Stats are for losers or Number's don't lie??

godawgst

Pete is 53-26 here Including Bowls/Pac-12 Champ Games.

Back out the 16 OOC lay-ins (Hawaii/Eastern/Rutgers/BYU/Montna/Etc) plus the 2 losses to Boise/Auburn and it's 37-24. Take out beating WSU/Oregon State and he's 26-24

Eliminating his first two years and it is: 38-14 overall, after OOC's games 27-13 minus WSU/Beavs wins 20-13.

BleachedAnusDawg

I am not quite at the FIRE PETE stage, but I am teetering on the edge.

To the people who say "who else could we get, we might fall back to the dark ages" I say to you:

1. 3 easy non-con wins each year because of our pussy scheduling (yes, Michigan, I know), plus
   
2. OSU, WSU, AZ, CU, Cal, UCLA, ASU - a minimum of 4 of these games should be easy wins every season for UW with a middling coach (like Sark)
   
3. Win a shitty bowl game against a MWC team
   

There's 8-wins. That should be the floor at UW with a coach who is not "the guy." So, to the "we can't fire Pete because we're scared of the unknown" crowd, I say to you, go fuck yourselves. He has literally accomplished what should be the bare minimum at UW this season if the coach has a pulse and half a brain. Any one of us could win 8 games with this roster.

DerekJohnson

Pete is 1-4 in bowl games. Pete can't win the big one.

Postal91

DerekJohnson said:

Pete is 1-4 in bowl games. Pete can't win the big one.

Um, Fiesta Bowls... HELLLLLLLOOOOOOOO!!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10 years ago

Totally forgot he went 8-4 at Boise his last year.

Dawgs07

I honestly prefer the Neuheisel years over the Petersen years. I would rather have a Rose Bowl win followed by a couple mediocre years rather than winning 10 games and nothing to show for it at the end. Even when UW only won 8 games in 2001 season we still beat Michigan. The team was more fun and exciting. Peterson did his best when the PAC was at its worst . Plus beating the FCS teams inflates Pete's record.

Our players play so tight that if any adversity comes, they crumble. That is on coaching.

What do you guys think of Neuheisel? Would you want him over Pete or not (assumung that the UW would even allow it)?

PurpleBaze

Dawgs07 said:

I honestly prefer the Neuheisel years over the Petersen years. I would rather have a Rose Bowl win followed by a couple mediocre years rather than winning 10 games and nothing to show for it at the end. Even when UW only won 8 games in 2001 season we still beat Michigan. The team was more fun and exciting. Peterson did his best when the PAC was at its worst . Plus beating the FCS teams inflates Pete's record.

Our players play so tight that if any adversity comes, they crumble. That is on coaching.

What do you guys think of Neuheisel? Would you want him over Pete or not (assumung that the UW would even allow it)?

LEAVE!!

RaceBannon

People are forgetting that even with the three easy non conference games and the shitty Pac 12, Sark kept going 7-5, 5-4

Pete did that his first two years and this year, we hope, or not.

It's two titles and a playoff appearance in three years that is not easy at all and finding that coach is a huge challenge.

Not saying we shouldn't try but there is no evidence that UW can do anything in regards to a coach search other then get lucky. Usually unlucky

CFetters_Nacho_Lover

Dawgs07 said:

I honestly prefer the Neuheisel years over the Petersen years. I would rather have a Rose Bowl win followed by a couple mediocre years rather than winning 10 games and nothing to show for it at the end. Even when UW only won 8 games in 2001 season we still beat Michigan. The team was more fun and exciting. Peterson did his best when the PAC was at its worst . Plus beating the FCS teams inflates Pete's record.

Our players play so tight that if any adversity comes, they crumble. That is on coaching.

What do you guys think of Neuheisel? Would you want him over Pete or not (assumung that the UW would even allow it)?

Dear Mrs. Neuheisel,

Thank you for talking about Rick on our boreds today.

As always, LEAVE!

Sincerely,

F3

BleachedAnusDawg

RaceBannon said:

People are forgetting that even with the three easy non conference games and the shitty Pac 12, Sark kept going 7-5, 5-4

Pete did that his first two years and this year, we hope, or not.

It's two titles and a playoff appearance in three years that is not easy at all and finding that coach is a huge challenge.

Not saying we shouldn't try but there is no evidence that UW can do anything in regards to a coach search other then get lucky. Usually unlucky

Yeah, but what I am saying is even being unlucky the program should bottom out at 7-8 wins (yeah, Ty/Gilby years, but that was with an AD who wanted to intentionally destroy the program). If you tell me we fire Pete and the replacement goes 7-5 for the next 3 seasons before he's fired I say to you "sounds good, because the grass is looking greener next door." At least a new coach introduces an unknown variable that *might* overcome where the program is currently stuck.

NeGgaPlEaSe

PurpleBaze said:

Dawgs07 said:

I honestly prefer the Neuheisel years over the Petersen years. I would rather have a Rose Bowl win followed by a couple mediocre years rather than winning 10 games and nothing to show for it at the end. Even when UW only won 8 games in 2001 season we still beat Michigan. The team was more fun and exciting. Peterson did his best when the PAC was at its worst . Plus beating the FCS teams inflates Pete's record.

Our players play so tight that if any adversity comes, they crumble. That is on coaching.

What do you guys think of Neuheisel? Would you want him over Pete or not (assumung that the UW would even allow it)?

LEAVE!!

Pacific Northwest Title sounds good about right now

haie

Dawgs07 said:

I honestly prefer the Neuheisel years over the Petersen years. I would rather have a Rose Bowl win followed by a couple mediocre years rather than winning 10 games and nothing to show for it at the end. Even when UW only won 8 games in 2001 season we still beat Michigan. The team was more fun and exciting. Peterson did his best when the PAC was at its worst . Plus beating the FCS teams inflates Pete's record.

Our players play so tight that if any adversity comes, they crumble. That is on coaching.

What do you guys think of Neuheisel? Would you want him over Pete or not (assumung that the UW would even allow it)?

Everyone else hated the living fuck out of UW and especially Neuheisel at the time, so yes Neu.

CaptainPJ

BleachedAnusDawg said:

RaceBannon said:

People are forgetting that even with the three easy non conference games and the shitty Pac 12, Sark kept going 7-5, 5-4

Pete did that his first two years and this year, we hope, or not.

It's two titles and a playoff appearance in three years that is not easy at all and finding that coach is a huge challenge.

Not saying we shouldn't try but there is no evidence that UW can do anything in regards to a coach search other then get lucky. Usually unlucky

an AD who wanted to intentionally destroy the program).

“Win the Rose Bowl, ‘yada, yada, yada.”

“Playing in December is always special.”

We’re both of these Turner, or did we suffer thru 2 incompetent asses?

Pool Boy?

Abundance on this day of abundance?

RoadDawg55

Dawgs07 said:

I honestly prefer the Neuheisel years over the Petersen years. I would rather have a Rose Bowl win followed by a couple mediocre years rather than winning 10 games and nothing to show for it at the end. Even when UW only won 8 games in 2001 season we still beat Michigan. The team was more fun and exciting. Peterson did his best when the PAC was at its worst . Plus beating the FCS teams inflates Pete's record.

Our players play so tight that if any adversity comes, they crumble. That is on coaching.

What do you guys think of Neuheisel? Would you want him over Pete or not (assumung that the UW would even allow it)?

65-7 followed by a collapse against Texas where they won every jump ball. They both sucked.