Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Kim says spring ball should be interesting
Comments
-
And BTW Kim, thanks for telling me to take screenshots about a month ago ...
-
It's funny, and incredibly pathetic. Every time there Is a post by Kim there is a 100% chance that its going to be a subtle shot at the current football coach. It doesn't take a genius to decode what he's saying: "Coach Petersen (aka Tyrone Willingham) will be running off the good players and recruiting a bunch of slow, unathletic kids. This is different than Steve Sarkisian (aka Pete Carroll) who really connects to athletic kids and brings in the best talent."
-
I don't believe we or anybody, least of all Dm.c know that as yet. Petersen recruits the same ground as Sark and probably more and he brought not a small number of inner-city kids up from California and Texas to Boise as well as from weird outposts of civilization such as Alaska and Canada. What's more impressive to me about Petersen's recruiting at BSU was how he and his program could take Pacific Northwest kids and develop them into BCS caliber football playing athletes. Yes, we can expect to see more of that from coach Pete at UW.DugtheDoog said:Sark recruited a lot of guys Petersen would never touch ??
If anything, I would say without really knowing for certain that Sark would never even know about, much less touch, some of the kids that Petersen will recruit regardless of where they might come from.
-
Vegas would gladly bet money against whatever predictions are made by Kim and Co.Passion said:
Gotta love how kim is an authority on who Petersen would recruit, and who he wouldn't recruit. It's incredible that he has such insight.DugtheDoog said:If Sark's 'edgy' recruits buy into Petermen's system, it will be interesting. If they don't buy in, it will be interesting. Sark recruited a lot of guys Petermen would never touch. Either way it should be interesting. Stay tuned...
-
Not in the middle of the store.
If there's a problem, shoot us a PM, although a few of you seem bent on twisting stuff.
brbblondeanal beads, vibrator, Dawgnews and Fetters train -
I'm pretty sure Peterman recruited Titus Young. So who exactly has Sark ever recruited that's worse than that guy?
-
No one. The discussion ends when Titus Young is brought up.allpurpleallgold said:
I'm pretty sure Peterman recruited Titus Young. So who exactly has Sark ever recruited that's worse than that guy?
-
Listen guys. This is 4th grade shit. Seriously embarrassing to read. If this board wants to stomp kim this is hardly advanced discussion. You guys look like a bunch of girls sitting around in kindergarden art class eating paste (which is symbolic as hell) throwing clay at each other. Grow the fuck up bitches, holy fuckall!
-
This will never make it through Kim's Berlin Wall style of censorship .. so here's my response back - and Pepsi is right on the mark hereCokeGreaterThanPepsi said:No one. The discussion ends when Titus Young is brought up.
allpurpleallgold said:I'm pretty sure Peterman recruited Titus Young. So who exactly has Sark ever recruited that's worse than that guy?
We'll he did. I think the more interesting question would be.....why?
But you don't know the answer to that. Nobody does not named Chris Petersen.
The entire discussion has centered around Petersen not taking the guys that Sark did ... and we know that the company line is that Sark and staff were great recruiters (let's not let facts like 4-5, 5-4, 5-4, 5-4, and 5-4 OR his record in games where he trailed at halftime get in the way) and that if Sark would have stayed that he would have landed a MONSTER class this year. The idea being pushed is that Petersen wouldn't have recruited the guys that Sark would have (read Petersen might not be able to deliver said MONSTER class) and that since the roster consists of plenty of guys that Sark recruited that have an "edge" (btw, most football players have that), there's going to be a massive problem with this "culture shift."
Yet, when countered with a guy that unquestionably has more character flaws than the example presented and that player WAS on Petersen's team, there's no possible comeback. NONE. -
I stopped reading at 5-4, 5-4, 5-4. They were 9-4 and ranked 25th. If Coons made two FG's in 2012, Sark would have had back to back 9-4 seasons.Tequilla said:
This will never make it through Kim's Berlin Wall style of censorship .. so here's my response back - and Pepsi is right on the mark hereCokeGreaterThanPepsi said:No one. The discussion ends when Titus Young is brought up.
allpurpleallgold said:I'm pretty sure Peterman recruited Titus Young. So who exactly has Sark ever recruited that's worse than that guy?
We'll he did. I think the more interesting question would be.....why?
But you don't know the answer to that. Nobody does not named Chris Petersen.
The entire discussion has centered around Petersen not taking the guys that Sark did ... and we know that the company line is that Sark and staff were great recruiters (let's not let facts like 4-5, 5-4, 5-4, 5-4, and 5-4 OR his record in games where he trailed at halftime get in the way) and that if Sark would have stayed that he would have landed a MONSTER class this year. The idea being pushed is that Petersen wouldn't have recruited the guys that Sark would have (read Petersen might not be able to deliver said MONSTER class) and that since the roster consists of plenty of guys that Sark recruited that have an "edge" (btw, most football players have that), there's going to be a massive problem with this "culture shift."
Yet, when countered with a guy that unquestionably has more character flaws than the example presented and that player WAS on Petersen's team, there's no possible comeback. NONE.
