Response to CF's Claim That Petersen's Process Is Already Burning Bridges ...

A common theme in making headlines is to make a headline that has some "shock and awe" to them that makes a reader want to read the story. However, it's usual and customary that the headline actually has SOMETHING to do with the actual story. The biggest problem that exists in the CF hatchet job is that at no point in the article does he ever in any way, shape, or form identify who it is that Petersen is burning bridges with.

With such a damning headline (which is also essentially the thesis statement of his article), you'd expect a hard hitting link early in the article identifying who, what, when, and where the bridges are being burnt. If you follow this logic, you'd conclude that Fetters is trying to insinuate that it is Marcus Peters who is in a "burning bridge" state with Petersen given the benching that Petersen gave after Peters' penalty in the 2nd half that allowed an Eastern Washington drive to continue and eventually lead to 7 points. Fetters describes Peters' behavior during that sequence as "getting jacked" and "adding some spice of a purple and gold decoration." Fetters then jumps to quoting Petersen's comments on the situation (paraphrasing that it's an easy decision for him to bench someone that isn't playing how they want to play) before immediately moving on talking about the Husky offense executing down the stretch of the game and talking about how good Vernon Adams played.

In the above paragraph, there's a very important missing piece of information - and that's the comments of one Marcus Peters. Fetters very clearly insinuates based on the title of the article and then leading the article with the Peters situation that Peters is at minimum very disgruntled at how Petersen's "punishment" was enforced. This is a classic bait and switch tactic employed by the DM staff where they insinuate messages without ever specifically coming out and saying anything. Then, when called out on their insinuations they fall back on the fact that their words that don't really say anything and claim that their comments are being twisted, misinterpreted, or whatnot.

Fetters does eventually pick up on the Peters angle again later in the article when talking about how Petersen is all about the "process," including his comments about "process" during his postgame remarks where Fetters notes that it was a message directed to the entire team but were a "blunt instrument in the direction of the defense or Mr. Peters in particular" and noting that LAST YEAR the actions of Peters would have been met with "some extra gassers or extra practice conditioning." I'll address the reference to "last year" later in this. However, the usage of "Mr Peters" in his comments is also very tactical and calculated by Fetters. The usage of "Mr" when addressing someone is normally a sign to note the distinguished nature of an individual and as a sign of respect. In fact, when looking at reporting, you tend to only find the use of "Mr" in a reporting format when it comes to publications such as the Wall Street Journal when talking consistently about C-level executives of Fortune 500 companies, leaders of the global financial industry, etc. "Mr. Peters" is a college student who while he happens to be a very good football player, has definitely not reached a level of distinguished achievement yet in life to have earned such a title in being reported about. But the other side to this is that the building up of Peters in this case is also served to be a propping up of Peters in his plight against Petersen because Fetters' main thesis in looking at the title of the article is tied into discrediting the performance of Chris Petersen. The subtle drop in of the "Mr" in front of Peters is subtly trying to get a reader to side or identify with the plight of Peters at the expense of the (over)reaction of Petersen.

Fetters next touches in on the "Petersen Process" and notes how the performance wasn't good enough yet the players need to come back and learn from their mistakes (which btw is what happens to any well coached team week in and week out - even for a World Championship caliber team like the Seahawks). In describing the process, Fetters notes the play, and suspension, earned by QB Cyler Miles based on his off-field actions after the Super Bowl. In reading through the comments from Miles, you don't get a single impression from him that he feels like there have been bridges burned between him and his coach while instead noting that the punishment was tough but he was happy that he could come back and help the team. And this is a telling comment. When the punishment is severe enough to dissuade you from making comparable mistakes in the future, you think twice about whether or not the action matches the punishment. It's called discipline.

After providing a brief recap of a few other key points/players of the game and a week to week comparison of the Hawaii results to that of the Eastern game, Fetters proceeds to continue talking about Monday's while citing that "Monday's are there to tell the truth." For those carefully paying attention, "Tell the Truth Monday's" were a hallmark of the former coach of the University of Washington ... they have nothing to do with the current coach. And this in reality isn't surprising considering that what follows is remarking that the performance seen on Saturday "wasn't Washington Football in any way, shape, or form - at least Washington Football the way it was in 2013."

And now we're at the crux of the entire article. The "betrayal" and "burned bridges" isn't in reference to the players as there's not a single comment from any single player (at minimum on the record) that suggests that this is even close to the truth. But instead, the "burned bridges" is a burning of anything in Petersen's program tied to anything Steve Sarkisian did (which Fetters' website has a well known strong relationship with). The following comments made by Fetters are very telling:

"That may just be the point"
"Sarkisian built Washington back from 0-12 to 9-4 village complete with a shiny new house and resources galore"
"Petersen is in the process of burning it all to the ground"
"For those of us - myself included - who thought that Petersen would simply take the community left by Sarkisian and immediately put his stamp on it and take it to the next level we were sorely mistaken"
"We were duped"

This is where Fetters then picks back up on Peters and the punishment that he would have received LAST YEAR that I mentioned previously. Last year doesn't matter anymore. There's a new sheriff in town and the only punishment that is relevant is what is in the here and now. This is where the entire crux of Fetters' opinion is tied up. He uses Peters as the poster child for an "unjust punishment" in his eyes. He cites what he views as poor on-field performance as being a direct result of Petersen's focus on "the process." And he offers up that those that are being betrayed are those that were so loyal to Sarkisian who are standing by and watching seemingly everything that he did and watch it be burned at the 50 yard line.

Fetters then concludes by offering up that "Petersen was touted as the closest thing to Don James in this era," noting that James was 11-11 in his first 2 years, and saying that "Petersen can't afford 11-11." After noting that some of the changes Petersen has made have been successful while others have either been failures or works in process, Fetters concludes his article with the usual DM.com double speak by saying that "Petersen and his staff should be given all the time in the world to find that sweet spot ... but right now it looks like they are in demolition mode. And it's confusing."

Simply put, you can't write an article where your title talks about the coach burning bridges (without really providing a direct and identifiable candidate of whose bridges are being burned ANYWHERE in your article) and then conclude the article by saying that the coach deserves all the time in the world to implement his system. That's just flat out double speak of the highest order. When your opinion article is that, then you're better off just flat out not even writing it.

And, in conclusion, I'll be more than happy to educate Fetters on why all of this is confusing to him. Petersen's won multiple conference titles and played in some of the biggest games that you can in college football. He KNOWS what it takes as a head coach to win at the highest of levels. What he inherited from Sarkisian was a team full of talented players that lacked discipline, didn't know how to execute when it counted, handle adversity, or consistently perform at a high level. That's not really an opinion. That can be seen by Sarkisian's in-season conference record of 4-5, 5-4, 5-4, 5-4, and 5-4 in his 5 years on Montlake; by his 34-29 record (excluding the 2013 bowl game since he had already taken the SC job at that point), and that his record in road/neutral games while the head coach at the UW was 9-21. Putting it mildly, Sarkisian has yet to prove in any way, shape, or form that he is anything more than a mediocre head coach and he has a long way to go to match Chris Petersen's resume or 94-12 career record as a head coach. If forced to make a decision to back one coach or another, given the resumes, it's almost impossible to objectively not have more faith in the track record of Chris Petersen. If he sees problems in a team, decides he needs to break it down to build it back up, etc., then you have to provide the man the opportunity to do the job that he was hired to do without meddling into his decisions or whether or not you agree or disagree with him. His report card will be judged on his performance on the field with the scoreboard ... which is how a coach should be judged.