Wulff will start next year on the hot seat
by Grady. on Oct 4, 2009 12:10 PM PDT
in Cougar Football
102 comments
Different year, same story.
Last night's matchup against the Oregon Ducks was a horrible one for WSU. We knew that going in. Too much speed and too much skill proved to be too much yet again for the Cougars, who were thrashed 52-6 in Eugene. And I wholeheartedly agree with Grippi, who had this to say:
It seems, from this vantage point, more of a continuation rather than a regression. This is a defensive team that struggles to handle speed. That’s been shown three times this year. The off-season weight-lifting gains have helped WSU handle strength, but speed, that can’t be fixed completely in the weight room.
That's why - and I think we all felt this prior to the game - it was a matter of how much we were blown out by, not whether or not we'd be blown out.
Still, I'm tired of it.
One can only watch their team get blown out so many times before they've had enough. Sometimes you wonder - as I am right now with the Seahawks getting blown out in Indianapolis - how all your favorite teams can go to crap at the same time. It's annoying; I used to remember the butterflies I got in my stomach before a big Cougar football game. I still have it for basketball, but hardly ever anymore for football. And while I like the "no pressure" aspect of it all, and the fact we really have nothing to lose, it is also tiring to see so much apathy. A half to three-fourths full Martin Stadium. A lack of any buzz whatsoever as we get close to game time.
We only have one game left that any of us are going to really care about: the Apple Cup. And, adding insult to injury, it's in Seattle. Against a revitalized Husky team under Steve Sarkisian. The spread for the game, at least based on what I've seen so far, will probably be somewhere in the two to three touchdown range. Yeah, I know, throw out the records, rivalries are different blah blah blah. Still, I have a feeling things aren't going to go well, although I have an urge to be there in person just to show the purple bandwagon that WSU has people that still care about their team even when the wins are few and far between.
Now, allow me to get to my thesis statement seven paragraphs in, because I'm rebelling against my English teachers: Wulff should absolutely start next year on the hot seat. I don't think he should be fired at the end of this season; we've come too far in recruiting just to blow it all up and see how things go under a new director. I firmly believe you need three to four years to truly evaluate a new coach. Usually I say four, but if you're being consistently blown out for three years straight, I think it's safe to say your coach is in over his head.
And that's the issue: if we're still getting thrashed like this five to six games in next year, I'll be calling for Wulff's head. I don't care how good of a recruiter you are, how bright the future may look, or how much trouble was left behind from the previous coach. I want to see results. That doesn't mean a Bowl game (although that'd be nice), it means we play competitively. It means we have some tough, close losses for a change instead of blowouts (and, fortunately, Wulff has turned out to be a successful close game coach. So far.). It also means we eek out a couple close wins, at least one over a conference opponent.
Meanwhile, there's a former Cougar coach doing wonders eight miles away in Moscow. Robb Akey's ne'er-do-well Idaho Vandals are 4-1. If you think it's hard to win in Pullman, try winning in Moscow in the post-Big Sky era. Many have tried, including super-enthusiastic Nick Holt and noted face-puncher Tom Cable. All since Chris Tormey have failed. Perhaps someday it will be Akey's time to drive back across the border?
The expectations are still going to be low next year: a range of maybe two to four wins, and an expectation to be competitive against at least a couple of top tier conference opponents. If Wulff still can't meet those expectations, he should be gone. Plain and simple.
---
Some quick blog-type stuff. I blew off doing my usual ESPN.com-style stat-over-analyzing recap since hey, that was a dismal, dismal game. I do want to toss a question over to you, Coug Nation. Do you want a formal game recap, or are you okay with the fact you can get that from the Grippmeister and/or espn.com? I'll also resuscitate the Tailgater's Guide next week, which has disappeared of late thanks in part to the stunning fact that I have a lot less free time now than I did as a student. I don't know why I thought it would be the other way round.
Thanks for your continued support of CougCenter; hope is on the horizon in the form of basketball and a homecoming game next week against a struggling ASU team. Go Cougs. Please, go Cougs.
0 recs |
102 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
36 days, 7 hours, 36 minutes untill Cougar Basketball!!
