Jonathan Smith

Dardanus said:

Tequilla said:

Dardanus said:

HuskyInAZ said:

RaceBannon said:

HuskyInAZ said:

RaceBannon said:

HuskyInAZ said:

Houhusky said:

HuskyInAZ said:

Houhusky said:

@Tequilla Oct 2015 - "I've been saying for a while that Smith (and Pease) should be fired at end of season ... failure to do so by Petersen puts it on him and would be a fireable event in my mind"

@Tequilla Feb 2016 - "But I don't think it is indefensible to give Smith another crack with a more experienced team and not risk setting back some still young players with a new playbook and system in Year #2."


I like to say that Petersen should be fired if he doesnt get rid of Smith and then say its not indefensible to give Smith another season... that is what I like to do.

What changed? Other than the 2nd half of the season, nothing. But changing opinion based on demonstrated improvement in performance playing worse teams is an executable offense.

FTFY


"Tie a cement rock to the foot and throw him off [Smith] Alcatraz on the way home" to "Smith did just enough" because UW beat up on some of the worst defensive teams in the country to finish out the season.

You act like it was a surprise UW finished out the season against WSU, OSU, and some shit tier bowl team.

First 6 games, opponents record 42-35
Last 6 games, opponents record 43-35

Next.

You probably think you made a point

Let me try again, old-timer. On average, the quality of opponents at the beginning of the year was on par with the quality of opponents at the end of the year.

Screw that. Win or GTFO. Fire Peterman today.

That's not true at all

You may not want it to be true, but the facts say otherwise.

First 6 games, opponents record 42-35
Last 6 games, opponents record 43-35

I like to equate 6 games (3 P12, 2 MW, 1 Big Sky) to 6 games (6 P12). I do that.

I'm not exactly sure what you're implying here.

You would think that the offensive results should be better against 3 P12, 2 MW, and 1 Big Sky teams than against 6 P12 conference teams - agreed?

I'm implying that bisecting the season and comparing opponent's records is not a good indicator of the schedule getting easier or harder. That's because these 6 games vs 6 games is not a good comparison.

The point AZHusky is trying to make is that the schedule did not get easier at the end of the season because the opponent's records are nearly identical.

How about we divide the conference schedule into thirds?

First (Cal, USC, Oregon)
Opp record 25-15
UW 1-2

Second (Stan, AZ, Utah)
Opp record 29-11
UW 1-2

Third (ASU, OSU, WSU)
Opp record 17-21
UW 2-1

There's no question that you can divide data into anything to fit an argument and whether you split the schedule into halves or the conference season into thirds can completely allow for the data to fit the narrative ...

The Stanford game I'm not sure is really relevant because all that game proved was that Magna Carta was nowhere close to ready for PAC play.

Personally, I'm not entirely sure that I buy the schedule was easier/harder or whatever argument to begin with. I think it has way more to do with the fact that the youth on offense whether it was Browning, Gaskin, or the OL got more of their feet under them and started producing.

The argument that the production was tied to shitty defenses really doesn't resonate with me as well. Utah had arguably the 2nd best defense in the conference. Poor defenses that we struggled with in the first half of the season (Cal and Oregon) we didn't struggle with in the 2nd half of the season (Arizona schools).

HuskyInAZ said:

Dardanus said:

Tequilla said:

Dardanus said:

HuskyInAZ said:

RaceBannon said:

HuskyInAZ said:

RaceBannon said:

HuskyInAZ said:

Houhusky said:

HuskyInAZ said:

Houhusky said:

@Tequilla Oct 2015 - "I've been saying for a while that Smith (and Pease) should be fired at end of season ... failure to do so by Petersen puts it on him and would be a fireable event in my mind"

@Tequilla Feb 2016 - "But I don't think it is indefensible to give Smith another crack with a more experienced team and not risk setting back some still young players with a new playbook and system in Year #2."


I like to say that Petersen should be fired if he doesnt get rid of Smith and then say its not indefensible to give Smith another season... that is what I like to do.

