you going to hold him to the fire for being the interim AD for the first half of 2008? How is he responsible for anything from 2004-2007 when he wasn't even involved with the Athletic Department? Talk about conspiracy theories. This may be one of the greatest conspiracy theories I've ever seen.
I don't like losing. I don't like what I've seen the last 5 years. It's made me sick to my stomach many times over. But unlike you, I can at least take a step back and realize that the genesis of this problem began well before Mark Emmert became President of the University of Washington.
If I spent my time being a "mindless Race Bannon minion," then I'd be convinced that the only logical explanation for our failures have been Mark Emmert and Scott Woodward.
Quite frankly, that opinion is one of the most idiotic insanely stupid opinions that I've ever seen in my life.
I don't defend the "wrong targets." There is blame to be thrown Emmert's way. I readily acknowledge that. But it isn't his full blame. Babs deserves blame. Gerberding deserves blame. McCormick deserves some blame. Slick deserves some blame. Gilby deserves some blame. Turner deserves some blame. Tyrone deserves some blame. Of the names I've listed, only 3 of those names have any timeline that extends into any portion of Emmert's tenure. That's less than half of those names.
Quite frankly Race, you are a world class donkey. When I hear people bitch and moan about the people in the State of Washington - you are a crystal example of why people bitch about the State of Washington. When I hear people that bitch about the fans of the University of Washington and what their complaints are, you represent what those complaints are.
In my opinion, you are not good for the University of Washington. You aren't helping the program. You aren't helping the University. You are entirely self-serving and a pompous, egotistical jerk.
You are barking up the wrong tree if you are going after me. I'm not naive enough to shove my head so far up my arse to ignore what I am seeing. I don't think that there is anybody that knows me that would say that I wouldn't call a spade a spade.
All that paying for and attending games longer than I've been alive has done for you is given you a perceived ability to go be a bitter old man. Congrats on that.
Thanks for showing those of us in a younger generation how not to act in 20-30 years when we are in your shoes.
Comments
"Watoto, Jude ... CNN ya mpira wa miguu" Nani mbaya zaidi, Adamu Yuda au Chris Fetters? Moja, aina mbaya ya Jim Acosta, kujaribu kuzalisha 'gotcha moment' juu ya Chris Petersen, mwingine mwandishi wa chini wa bajeti kwa miaka 20, akijaribu kuwa muhimu. Moja kwa ajili ya Seattle Times (mchungaji anayechukia Barbara Hedges, jina la IX, akijaribu kwa miaka 30 kuharibu mpira wa miguu kwa ajili ya mpira wa kikapu wa mpira wa kike na softball) ... mwingine ni sahihi ya kisiasa, ambapo Kim Grinolds (bwana wa maudhui) amepiga marufuku mtumiaji yeyote ambaye hawakubaliani na kuhusu mpira wa miguu. Kwa mfano, ikiwa hupendi jinsi Jake Browning anavyocheza, usiseme neno ... utakuwa unatafuta jukwaa jipya kama Hardcore Husky ili kutoa maoni na maoni yako. HardcoreHusky.com hebu uongea mawazo yako, ushiriki maoni yako bila kufutwa kwa kudumu kutoka kwenye tovuti. O, ni bure kujiunga pia. Derek Johnson, Mkurugenzi Mtendaji, ni shabiki wa kweli na wa kawaida ambaye huhimiza majadiliano ya shauku ya mpira wa miguu Chris Fetters, waliendelea kutembea kwenye ubao wa Husky mara moja baada ya 'kupoteza' 'kwenye' Auburn. Aliandika kipande kikubwa na kisichojulikana kwenye ukurasa wa mbele wa dawgman.com, kwa mtindo wa haraka wa maoni ya ukurasa mara baada ya mchezo, wakidai kuwa Wa Huski, na kwa kiwango kama hicho nafasi ya Pac 12 katika kufanya Chuo cha Soka Playoff, kimsingi KATIKA !!! Yup, alisema. Anapaswa kujua kwamba cheo cha taifa, katika zama yoyote (AP / makocha, bcs, playoff) haijawahi kuamua tarehe 1 Septemba. JUMA. Yeye anajibika sasa kwa hoja ya uchovu na wavivu, akirudia tu maelezo ya SEC-kirafiki, yaliyolipwa na ESPN iliyoanzishwa na kila mtu magharibi wa aina kubwa