I'll defend Chest in that I was right along with him in wanting DeRuyter. Neither of us thought he was the "man" but he is/was/would be better than Seven Win Steve which a month ago we were thinking we were starring at 5 more years of that fat fuck.
No. When you're replacing a total shithead, the standard needs to be MUCH higher than "better than previous total shithead" because there is so much damage to undo.
Using your logic in 2009 is what got us Sark. We didn't aim high. We aimed for "better than previous total shithead". What we needed was a major improvement to undo Ty, just as we needed (and got) a major improvement to undo 7WS.
FWIW, it's not entirely clear to me that DeRuyter would've been any better than 7WS. I could very easily see him falling into a Brady Hoke type mediocrity pattern. That's why he needed more of a track record before being seriously considered here, regardless of who he was replacing.
I'll defend Chest in that I was right along with him in wanting DeRuyter. Neither of us thought he was the "man" but he is/was/would be better than Seven Win Steve which a month ago we were thinking we were starring at 5 more years of that fat fuck.
No. When you're replacing a total shithead, the standard needs to be MUCH higher than "better than previous total shithead" because there is so much damage to undo.
Using your logic in 2009 is what got us Sark. We didn't aim high. We aimed for "better than previous total shithead". What we needed was a major improvement to undo Ty, just as we needed (and got) a major improvement to undo 7WS.
FWIW, it's not entirely clear to me that DeRuyter would've been any better than 7WS. I could very easily see him falling into a Brady Hoke type mediocrity pattern. That's why he needed more of a track record before being seriously considered here, regardless of who he was replacing.
I'll defend Chest in that I was right along with him in wanting DeRuyter. Neither of us thought he was the "man" but he is/was/would be better than Seven Win Steve which a month ago we were thinking we were starring at 5 more years of that fat fuck.
Nice rant too bad Mora was my first choice and when I heard Petersen was actually in play I wanted him over DeRuyter.
TD was never my top choice. He was a good option after Mora. When it became apparent we could get Petersen (which no one thought possible a month ago), TD became an afterthought or the #3 option. Despite Fresno's D having a poor year, TD still has a good resume. LIFPO.
I'm thrilled we have Petersen. He's a better coach than TD and will stay here for 10+ years.
You talk about "facts" as though anyone is expected to track or give a shit about your posts.
I'm responding to the post you just made - you know, the one where you only mention the (mistaken) reason why you wanted DeRuyter.
What am I, your biographer? I don't have a clue or a care what you wrote on the internet a month ago. I will read one post at a time and respond to it.
You talk about "facts" as though anyone is expected to track or give a shit about your posts.
I'm responding to the post you just made - you know, the one where you only mention the (mistaken) reason why you wanted DeRuyter.
What am I, your biographer? I don't have a clue or a care what you wrote on the internet a month ago. I will read one post at a time and respond to it.
Especially if it's stupid.
I brought up a reason why Chest and myself threw out his name. He was nobody on this board #1 candidate and we were certainly not the only two to have thrown out his name.
I think everyone in here wanted Mora, after that when Petersen was rumored to be available we all wanted him.
After those two who do YOU want? It was pretty much slim pickings among REALISTIC options.
I'm not too sure you're right that nobody had him as a #1...
Whoever I would've wanted would not include a guy with limited mid major experience almost exclusively against light competition. That's the whole point.
Otherwise, I don't buy the Doog notion that only a few insiders could ever possibly want this job, and therefore we have to settle. Find your guy and make him realistic. Force him to say no. How often has that happened in a recent UW coaching search? Once?
How realistic was Graham for ASU? He wasn't, until they made it happen.
You talk about "facts" as though anyone is expected to track or give a shit about your posts.
I'm responding to the post you just made - you know, the one where you only mention the (mistaken) reason why you wanted DeRuyter.
What am I, your biographer? I don't have a clue or a care what you wrote on the internet a month ago. I will read one post at a time and respond to it.
Especially if it's stupid.
I brought up a reason why Chest and myself threw out his name. He was nobody on this board #1 candidate and we were certainly not the only two to have thrown out his name.
