Official invite from Softy Mahler via twitter
Comments
-
It would be wrong to ask Softy why he thinks UW is a stepping stone school now.
-
Let me help since Sven does not watch any games.
2012 season you had an awful offense and a top 30 defense, which was a major improvement over previous dreck and unexpected. Had those coaches not come in, you lose to Stanford, OSU and Cal and dont sniff a bowl game. And yes, maybe even SDSU also. -
Classic power bottom line.allpurpleallgold said:
Christ he says 'bottom line' a lot.He_Needs_More_Time said:I brought up 5-4 four years in a row. He changed the subject "bottom line we have Petersen now and Sark left us better off than when he took over. All is good"
-
When I brought up Sark failing by his own goals of competing for a rose bowl and natty's he of course ignored it.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
LOL 0-12!!!!!!He_Needs_More_Time said:I brought up 5-4 four years in a row. He changed the subject "bottom line we have Petersen now and Sark left us better off than when he took over. All is good"
Facts are UW was eliminated from contention in mid October in year five. -
Bottom line, there's 3 primary things that Softy, and other Sark supporters (hi Kim Jong Vino), need to understand:
1) I can't think of many people that don't realize that this program is in a better place today than it was when Sark took over - he should be thanked for that. But at the same time, it was also clear that he wasn't the answer going forward to take this program to the next level.
2) There are a number of people that know what the UW is capable of if properly motivated ... and Woodward proved that by hiring Petersen. It essentially was a giant middle finger to anybody that said "well, who would you hire to replace Sark" ... answer: somebody better.
3) There's not a lot of reason to be afraid of Sark at USC because even though Sark will get good talent (which he also got at Washington), his lack of focus, discipline, and attention to detail will still result in SC under performing. However, because he's at SC he might move up from seven-win Steve to eight-win Steve. Sark's definitely not a coach in the ilk of Petey, John Robinson (the first time around), or John McKay. -
The Wilcox Doogs are almost as bad as the Sark Doogs.
At least they defend an adult though. -
Right on cueTequilla said:Bottom line, there's 3 primary things that Softy, and other Sark supporters (hi Kim Jong Vino), need to understand:
1) I can't think of many people that don't realize that this program is in a better place today than it was when Sark took over - he should be thanked for that. But at the same time, it was also clear that he wasn't the answer going forward to take this program to the next level.
2) There are a number of people that know what the UW is capable of if properly motivated ... and Woodward proved that by hiring Petersen. It essentially was a giant middle finger to anybody that said "well, who would you hire to replace Sark" ... answer: somebody better.
3) There's not a lot of reason to be afraid of Sark at USC because even though Sark will get good talent (which he also got at Washington), his lack of focus, discipline, and attention to detail will still result in SC under performing. However, because he's at SC he might move up from seven-win Steve to eight-win Steve. Sark's definitely not a coach in the ilk of Petey, John Robinson (the first time around), or John McKay.
-
The facts will doom Softy every single time in this argument ... that's the bottom line.
-
Bottom line, the bottom line is the bottom line ...
-
Doogs hate factsTequilla said:The facts will doom Softy every single time in this argument ... that's the bottom line.
-
Softy isn't going to admit he's an idiot for defending Sark all these years. It's perfectly set up for Petersen to come in and have success and hear from Softy and his followers that Sark set this program up nicely. Until Sark falls on his face at USC, there is no pressure on them to admit anything. Even when he does, I bet they will say it doesn't matter. It's time for Kim, Softy, and those types to fuck off.
-
Doogs hate facts because there are no logical arguments that can be made to support the facts ...
Doogs like cotton candy and cherry blossoms ...
You have cotton candy and cherry blossoms in Chris Petersen ... there's a lot of wins in the future of this program ...
Yet Doogs are too damned worried about the fact that they lost their sizzle in Sark and worried that they'll go back to the depths of mediocrity since they are buying hook, line, and sinker that Petersen hasn't "proved it" yet (which is about as fucktarded of an argument as you can make).
It's downright comical. -
And if you have the opportunity to meet with Softy, I would take it. If we really want new voices and for Kim, Softy, and those types to fall off a cliff, you gotta take advantage of these opportunities.
-
I look forward to a time that Softy invites me to his show to discuss baseball and bratwurst
-
Softy pulled a Kim too. "How do you know Sark wasn't about to break through and start going to Rose Bowls? How do we know Petersen will be successful?".
I said for Sark we have 5 years of evidence to tell us that. His best team went 5-4 in conference the same as years 2,3, and 4.
While Petersen might not either odds are greater since he's 92-12 with 2 BCS wins than Sark who was 31-29 vs FBS schools. -
I was going to write a long response to this thread. Then I realized I don't give enough of a fuck.