ya Mlima Rocky. Wakati unakuja kwa kamati ya kuchagua timu mwezi Desemba, UW alishinda ingawa walipotea. Hii ni timu nzuri sana ya soka na wanaijua. Wote waliiangalia. Hakuna wasiwasi dawgfans, kama puppylove kudhani na posted kwa Hardcore Husky mwishoni mwa Jumamosi usiku, AP ingekuwa kutambua jitihada za UW. Wao waliwaacha matangazo machache tu kwa # 9 nchini, sio juu ya 25 juu ambapo Chris Fetters aliwaongoza wasomaji wake huko Dawgman kuamini. Kila mtu atapoteza lakini Alabama, labda Clemson. Ikiwa UW inachukua biashara katika pac12, hata hivyo ni changamoto, wao ni kiatu kwa ajili ya playoff .. Fetters walionekana zinaonyesha vinginevyo, kwa sababu alitaka kuunda maoni ya ukurasa na utata mchanganyiko. Msaada wa wont. Tume na mimi kurudi nyuma, na Pup daima hupiga sakafu kwa maoni yake ya ujinga juu ya mpira wa miguu ya Husky, na soka ya chuo kwa ujumla. Bila shaka yote alipaswa kufanya ni kugonga kifungo cha kupiga marufuku wakati wowote nilikuwa na maoni ya kupinga, kama kila mtu katika dawgman amefanya kupitia miaka, ambayo ilifanya HardcoreHusky. Pamoja na kutazama Watoto, mchezo huu sio kura ya maoni juu ya pac12. Ni kinyume kabisa. Cincinnati na Arizona hawakuwa na msaada wa pac 12, lakini ni msimu wa muda mrefu, na UCLA itapata vizuri zaidi na DTR katika QB .. Soka nyingi bado hazihitajika. USC, Stanford na kwa kiwango cha chini Utah bado ni mchezaji mkali sana na hana NOTHING YA KUFANYA NA UFUA WA UW (mtazamaji machoni pangu, chini ya barabara na kamati, na wengine wanaoelewa mpira wa koo.) ACC ni wazi mkutano mbaya zaidi katika soka, ligi ya timu 1. Ikiwa Clemson anakumbusha katika mkutano, ambayo wanao na uwezo mkubwa wa kufanya (kama umefanya mpira wa chuo kwa muda mrefu zaidi ya miaka 10) wamefanyika na sio Washington na pac12. ACC haina Stanford, USC, UTAH au Oregon (alikuwa na bata aliamua kucheza mtu) mwaka huu. Hawana mtu. Florida Jimbo, ACC's # 2 'imefungwa sana na timu ya ACC, ya wastani sana ya ACC katika Virginia Tech. Timu inayozungumzia na kusema Washington St au Arizona St. USC na Stanford wanacheza michezo mingi bado. Stanford ina risasi ya kisheria kwa uharibifu hata kwa kupoteza pac12 mapema. Tu kuwapiga ND, UW. USC ni Katika hata kupoteza katika nguo. Jikoni tu ya kukimbia, kumpiga ND. Utah ... kukimbia meza waliyoingia. Kwa hiyo sio kweli kama vile Mheshimiwa Watoto walituongoza tuamini. Inaweza kumsaidia kila mtu ikiwa USC ilipiga Texas, lakini utaratibu mrefu na mwenye umri wa miaka 18 katika qb. Texas na Oklahoma ni kuambukizwa pac12 kwa wakati mzuri. USC na UCLA wote huanza freshmen kweli kwa QB kwa mtiririko (lazima Chip Kelly kwenda na Thompson-Robinson) T-R itakuwa kubwa qb. Yeye ndiye mpango halisi. Kamati inaelewa hili. Wanaona ACC ni dumpster deposit, na pac 12, na JC Daniels na UCLA Dorian Thompson-Robinson, bado ni bora zaidi kuliko FSU na VT na yeyote wao kutembea nje, ikiwa ni pamoja na Francois. USC, timu ya 4 bora ya pac12 katika akili ya Puppy, bado ni bora kuliko ACC ya 2, 3, 4, ..... Vipande hivyo, pac12 ni mbali na nje ya vifungo katika wiki 1. Yote kuhusu muda wa kupoteza kwa timu nyingine, na ambao wanapoteza. Na Yuda? Huna maana katika mji huu. Ted Miller, ambaye alikuwa mwenye heshima bora, bado alikuwa mara mbili mwandishi. Tambaa nyumba yako ya tacoma ya plank juu ya Hill Top na actually kufunika mazoezi ya Husky. Na kwa sifa zako, kwa kweli hufunika mchezo na ujuzi wa wachezaji, wao #, urefu, uzito nk .. unatarajia kuepuka muda gani na kuzingatia kitu hiki cha soka? Kutokuheshimu kwako kwa usahihi na kutokujali protokisho la kuumia kwa Chris Petersen halijawahi kuhesabiwa tangu Don James, zaidi ya miaka 30 iliyopita. Ndiyo sababu mafunzo ya UW hawana imani Seattle Times. Don James alichomwa moto na mwandishi wa habari mbaya, kama vile wewe mwenyewe kuhusu QB fulani na jnjury basi. Chukua punk ya upinde, vyombo vya habari vimekuja mduara kamili, na wewe una lawama. Kama Jim Acosta katika CNN, natumaini Petersen hajui wakati wa msanii kama Sarah Sanders hana Acosta ... Mimi hakika bila ...! - PuppyloveFREE PUB!<blink>welcome to 1989</blink>@StrongArmCobra
@RuffaloSoldier
@Ice_Holmvik