You can tell the season is definitely starting. Tone of the entire podcast was more urgent and it was mostly football talk. I echo the reserved skepticism. I disagree that 10 wins this year wouldn't be a very bad and very big data point against Petersen. That expectation hasn't changed for me.
You can tell the season is definitely starting. Tone of the entire podcast was more urgent and it was mostly football talk. I echo the reserved skepticism. I disagree that 10 wins this year wouldn't be a very bad and very big data point against Petersen. That expectation hasn't changed for me. 10+ is still my expectation. I will be pissed if Sark doesn't get there, but I'm not going to call for him to be fire I he doesn't because it will never happen.
You can tell the season is definitely starting. Tone of the entire podcast was more urgent and it was mostly football talk. I echo the reserved skepticism. I disagree that 10 wins this year wouldn't be a very bad and very big data point against Petersen. That expectation hasn't changed for me. 10+ is still my expectation. I will be pissed if Sark doesn't get there, but I'm not going to call for him to be fire I he doesn't because it will never happen. FTFYGet it now?
Get it now?
I could do without the 12 talk. Didn't agree with all of your hot takes but it was still a good show... Just give Fremont some free pub... He 'll come around
You can tell the season is definitely starting. Tone of the entire podcast was more urgent and it was mostly football talk. I echo the reserved skepticism. I disagree that 10 wins this year wouldn't be a very bad and very big data point against Petersen. That expectation hasn't changed for me. 10+ is still my expectation. I will be pissed if Sark doesn't get there, but I'm not going to call for him to be fire I he doesn't because it will never happen. FTFYGet it now? I gave Sark three years before wanting him gone. The difference is Petersen is a real coach. If Petersen doesn't win 10, this year is a failure. Petersen has a plan, while Sark winged it the whole time.
Not a single sluggo explanation.How am I suppose to know whose responsibility the flanker falls to when the safety's cross with the nickel package in?Fucking amateur hour.
I'm liking the Doog of the week section. Good chit.
You can tell the season is definitely starting. Tone of the entire podcast was more urgent and it was mostly football talk. I echo the reserved skepticism. I disagree that 10 wins this year wouldn't be a very bad and very big data point against Petersen. That expectation hasn't changed for me. 10+ is still my expectation. I will be pissed if Sark doesn't get there, but I'm not going to call for him to be fire I he doesn't because it will never happen. FTFYGet it now? I gave Sark three years before wanting him gone. The difference is Petersen is a real coach. If Petersen doesn't win 10, this year is a failure. Petersen has a plan, while Sark winged it the whole time. I knew there was something wrong with you.
You can tell the season is definitely starting. Tone of the entire podcast was more urgent and it was mostly football talk. I echo the reserved skepticism. I disagree that 10 wins this year wouldn't be a very bad and very big data point against Petersen. That expectation hasn't changed for me. 10+ is still my expectation. I will be pissed if Sark doesn't get there, but I'm not going to call for him to be fire I he doesn't because it will never happen. FTFYGet it now? I gave Sark three years before wanting him gone. The difference is Petersen is a real coach. If Petersen doesn't win 10, this year is a failure. Petersen has a plan, while Sark winged it the whole time. I knew there was something wrong with you. This argument has been recycled here many times. Sark didn't deserve the job and was a shitty hire. He never should have gotten the job, but after his first two years there wasn't really any reason to fire him. If he would have missed a bowl game in year two then yes, but he didn't and he won it. The standards were low enough at the time that that was enough to get him a third year.
You can tell the season is definitely starting. Tone of the entire podcast was more urgent and it was mostly football talk. I echo the reserved skepticism. I disagree that 10 wins this year wouldn't be a very bad and very big data point against Petersen. That expectation hasn't changed for me. 10+ is still my expectation. I will be pissed if Sark doesn't get there, but I'm not going to call for him to be fire I he doesn't because it will never happen. FTFYGet it now? I gave Sark three years before wanting him gone. The difference is Petersen is a real coach. If Petersen doesn't win 10, this year is a failure. Petersen has a plan, while Sark winged it the whole time. I knew there was something wrong with you. This argument has been recycled here many times. Sark didn't deserve the job and was a shitty hire. He never should have gotten the job, but after his first two years there wasn't really any reason to fire him. If he would have missed a bowl game in year two then yes, but he didn't and he won it. The standards were low enough at the time that that was enough to get him a third year. Keep digging.I was just fucking with you before, but you've actually gone full doog.Sark was a shitty hire and didn't deserve the job...but according to you he deserved a third year?Which one is it? You can't have it both ways.
You can tell the season is definitely starting. Tone of the entire podcast was more urgent and it was mostly football talk. I echo the reserved skepticism. I disagree that 10 wins this year wouldn't be a very bad and very big data point against Petersen. That expectation hasn't changed for me. 10+ is still my expectation. I will be pissed if Sark doesn't get there, but I'm not going to call for him to be fire I he doesn't because it will never happen. FTFYGet it now? I gave Sark three years before wanting him gone. The difference is Petersen is a real coach. If Petersen doesn't win 10, this year is a failure. Petersen has a plan, while Sark winged it the whole time. I knew there was something wrong with you. This argument has been recycled here many times. Sark didn't deserve the job and was a shitty hire. He never should have gotten the job, but after his first two years there wasn't really any reason to fire him. If he would have missed a bowl game in year two then yes, but he didn't and he won it. The standards were low enough at the time that that was enough to get him a third year. Keep digging.I was just fucking with you before, but you've actually gone full doog.Sark was a shitty hire and didn't deserve the job...but according to you he deserved a third year?Which one is it? You can't have it both ways. Whatever. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.
