Stats are for losers or Number's don't lie??
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.
Comments
-
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:- 3 easy non-con wins each year because of our pussy scheduling (yes, Michigan, I know), plus
- 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)
- Win a shitty bowl game against a MWC team
- 3 easy non-con wins each year because of our pussy scheduling (yes, Michigan, I know), plus
-
Pete is 1-4 in bowl games. Pete can't win the big one.
-
Um, Fiesta Bowls... HELLLLLLLOOOOOOOO!!!!DerekJohnson said:Pete is 1-4 in bowl games. Pete can't win the big one.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10 years ago
Totally forgot he went 8-4 at Boise his last year.
-
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!!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)? -
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
-
Dear Mrs. Neuheisel,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)?
Thank you for talking about Rick on our boreds today.
As always, LEAVE!
Sincerely,
F3 -
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.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 -
Pacific Northwest Title sounds good about right nowPurpleBaze said:
LEAVE!!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.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)? -
“Win the Rose Bowl, ‘yada, yada, yada.”BleachedAnusDawg said:
an AD who wanted to intentionally destroy the program).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
“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? -
65-7 followed by a collapse against Texas where they won every jump ball. They both sucked.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)?