What changed? Other than the 2nd half of the season, nothing. But changing opinion based on demonstrated improvement in performance playing worse teams is an executable offense.

FTFY


"Tie a cement rock to the foot and throw him off [Smith] Alcatraz on the way home" to "Smith did just enough" because UW beat up on some of the worst defensive teams in the country to finish out the season.

You act like it was a surprise UW finished out the season against WSU, OSU, and some shit tier bowl team.

First 6 games, opponents record 42-35
Last 6 games, opponents record 43-35

Next.

You probably think you made a point

Let me try again, old-timer. On average, the quality of opponents at the beginning of the year was on par with the quality of opponents at the end of the year.

Screw that. Win or GTFO. Fire Peterman today.

That's not true at all

You may not want it to be true, but the facts say otherwise.

First 6 games, opponents record 42-35
Last 6 games, opponents record 43-35

I like to equate 6 games (3 P12, 2 MW, 1 Big Sky) to 6 games (6 P12). I do that.

I'm not exactly sure what you're implying here.

You would think that the offensive results should be better against 3 P12, 2 MW, and 1 Big Sky teams than against 6 P12 conference teams - agreed?

I'm implying that bisecting the season and comparing opponent's records is not a good indicator of the schedule getting easier or harder. That's because these 6 games vs 6 games is not a good comparison.

The point AZHusky is trying to make is that the schedule did not get easier at the end of the season because the opponent's records are nearly identical.

How about we divide the conference schedule into thirds?

First (Cal, USC, Oregon)
Opp record 25-15
UW 1-2

Second (Stan, AZ, Utah)
Opp record 29-11
UW 1-2

Third (ASU, OSU, WSU)
Opp record 17-21
UW 2-1

Houhusky said:

Tequilla said:

RoadDawg55 said:

You have excuses every time you are wrong. You are never wrong, just like Aubbie is meet wrong. I appreciate you even though I hate you as a poster and i question whether AuburnDawg is one of your two dads.

I'm wrong plenty ... anybody that thinks that they are right all (or even a vast majority) of the time is full of shit.

Now, if I don't sit there and say "I'm wrong" enough for your liking ... then tough shit. And BTW, when I do say that I was wrong, or perhaps take new information and form a new opinion, I get hit with the "moving the goalposts" crap.

I learned a long time ago that regardless of what I say or do, for whatever reason people have some kind of opinion about it. There are people that are 100% in my corner and will do anything for me. There are other people that want to take shots at me any opportunity that they get. Such is life.

Glad that you appreciate the podcast ... we try to keep it light hearted and entertaining while balancing some amount of seriousness. Delicate balance.

If you can admit that you are wrong then it shouldnt be so difficult to clear the field...

@Tequilla Oct 2015 - "I've been saying for a while that Smith (and Pease) should be fired at end of season ... failure to do so by Petersen puts it on him and would be a fireable event in my mind"

@Tequilla Feb 2016 - "But I don't think it is indefensible to give Smith another crack with a more experienced team and not risk setting back some still young players with a new playbook and system in Year #2."

given that both statements are not compatible with each other, in which statement were you wrong?

Ill be waiting for your county politician response

Is this really that complicated. UW's offense looked like shit the first half of the year. Not so much the second half of the year. For someone to change their view over the course of a few months based on performance on the field seems level headed to me. Unless, of course, the goal is "gotcha".

It's even simpler than this ...

I said early in the season that Smith was in a prove it mode and that I was learning towards firing him (if I was the Head Coach) ...

After the ASU game I said that I would have fired him (again, if I was the Head Coach) ...

This week, I also said that I would have worked my resources to see if I had a better option as a replacement that I considered a better fit and moved on (again, if I was Head Coach and as always assumes that the options that I would have had to replace would have been an upgrade).

I also said that I can understand Petersen's logic (and when combined with the above suggests that I disagree with it) given end of season performance and that the 1-year contract instead of 2 years is a fitting compromise to allow Smith to stay and prove it further.

Some idiots need to learn the difference between what I would do, what Pete does, and whether my opinion is what I would do or what I think Pete will do.