Kim Grinolds Fucking Stupid - Pat Hill TUFF is Just Like Tim DeRuyter

http://northwestfootballfucktards.wordpress.com/2013/10/26/kim-grinolds-fucking-stupid-pat-hill-tuff-is-just-like-tim-deruyter/

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

bananasnblondes

Kim asked "who would you replace him with?" knowing that there was no correct answer. Whoever the guy said, Kim would make some stupid comment about how that coach wouldn't be good. If he would have said Mora, Kim would have said "A guy who just got destroyed by Stanford, no thanks. That would be a step back. Sark beat Stanford."

Kim knows with Sark he'll always have access. He is willing to cover a shitty football team if he can have access.

He's afraid of the Mora hire because he knows all of us have all the screenshots that we need so we'll provide Mora with them. Have fun getting access after all the shit that has been said.

DeRuyter is no different than Pat Hill. Mora is a loose cannon who could implode at any time. Plus, he has burned bridges during recruiting. Craig Bohl has never coached a BCS team. Pete Lembo inherited a great situation at Ball State. How are any of these guys different from Sark?

DeRuyter is no different than Pat Hill. Mora is a loose cannon who could implode at any time. Plus, he has burned bridges during recruiting. Craig Bohl has never coached a BCS team. Pete Lembo inherited a great situation at Ball State. How are any of these guys different from Sark?

But how was Mark Emmert a bad president?

Meh. DeRuyter wins a lot of 45-42 type games for a defensive coach.

Meh. DeRuyter wins a lot of 45-42 type games for a defensive coach.

So did Pete Carroll.

Meh. DeRuyter wins a lot of 45-42 type games for a defensive coach.

To be fair Mora did that last year and I would take Mora in a heartbeat.

DeRuyter is no different than Pat Hill. Mora is a loose cannon who could implode at any time. Plus, he has burned bridges during recruiting. Craig Bohl has never coached a BCS team. Pete Lembo inherited a great situation at Ball State. How are any of these guys different from Sark?

They win more?

So did Mike Stoops. I could do this all night.

I'm betting that I can come up with a longer list of failures who get into 45-42 games than you can successes. Using the exception to suggest that the rule doesn't matter is something like the people who think it's ok that we fill our roster with second and third choice recroots because Mason Foster was a 2 star.

So did Mike Stoops. I could do this all night.

I'm betting that I can come up with a longer list of failures who get into 45-42 games than you can successes. Using the exception to suggest that the rule doesn't matter is something like the people who think it's ok that we fill our roster with second and third choice recroots because Mason Foster was a 2 star.

If he was losing 45-42 I'd agree but he's WINNING so I'll go with him. He also turned around four different programs as a DC. He's a good coach and will be successful.

So did Mike Stoops. I could do this all night.

I'm betting that I can come up with a longer list of failures who get into 45-42 games than you can successes. Using the exception to suggest that the rule doesn't matter is something like the people who think it's ok that we fill our roster with second and third choice recroots because Mason Foster was a 2 star.

No shit. Maybe because there's way more failed head coaches than successful ones.

Brian Billick was the head coach if the best NFL defense of all time and he's an offensive coach. Bill Belichik was the head coach of the best NFL offense of all time and he's a defensive coach.

Great coaches don't need their teams to be defined by their specialty to be great.

Jesus, just popped over there to read the OP.
Kim just gets owned in that fucking thread.

KG reminds me of what Robin Williams once said about former VP Dan Qualye.
"He's one taco short of a combination plate".

I hear you, but I'd think more of it if his defenses were smothering people instead of giving up 50 points to Rutgers, 37 to Hawaii -- fucking Hawaii -- or 40 to the shittiest Boise team in a decade, and that's just through six games. Am I crazy to wonder how that's going to scale in the Pac12? Does this look like the resume of a guy who is ever going to beat Oregon?

Yes, he's turned around defenses -- as defensive coordinator, but we're not talking about hiring him as a defensive coordinator. Something about that hasn't yet translated as head coach. Not saying it won't or can't, but it hasn't, and it makes more sense to say that the jury's still out than to rush and give him this job based on what he did as a coordinator.

There's no point insisting on a guy with head coaching experience if we're just going to ignore the information that comes out of it.

HeretoBeatmyChest

Good point DeLarry. DeRuyter is a top candidate but this stuff has to be looked into.

wait... a guy who sells houses for a living and clearly has hands too small to play football is telling people that he's so savvy at football that he can sniff out the coaching situation?

BUMP

62 points vs a .500 WAC team. Honestly, I'm relieved we didn't fire Sark and hire this guy .

TierbsHsotBoobs

WDWHA.

So he loses one game this year and that means he sucks? That's like Doogs crowing when Mora drops a game.

DeRuyter might not be the guy. But he also might be the guy.

We all know that Sark is NOT the guy.

So he loses one game this year and that means he sucks? That's like Doogs crowing when Mora drops a game.

DeRuyter might not be the guy. But he also might be the guy.

We all know that Sark is NOT the guy.

DeRuyter's pedigree > Sark's pedigree.

It's not just this game. This is part of a pattern of a so called defensive mastermind whose teams like to give up 40, 50, 60 points against middling competition. That's a big red flag.

