This all just shows how moronic those clowns are. Wins mean profits for those idiots and they don't even know it. But hey, gotta stick with the agenda.
It would be worth a screen capture for Biggus Dickus. In one thread Kim says "Petersen has never recruited the type of players UW would need to win in the PAC 12.". Another poster says "you mean like the 17 BSU players in the NFL compared to UW's 12?"
It would be worth a screen capture for Biggus Dickus. In one thread Kim says "Petersen has never recruited the type of players UW would need to win in the PAC 12.". Another poster says "you mean like the 17 BSU players in the NFL compared to UW's 12?"
What are the biggest arguments against Petersen at this point? That he hasn't won at a BCS level? That he hasn't recruited at the BCS level? And that he's not a flashy, sound-biting, awesome, kick-ass presser kind of guy?
The argument that he hasn't won at a BCS level is probably a fair one to make until he does. However, his career record suggests that he's won and won big when competing against his peer level. I don't think anybody expects that he's going to win 90% of his games in the PAC, but even if he's at 70% going forward, I think everybody would be more than happy what those results would lead to.
The recruiting at a BCS level is similar to the coaching. It's apples and oranges. One thing that he's proven to be able to do is develop talent. Many are bagging on the fact that at this point Petersen isn't doing anything more than getting verbals from 3-star kids. What most miss is that the success of a program is often driven by these "boring" 3-star kids developing and forming a basis of solid performance for the program. The difference then becomes the kind of elite players that you are able to surround the foundation with to rise the program to a championship level. Not every player can be an all-star on a team ... in fact, that's a recipe for disaster.
To the argument that Petersen isn't a flashy enough coach, let's look at the coaches in the current Top 10:
1) Florida State - Jimbo Fisher: The foundation of Florida State's success is that they dominate people on the OL/DL. They are a top 25 rushing team in the country averaging over 200 yards per game and a top 15 defensive team against the run giving up just over 100 yards per game.
2) Auburn - Gus Malzahn: Everybody wants to look at what he does with the spread and think that he's all flash. The balance of their run game still comes up the middle and they use their explosive runs to the outside to get you just spread out enough to make the middle runs work. He might have some flash to him, but at the end of the day, he's all about making sure that his bigs outperform your bigs.
3) Alabama - Nick Saban: Personality isn't what he's known for - cold, calculating, ruthless winning he is
4) Michigan St - Mark Dantonio: His teams are built on having one of the better defenses in the country, a bruising running game built off of strong OL play, and QBs that are adept at making the plays required by them. This isn't a flashy team, but a highly effective team.
5) Stanford - David Shaw: Physical running game combined with a hit you in the mouth defense. Not flashy ... highly effective.
6) Baylor - Art Briles: Perhaps the first coach on this list that is more of a flash coach than a physical coach (unless you throw Malzahn into the flash category). However, Baylor is a Top 25 run offense and run defense so they are not just a flashy team w/o substance.
7) Ohio State - Urban Legend: He's famous for turning Tebow Time into a multi-championship team. He's known for running the ball. He's known for physical defense. The fact that his Ohio St teams have had some defensive issues you know will get fixed in time as his recruits continue to dominate the program. BTW, Ohio St was a Top 7 team in the country in both rushing offense/defense.
8) Missouri - Gary Pinkel: DJ pedigree ... nothing more needs to be said.
9) South Caorlina - Ol' Ball Coach: Let's just say that he's been around long enough to know that you can't be the Ol' Ball Coach without rolling up your sleeves from time to time
10) Oregon - Mark Helfrich: We don't know enough about Helfrich to know much ... what we do know about the Oregon program though is that when they get hit in the mouth, they tend to back away.
Bottom line, if you want to be a Top 10 team, you are far more likely to be there by being willing to not only pop somebody in the mouth, but to fight back when someone tries to KO you. If you're soft, you'll fall on your face. Petersen's teams have consistently shown over time that when you hit them in the mouth, they get right back up and take their shots. Sark? Not so much.