Sark sucks dick.
Softy sucks dick.
Kim sucks dick.
Doogs suck dick.
Because they all suck dick they will never admit we were right and they were wrong. I hope they all die in a mudslide mixed with napalm.
The end. -
I do think we should send someone, I would like to get his answers on this board on why he supported Ty, and why he wants access. I feel like we would get an actual answer face to face. I nominate tequila
-
Front. Page. Now.Swaye said:I was going to write a long response to this thread. Then I realized I don't give enough of a fuck.
Sark sucks dick.
Softy sucks dick.
Kim sucks dick.
Doogs suck dick.
Because they all suck dick they will never admit we were right and they were wrong. I hope they all die in a mudslide mixed with napalm.
The end. -
With Ty he always claims he didn't feel like we had enough evidence to fire him then. Then he says he regrets it and won't make that mistake again.dhdawg said:I do think we should send someone, I would like to get his answers on this board on why he supported Ty, and why he wants access. I feel like we would get an actual answer face to face. I nominate tequila
Even though he is with Romar and was with Sark.
Also claims he knew there was warning signs against Ty in year two. He's a revisionist history fat fuck major. -
I didn't know they offered that course at BCCHe_pNeeds_More_Time said:
With Ty he always claims he didn't feel like we had enough evidence to fire him then. Then he says he regrets it and won't make that mistake again.dhdawg said:I do think we should send someone, I would like to get his answers on this board on why he supported Ty, and why he wants access. I feel like we would get an actual answer face to face. I nominate tequila
Even though he is with Romar and was with Sark.
Also claims he knew there was warning signs against Ty in year two. He's a revisionist history fat fuck major.
-
also trueTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Classics Bored. Now.Swaye said:I was going to write a long response to this thread. Then I realized I don't give enough of a fuck.
Sark sucks dick.
Softy sucks dick.
Kim sucks dick.
Doogs suck dick.
Because they all suck dick they will never admit we were right and they were wrong. I hope they all die in a mudslide mixed with napalm.
The end.
-
Not Tequilla. He's too much of an intellectual and would get off track instead of making concise points. Before you know it, they would be arguing about something entirely different. I would nominate Chest. He's already proven he can destroy Softy.dhdawg said:I do think we should send someone, I would like to get his answers on this board on why he supported Ty, and why he wants access. I feel like we would get an actual answer face to face. I nominate tequila
-
SecondedRoadDawg55 said:
Not Tequilla. He's too much of an intellectual and would get off track instead of making concise points. Before you know it, they would be arguing about something entirely different. I would nominate Chest.dhdawg said:I do think we should send someone, I would like to get his answers on this board on why he supported Ty, and why he wants access. I feel like we would get an actual answer face to face. I nominate tequila
-
I have no problem going and talking with Softy ...
But there's also a good chance that I'd make his head explode because I'd have a counter point to anything he offered up and after about 15-20 minutes he'd realize that he has no chance of "out debating me" without going into Frank the Tank mode. -
It's a shame the full blown AIDS took out Race Bannon and that iDawg died in a mudslide while on fire as I'd love for those two to sit down with him.
Chest given his calls would be a good option. Softy even admitted last night that the ASU call Chest got under Baird's skin. -
The more I think about it, meeting with Softy would do nothing other than provide some entertainment. The only good thing is he wouldn't be able to hide behind the BrentsFS act of saying, "SAY IT TO MY FACE!" He would stick to saying there is no way to know what Sark would have achieved at UW. You could nail him with all the facts, but it doesn't matter. Until Sark got fired, there is no real way to prove to an idiot like Softy or Kim that he sucked. The meeting would be no different from any other debate with Softy, whether it be More_Time laying it out for him on Twitter or Peter destroying the Honks on the air.
Not to mention, Softy's followers will follow anything he says because he has a platform and he is closer to the program than all of us. The truth is, RoadDawg55 and Tailgater have forgotten more about UW Football than the snot nosed cunt they call "Softy" has ever known. It would end with Softy buying some drinks and saying we are all Dawg fans. -
Free drinks >>> Free pub
-
You'd end up getting frustrated more than anything. Do I think he's as much of a Doog as he is on air? No I don't but I do think he actually is a true Doog at heart. If he wasn't on radio he'd be the Doog arguing with us on Doogman and Twitter I have no doubts.
If I was going to meet up with any of them for drinks it would be Baird. At least I'd have a good time since he obviously is down to get shit faced since he is shit faced 100% of the time.
Softy strikes me as a 2-3 drink at most guy.
RoadDawg is right you can lay the facts out there and he won't care. Even last night he conceded quickly and pull the whole "We are all Dawg fans let's get a drink".
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