I'm not arguing that it means he definitely sucks. It means he's an unproven commodity, and Washington's already had bad enough luck with those.let him cut his teeth in the junior leagues for a while. I've seen nothing out of this guy to suggest that he should even be a serious candidate if the UW job came open.

Comments

bananasnblondes

Kim asked "who would you replace him with?" knowing that there was no correct answer. Whoever the guy said, Kim would make some stupid comment about how that coach wouldn't be good. If he would have said Mora, Kim would have said "A guy who just got destroyed by Stanford, no thanks. That would be a step back. Sark beat Stanford."

Kim knows with Sark he'll always have access. He is willing to cover a shitty football team if he can have access.

He's afraid of the Mora hire because he knows all of us have all the screenshots that we need so we'll provide Mora with them. Have fun getting access after all the shit that has been said.

DeRuyter is no different than Pat Hill. Mora is a loose cannon who could implode at any time. Plus, he has burned bridges during recruiting. Craig Bohl has never coached a BCS team. Pete Lembo inherited a great situation at Ball State. How are any of these guys different from Sark?

DeRuyter is no different than Pat Hill. Mora is a loose cannon who could implode at any time. Plus, he has burned bridges during recruiting. Craig Bohl has never coached a BCS team. Pete Lembo inherited a great situation at Ball State. How are any of these guys different from Sark?

But how was Mark Emmert a bad president?

Meh. DeRuyter wins a lot of 45-42 type games for a defensive coach.

Meh. DeRuyter wins a lot of 45-42 type games for a defensive coach.

So did Pete Carroll.

Meh. DeRuyter wins a lot of 45-42 type games for a defensive coach.

To be fair Mora did that last year and I would take Mora in a heartbeat.

DeRuyter is no different than Pat Hill. Mora is a loose cannon who could implode at any time. Plus, he has burned bridges during recruiting. Craig Bohl has never coached a BCS team. Pete Lembo inherited a great situation at Ball State. How are any of these guys different from Sark?

They win more?

So did Mike Stoops. I could do this all night.

I'm betting that I can come up with a longer list of failures who get into 45-42 games than you can successes. Using the exception to suggest that the rule doesn't matter is something like the people who think it's ok that we fill our roster with second and third choice recroots because Mason Foster was a 2 star.

So did Mike Stoops. I could do this all night.

I'm betting that I can come up with a longer list of failures who get into 45-42 games than you can successes. Using the exception to suggest that the rule doesn't matter is something like the people who think it's ok that we fill our roster with second and third choice recroots because Mason Foster was a 2 star.

If he was losing 45-42 I'd agree but he's WINNING so I'll go with him. He also turned around four different programs as a DC. He's a good coach and will be successful.

So did Mike Stoops. I could do this all night.

I'm betting that I can come up with a longer list of failures who get into 45-42 games than you can successes. Using the exception to suggest that the rule doesn't matter is something like the people who think it's ok that we fill our roster with second and third choice recroots because Mason Foster was a 2 star.

No shit. Maybe because there's way more failed head coaches than successful ones.

Brian Billick was the head coach if the best NFL defense of all time and he's an offensive coach. Bill Belichik was the head coach of the best NFL offense of all time and he's a defensive coach.

Great coaches don't need their teams to be defined by their specialty to be great.

Jesus, just popped over there to read the OP.
Kim just gets owned in that fucking thread.

KG reminds me of what Robin Williams once said about former VP Dan Qualye.
"He's one taco short of a combination plate".

I hear you, but I'd think more of it if his defenses were smothering people instead of giving up 50 points to Rutgers, 37 to Hawaii -- fucking Hawaii -- or 40 to the shittiest Boise team in a decade, and that's just through six games. Am I crazy to wonder how that's going to scale in the Pac12? Does this look like the resume of a guy who is ever going to beat Oregon?

Yes, he's turned around defenses -- as defensive coordinator, but we're not talking about hiring him as a defensive coordinator. Something about that hasn't yet translated as head coach. Not saying it won't or can't, but it hasn't, and it makes more sense to say that the jury's still out than to rush and give him this job based on what he did as a coordinator.

There's no point insisting on a guy with head coaching experience if we're just going to ignore the information that comes out of it.

HeretoBeatmyChest

Good point DeLarry. DeRuyter is a top candidate but this stuff has to be looked into.

wait... a guy who sells houses for a living and clearly has hands too small to play football is telling people that he's so savvy at football that he can sniff out the coaching situation?

BUMP

62 points vs a .500 WAC team. Honestly, I'm relieved we didn't fire Sark and hire this guy .

TierbsHsotBoobs

WDWHA.

So he loses one game this year and that means he sucks? That's like Doogs crowing when Mora drops a game.

DeRuyter might not be the guy. But he also might be the guy.

We all know that Sark is NOT the guy.

So he loses one game this year and that means he sucks? That's like Doogs crowing when Mora drops a game.

DeRuyter might not be the guy. But he also might be the guy.

We all know that Sark is NOT the guy.

DeRuyter's pedigree > Sark's pedigree.

It's not just this game. This is part of a pattern of a so called defensive mastermind whose teams like to give up 40, 50, 60 points against middling competition. That's a big red flag.

I'm not arguing that it means he definitely sucks. It means he's an unproven commodity, and Washington's already had bad enough luck with those.let him cut his teeth in the junior leagues for a while. I've seen nothing out of this guy to suggest that he should even be a serious candidate if the UW job came open.

Quick Links