What are the biggest arguments against Petersen at this point? That he hasn't won at a BCS level? That he hasn't recruited at the BCS level? And that he's not a flashy, sound-biting, awesome, kick-ass presser kind of guy?
The argument that he hasn't won at a BCS level is probably a fair one to make until he does. However, his career record suggests that he's won and won big when competing against his peer level. I don't think anybody expects that he's going to win 90% of his games in the PAC, but even if he's at 70% going forward, I think everybody would be more than happy what those results would lead to.
The recruiting at a BCS level is similar to the coaching. It's apples and oranges. One thing that he's proven to be able to do is develop talent. Many are bagging on the fact that at this point Petersen isn't doing anything more than getting verbals from 3-star kids. What most miss is that the success of a program is often driven by these "boring" 3-star kids developing and forming a basis of solid performance for the program. The difference then becomes the kind of elite players that you are able to surround the foundation with to rise the program to a championship level. Not every player can be an all-star on a team ... in fact, that's a recipe for disaster.
To the argument that Petersen isn't a flashy enough coach, let's look at the coaches in the current Top 10:
1) Florida State - Jimbo Fisher: The foundation of Florida State's success is that they dominate people on the OL/DL. They are a top 25 rushing team in the country averaging over 200 yards per game and a top 15 defensive team against the run giving up just over 100 yards per game.
2) Auburn - Gus Malzahn: Everybody wants to look at what he does with the spread and think that he's all flash. The balance of their run game still comes up the middle and they use their explosive runs to the outside to get you just spread out enough to make the middle runs work. He might have some flash to him, but at the end of the day, he's all about making sure that his bigs outperform your bigs.
3) Alabama - Nick Saban: Personality isn't what he's known for - cold, calculating, ruthless winning he is
4) Michigan St - Mark Dantonio: His teams are built on having one of the better defenses in the country, a bruising running game built off of strong OL play, and QBs that are adept at making the plays required by them. This isn't a flashy team, but a highly effective team.
5) Stanford - David Shaw: Physical running game combined with a hit you in the mouth defense. Not flashy ... highly effective.
6) Baylor - Art Briles: Perhaps the first coach on this list that is more of a flash coach than a physical coach (unless you throw Malzahn into the flash category). However, Baylor is a Top 25 run offense and run defense so they are not just a flashy team w/o substance.
7) Ohio State - Urban Legend: He's famous for turning Tebow Time into a multi-championship team. He's known for running the ball. He's known for physical defense. The fact that his Ohio St teams have had some defensive issues you know will get fixed in time as his recruits continue to dominate the program. BTW, Ohio St was a Top 7 team in the country in both rushing offense/defense.
8) Missouri - Gary Pinkel: DJ pedigree ... nothing more needs to be said.
9) South Caorlina - Ol' Ball Coach: Let's just say that he's been around long enough to know that you can't be the Ol' Ball Coach without rolling up your sleeves from time to time
10) Oregon - Mark Helfrich: We don't know enough about Helfrich to know much ... what we do know about the Oregon program though is that when they get hit in the mouth, they tend to back away.
Bottom line, if you want to be a Top 10 team, you are far more likely to be there by being willing to not only pop somebody in the mouth, but to fight back when someone tries to KO you. If you're soft, you'll fall on your face. Petersen's teams have consistently shown over time that when you hit them in the mouth, they get right back up and take their shots. Sark? Not so much.
Holy fuck I'm about to take the gloves off and fucking roll and get in a pissing match over how long this post is.
Only bringing out the long poasts when needed to shoot down the idea that the flash isn't what builds programs and wins at a high level.
It was a solid post, but there is no need for it to be that long. The only part I would disagree about is that you can't have every player be a star. This isn't basketball. I will take a team full of stars (future NFL players) in football.
Thing about stars is that you give them the ability to freelance long enough to make the big plays necessary. It's why having stars works in basketball ... their ability to influence the game is at such a higher percentage of the total action on the court.
In football, guys that go out and act on their own often run the risk of compromising the common good. Let's say that you have a difference maker on defense ... you can scheme around his tendencies to gamble, get himself out of position, etc. such that you are able to maximize his strengths to make huge plays but at the same time provide the appropriate cover for the holes that he leaves. Same thing on offense with a skill position player ... you want to give them the ability to take advantage of what they are seeing, but you can't have everybody doing that otherwise it's unmitigated chaos.
