More swooning for Pete
Comments
-
This is why I love the bi-polar Puppy.puppylove_sugarsteel said:Listen fuckers, Petersen wouldn't have went 5-7 with Locker and that crew in '09.There's a lot of similarities between that team and this squad.
Petersen has a great starting 22. The remaining roster is no better than UTAH's second unit. (as they haven't played down 1) Sark left Petersen a buttfucking mess not counting the starters. Pull your heads out and look.
First statement is probably true. I think Coach Pete's game management would have turned around a couple of those close losses and got us to 7 or 8 wins.
But you are way off base if you think the roster in 09' is deeper than now. Across the board we are better off at every single position (depth wise) and it is not even close. The 09' probably had more top end talent at certain positions, but the depth was a joke. There were a lot of guys in the program that should have been applying their craft in Ellensburg.
-
Puppy has matched his previous best in senility and stupidity on this thread. Nothing shocking though.
-
No, he didn't. You got a timeout for doing what you always did there, and always do here. You fail miserably in reading comprehension and flail around in a blind, drunken rage...staggering and swinging this way and that until you eventually hit the floor and pass out in a puddle of your own vomit.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Yes you did Yale. I got a timeout for pounding your flabby cunt over the issue.Gladstone said:Yale never said Sark needed ten years.
-
I'm going to back puppy on this one. I'm going with... This team is void of talent.
Now, when we win 11 games this year with talent as shitty as '09... Who ya gonna give the credit to? -
Uhhh, Sark, duh. It's his guys. Get back to me when Pete wins with his WAC OKGs ;-)sarktastic said:I'm going to back puppy on this one. I'm going with... This team is void of talent.
Now, when we win 11 games this year with talent as shitty as '09... Who ya gonna give the credit to? -
You say that like it's a bad thing.chuck said:You fail miserably in reading comprehension and flail around in a blind, drunken rage...staggering and swinging this way and that until you eventually hit the floor and pass out in a puddle of your own vomit.
-
He's still a pompous tool, so fuck him.Gladstone said:Yale never said Sark needed ten years.
-
I'm not here to judge. I just report what on what I see.Dennis_DeYoung said:
You say that like it's a bad thing.chuck said:You fail miserably in reading comprehension and flail around in a blind, drunken rage...staggering and swinging this way and that until you eventually hit the floor and pass out in a puddle of your own vomit.
-
Depth was a joke (prior to Pete's class). That's a fact and 5 years after Ty "0-12" team. Is it better now? Of course but not by a hell of a lot considering 5 recruiting classesIrishDawg22 said:
This is why I love the bi-polar Puppy.puppylove_sugarsteel said:Listen fuckers, Petersen wouldn't have went 5-7 with Locker and that crew in '09.There's a lot of similarities between that team and this squad.
Petersen has a great starting 22. The remaining roster is no better than UTAH's second unit. (as they haven't played down 1) Sark left Petersen a buttfucking mess not counting the starters. Pull your heads out and look.
First statement is probably true. I think Coach Pete's game management would have turned around a couple of those close losses and got us to 7 or 8 wins.
But you are way off base if you think the roster in 09' is deeper than now. Across the board we are better off at every single position (depth wise) and it is not even close. The 09' probably had more top end talent at certain positions, but the depth was a joke. There were a lot of guys in the program that should have been applying their craft in Ellensburg.