I think everyone in here wanted Mora, after that when Petersen was rumored to be available we all wanted him.
After those two who do YOU want? It was pretty much slim pickings among REALISTIC options when you have no faith in your Pool Boy.
I'm not too sure you're right that nobody had him as a #1...
Whoever I would've wanted would not include a guy with limited mid major experience almost exclusively against light competition. That's the whole point.
Otherwise, I don't buy the Doog notion that only a few insiders could ever possibly want this job, and therefore we have to settle. Find your guy and make him realistic. Force him to say no. How often has that happened in a recent UW coaching search? Once?
How realistic was Graham for ASU? He wasn't, until they made it happen.
Start naming some names then? Don't say Mora or Petersen because that was everyone's 1-2 choice in here.
Don't be a jackass and say "Sumlin, Kelly, Saban" either.
It's easy to never give out a name then others can get on you, it's much easier to sit back and bash on everyone else's candidates.
I think even those bringing up DeRuyter acknowledged it's a risk but if we are going to throw dirt on his grave for going 11-2 then I'm dying to see who you would have wanted in that scenario.
I still think somebody should. The man did nothing but win, plus the NCAA is now toothless and everyone knows it. Emmert's a giant pussy. That show cause was peanuts. He'd have missed no conference games.
He can go to the next team that has the balls to do it and he's going to kill it. Turn it into a Tom Rinaldi redemption story and laugh all the way to the Rose Bowl.
(Notice how he's won big over an extended period of time at an FBS program?)
Graham was realistic for ASU. He was a Texas guy and I believe his wife's family is from Arizona. Its a job he definitely wanted and quickly bolted for.
I still think somebody should. The man did nothing but win, plus the NCAA is now toothless and everyone knows it. Emmert's a giant pussy. That show cause was peanuts. He'd have missed no conference games.
He can go to the next team that has the balls to do it and he's going to kill it. Turn it into a Tom Rinaldi redemption story and laugh all the way to the Rose Bowl.
(Notice how he's won big over an extended period of time at an FBS program?)
So your only response is Jim Tressel huh?
I put in the "realistic" for a reason. As Tressel might be good for you and even me we both know that hire would never fly in PC Seattle.
Which is why even though I loved the idea of Bobby Petrino I knew that was never going to happen either.
Many people have a blind spot for guys who are in positions that are set up for a few years. Graham had just finished his first year at Pitt, and only went 6-6.
If you'd asked ASU fans at the time to bet on who their next guy would be, how many would've mentioned Graham? He was an out of left field hire.
Graham was realistic for ASU. He was a Texas guy and I believe his wife's family is from Arizona. Its a job he definitely wanted and quickly bolted for.
Why do I need more than one proven winner who would certainly take the job? The search is over once you offer Tressel a chance to coach again. Guys aren't likely to blow final chances. Has Mike Leach locked anybody in a shed lately? No, but there were plenty of people who thought he was untouchable because he (allegedly) did once. Hasn't mattered a bit at WSU.
Again, turn Tressel into a story about contrition and you're golden. Load his contract up with defensive ethics clauses to satisfy the PC crowd and they'd come around as soon as the wins started rolling in. Jim Tressel on a very tight leash would have been fine here.
I still think somebody should. The man did nothing but win, plus the NCAA is now toothless and everyone knows it. Emmert's a giant pussy. That show cause was peanuts. He'd have missed no conference games.
He can go to the next team that has the balls to do it and he's going to kill it. Turn it into a Tom Rinaldi redemption story and laugh all the way to the Rose Bowl.
(Notice how he's won big over an extended period of time at an FBS program?)
So your only response is Jim Tressel huh?
I put in the "realistic" for a reason. As Tressel might be good for you and even me we both know that hire would never fly in PC Seattle.
Which is why even though I loved the idea of Bobby Petrino I knew that was never going to happen either.
Why do I need more than one proven winner who would certainly take the job? The search is over once you offer Tressel a chance to coach again. Guys aren't likely to blow final chances. Has Mike Leach locked anybody in a shed lately? No, but there were plenty of people who thought he was untouchable because he (allegedly) did once. Hasn't mattered a bit at WSU.