While I want the best players possible, I also want guys that are going to do their job and not try to do everything. At the college level, I don't believe that enough high end players often view themselves as just doing their job and if you are an elite player you want to go get your glory. Only at the NFL level do I really feel that the elite players understand that what makes you elite is doing your job down in and down out and trusting that everybody around you will do the same.
What has Kim done other than front dawgman some money? Samek started the site and needed some backing so Kim gave him some dough and now he's the fucking taken the whole thing over and ran it into the ground. What's Samek's deal in the first place? Does he take it in the ass from Kim or did he sell his ownership to Kim? Hopefully the latter because I didnt' think he was that much of a pussy.
Don't forget Chip Kelley at Oregon. He was always an asshole to the media and didn't give a fuck.
Kim is enamored with shiny objects. If he knew anything about coaching (which he doesn't) most coaches aren't sucking up to a 5' skinny jeans wearing wannabe photographer. Adults are in charge now. To compare him to willingham is silly. Unless he's not recruiting and golfing instead, which he isn't. It will be nice to have a coach who is working on winning rather than tweeting and trying to hit the god damn cross bar from the 40.
Don't forget Chip Kelley at Oregon. He was always an asshole to the media and didn't give a fuck.
Kim is enamored with shiny objects. If he knew anything about coaching (which he doesn't) most coaches aren't sucking up to a 5' skinny jeans wearing wannabe photographer. Adults are in charge now. To compare him to willingham is silly. Unless he's not recruiting and golfing instead, which he isn't. It will be nice to have a coach who is working on winning rather than tweeting and trying to hit the god damn cross bar from the 40.
This.
The doogmen are so used to getting dickrides from Sark that they just assume that Petersen, who doesn't give dickrides, is the same as Willingham, who was just a dick. They're too stupid to know the difference.
Tequila, your thoughts about stars in football are really fucking stupid. Alabama has a team full of stars. USC with Carroll were full of stars. Sure, you will have a few skill guys upset about not getting the ball enough, but who gives a fuck? I have no idea how you came up with that shit, and I am now dumber for having read it.
All I'm trying to say is that having a bunch of elite players is only great if the elite players do their job. What makes the USC's and Alabama's successful is that when they are competing for titles, they are getting everybody to buy in to the success of the good of the team.
Has Sark ever done that at Washington?
Do you think he'll do that at SC all of a sudden?
Does Petersen have a track record of this?
Yes, in an ideal world you take the best players you can and have play with the team first concept.
But you don't have to have a ridiculous number of elite talent guys to win at a high level. You need a lot of very good players combined with a handful of elite players.
All I'm trying to say is that having a bunch of elite players is only great if the elite players do their job. What makes the USC's and Alabama's successful is that when they are competing for titles, they are getting everybody to buy in to the success of the good of the team.
Has Sark ever done that at Washington?
Do you think he'll do that at SC all of a sudden?
Does Petersen have a track record of this?
Yes, in an ideal world you take the best players you can and have play with the team first concept.
But you don't have to have a ridiculous number of elite talent guys to win at a high level. You need a lot of very good players combined with a handful of elite players.
Comments
The argument that he hasn't won at a BCS level is probably a fair one to make until he does. However, his career record suggests that he's won and won big when competing against his peer level. I don't think anybody expects that he's going to win 90% of his games in the PAC, but even if he's at 70% going forward, I think everybody would be more than happy what those results would lead to.
The recruiting at a BCS level is similar to the coaching. It's apples and oranges. One thing that he's proven to be able to do is develop talent. Many are bagging on the fact that at this point Petersen isn't doing anything more than getting verbals from 3-star kids. What most miss is that the success of a program is often driven by these "boring" 3-star kids developing and forming a basis of solid performance for the program. The difference then becomes the kind of elite players that you are able to surround the foundation with to rise the program to a championship level. Not every player can be an all-star on a team ... in fact, that's a recipe for disaster.
To the argument that Petersen isn't a flashy enough coach, let's look at the coaches in the current Top 10:
1) Florida State - Jimbo Fisher: The foundation of Florida State's success is that they dominate people on the OL/DL. They are a top 25 rushing team in the country averaging over 200 yards per game and a top 15 defensive team against the run giving up just over 100 yards per game.
2) Auburn - Gus Malzahn: Everybody wants to look at what he does with the spread and think that he's all flash. The balance of their run game still comes up the middle and they use their explosive runs to the outside to get you just spread out enough to make the middle runs work. He might have some flash to him, but at the end of the day, he's all about making sure that his bigs outperform your bigs.
3) Alabama - Nick Saban: Personality isn't what he's known for - cold, calculating, ruthless winning he is
4) Michigan St - Mark Dantonio: His teams are built on having one of the better defenses in the country, a bruising running game built off of strong OL play, and QBs that are adept at making the plays required by them. This isn't a flashy team, but a highly effective team.
5) Stanford - David Shaw: Physical running game combined with a hit you in the mouth defense. Not flashy ... highly effective.
6) Baylor - Art Briles: Perhaps the first coach on this list that is more of a flash coach than a physical coach (unless you throw Malzahn into the flash category). However, Baylor is a Top 25 run offense and run defense so they are not just a flashy team w/o substance.
7) Ohio State - Urban Legend: He's famous for turning Tebow Time into a multi-championship team. He's known for running the ball. He's known for physical defense. The fact that his Ohio St teams have had some defensive issues you know will get fixed in time as his recruits continue to dominate the program. BTW, Ohio St was a Top 7 team in the country in both rushing offense/defense.
8) Missouri - Gary Pinkel: DJ pedigree ... nothing more needs to be said.
9) South Caorlina - Ol' Ball Coach: Let's just say that he's been around long enough to know that you can't be the Ol' Ball Coach without rolling up your sleeves from time to time
10) Oregon - Mark Helfrich: We don't know enough about Helfrich to know much ... what we do know about the Oregon program though is that when they get hit in the mouth, they tend to back away.
Bottom line, if you want to be a Top 10 team, you are far more likely to be there by being willing to not only pop somebody in the mouth, but to fight back when someone tries to KO you. If you're soft, you'll fall on your face. Petersen's teams have consistently shown over time that when you hit them in the mouth, they get right back up and take their shots. Sark? Not so much.
In football, guys that go out and act on their own often run the risk of compromising the common good. Let's say that you have a difference maker on defense ... you can scheme around his tendencies to gamble, get himself out of position, etc. such that you are able to maximize his strengths to make huge plays but at the same time provide the appropriate cover for the holes that he leaves. Same thing on offense with a skill position player ... you want to give them the ability to take advantage of what they are seeing, but you can't have everybody doing that otherwise it's unmitigated chaos.
While I want the best players possible, I also want guys that are going to do their job and not try to do everything. At the college level, I don't believe that enough high end players often view themselves as just doing their job and if you are an elite player you want to go get your glory. Only at the NFL level do I really feel that the elite players understand that what makes you elite is doing your job down in and down out and trusting that everybody around you will do the same.
Kim is enamored with shiny objects. If he knew anything about coaching (which he doesn't) most coaches aren't sucking up to a 5' skinny jeans wearing wannabe photographer. Adults are in charge now. To compare him to willingham is silly. Unless he's not recruiting and golfing instead, which he isn't. It will be nice to have a coach who is working on winning rather than tweeting and trying to hit the god damn cross bar from the 40.
The doogmen are so used to getting dickrides from Sark that they just assume that Petersen, who doesn't give dickrides, is the same as Willingham, who was just a dick. They're too stupid to know the difference.
Has Sark ever done that at Washington?
Do you think he'll do that at SC all of a sudden?
Does Petersen have a track record of this?
Yes, in an ideal world you take the best players you can and have play with the team first concept.
But you don't have to have a ridiculous number of elite talent guys to win at a high level. You need a lot of very good players combined with a handful of elite players.