Again, turn Tressel into a story about contrition and you're golden. Load his contract up with defensive ethics clauses to satisfy the PC crowd and they'd come around as soon as the wins started rolling in. Jim Tressel on a very tight leash would have been fine here.
I still think somebody should. The man did nothing but win, plus the NCAA is now toothless and everyone knows it. Emmert's a giant pussy. That show cause was peanuts. He'd have missed no conference games.
He can go to the next team that has the balls to do it and he's going to kill it. Turn it into a Tom Rinaldi redemption story and laugh all the way to the Rose Bowl.
(Notice how he's won big over an extended period of time at an FBS program?)
So your only response is Jim Tressel huh?
I put in the "realistic" for a reason. As Tressel might be good for you and even me we both know that hire would never fly in PC Seattle.
Which is why even though I loved the idea of Bobby Petrino I knew that was never going to happen either.
If you think Tressel was/is a realistic choice you really don't understand the UW upper campus culture, or Pool Boy.
Comments
Using your logic in 2009 is what got us Sark. We didn't aim high. We aimed for "better than previous total shithead". What we needed was a major improvement to undo Ty, just as we needed (and got) a major improvement to undo 7WS.
FWIW, it's not entirely clear to me that DeRuyter would've been any better than 7WS. I could very easily see him falling into a Brady Hoke type mediocrity pattern. That's why he needed more of a track record before being seriously considered here, regardless of who he was replacing.
But why let facts get in the way?
I'm thrilled we have Petersen. He's a better coach than TD and will stay here for 10+ years.
I'm responding to the post you just made - you know, the one where you only mention the (mistaken) reason why you wanted DeRuyter.
What am I, your biographer? I don't have a clue or a care what you wrote on the internet a month ago. I will read one post at a time and respond to it.
Especially if it's stupid.
I think everyone in here wanted Mora, after that when Petersen was rumored to be available we all wanted him.
After those two who do YOU want? It was pretty much slim pickings among REALISTIC options.
Whoever I would've wanted would not include a guy with limited mid major experience almost exclusively against light competition. That's the whole point.
Otherwise, I don't buy the Doog notion that only a few insiders could ever possibly want this job, and therefore we have to settle. Find your guy and make him realistic. Force him to say no. How often has that happened in a recent UW coaching search? Once?
How realistic was Graham for ASU? He wasn't, until they made it happen.
Don't be a jackass and say "Sumlin, Kelly, Saban" either.
It's easy to never give out a name then others can get on you, it's much easier to sit back and bash on everyone else's candidates.
I think even those bringing up DeRuyter acknowledged it's a risk but if we are going to throw dirt on his grave for going 11-2 then I'm dying to see who you would have wanted in that scenario.
I still think somebody should. The man did nothing but win, plus the NCAA is now toothless and everyone knows it. Emmert's a giant pussy. That show cause was peanuts. He'd have missed no conference games.
He can go to the next team that has the balls to do it and he's going to kill it. Turn it into a Tom Rinaldi redemption story and laugh all the way to the Rose Bowl.
(Notice how he's won big over an extended period of time at an FBS program?)
I put in the "realistic" for a reason. As Tressel might be good for you and even me we both know that hire would never fly in PC Seattle.
Which is why even though I loved the idea of Bobby Petrino I knew that was never going to happen either.
Sure, but he had a CONTRACT!
Many people have a blind spot for guys who are in positions that are set up for a few years. Graham had just finished his first year at Pitt, and only went 6-6.
If you'd asked ASU fans at the time to bet on who their next guy would be, how many would've mentioned Graham? He was an out of left field hire.
Why do I need more than one proven winner who would certainly take the job? The search is over once you offer Tressel a chance to coach again. Guys aren't likely to blow final chances. Has Mike Leach locked anybody in a shed lately? No, but there were plenty of people who thought he was untouchable because he (allegedly) did once. Hasn't mattered a bit at WSU.
Again, turn Tressel into a story about contrition and you're golden. Load his contract up with defensive ethics clauses to satisfy the PC crowd and they'd come around as soon as the wins started rolling in.
Jim Tressel on a very tight leash would have been fine here.