I am looking forward to next week though, if for no other reason that we get another Tailgater’s Guide, I love that segment!
by GoCougs on Oct 4, 2009 12:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
paul w
next year is a make or break year … at this stage … we have no choice but to wait another year… the question is and one i still do not understand is how and why the wsu AD let this program fall so far ? if the talent on the team was so below pac-10 level… why didn’t wsu step in earlier ?
by willarose on Oct 4, 2009 12:52 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
same question all of cougar nation is asking themselves..
The locker was starting to get bare in ‘06 but nobody noticed enough to make a decision because we were 6-6 and maybe it was just a bad year recruiting. We waited wayyy too long..gave Doba way to much time if wulff would have been hired one season earlier with an expiernced QB in Alex Brink then things would have been different. I can re-itterate enough as bad as some games are. This is not Wulff’s fault. His players he recruited are making an instant positve impact to the progam. Look at what he did at eastern by nearly knocking off the team that beat michigan earlier in the year. This man knows how to recruit and recruit well. We are playing hard just lack talent. Mark my words there will not be another game this year as bad as the one you just witnessed. IF Tuel can stay healthy.
by Wazzucrazed on Oct 4, 2009 1:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am guessing Wazzucrazed that PW's has some questionable
photos of you?
I am men c’mon, but the admin having the foresight. The last yr of Doba we were 5-7 and yes we did get blown out by Oregon and OrSt. right after the Oregon game we turned around and recovered and beat UCLA.
I will guarantee Ball or Sturdy will be gone before next yr. Guarantee, which is sad, but talk about an admin waiting too long to make decision. The trigger will be quick and I agree with Grady, PW has to win next yr or he will be right behind them.
by ptowncoug3012 on Oct 4, 2009 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
FOX Sports
fox sports had paul w – one of ten div-1 football coaches on the hot seat this year.
by willarose on Oct 4, 2009 1:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Just Remember...
Akey is in year 3 and he was 3-21 coming into this season. Plus, he doesn’t have to play USC, Oregon, Cal, etc. Just throwing that out there.
by '03CouveCoug on Oct 4, 2009 1:10 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Akey had an aboslutely horrible 2 years..
yet the organization and fans stuck to him and on year 3, Idaho is for real. It’ll only take wulff that many years as well. I dont think fans realise how bad Lobbestaal was out there, horrid. He does not have a good QB.
I really hope we perform well next saturday with 4 star pittsburg high recruit Dargan in the stands watching.
by Wazzucrazed on Oct 4, 2009 1:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Dargan is coming again?
He already made his official visit during the Stanford game…
by james_WSU on Oct 4, 2009 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah not Dargan,
I read that RB Ricky Seale, one the top prospects at the RB position in the state of california is going to show up, as well as 3 star DE Maxx Forde and 3 star Safety Ed Dillihunt.
by Wazzucrazed on Oct 4, 2009 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Next year....
anything less then 4 wins and he is fired.
by spokanecougar on Oct 4, 2009 1:59 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Way to set the bar ...
…just kidding.
Seriously, though, this is starting to sound like the Ty Willingham argument. I made the same case that you are making now. I argued that Ty had some nice recruiting classes (he got Locker, DTN, Middleton, Isbicki, Foster, Butler) and that he should get the time to figure it out. I neglected to acknowledge three very important attributes that, in hindsight, mattered very much:
1. He couldn’t gameplan
2. He couldn’t make adjustments during the game
3. His players did not demonstrate an emotional connection to him or his message
Sure, the got the guys into the program. But he couldn’t put them in a position to win and he couldn’t get them to want to lay it all out there for him. You guys are the Coug fans, so I’ll let you debate whether or not there is a possible repeat of the Willingham mistake. I would point out that the difference between Sark’s team and Wililngham’s teams are like night and day despite the fact that they are the same players, in the same program against the same difficult schedule.
I do look forward to the restoration of the day where a trip into the state of Washington for a college football game is not a pleasant experience for the rest of the Pac 10.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Oct 4, 2009 5:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Differences
1. He couldn’t gameplan
2. He couldn’t make adjustments during the game
3. His players did not demonstrate an emotional connection to him or his message
Unlike Willingham, I would argue that only one of these things is in serious question at the moment with Wulff.
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 4, 2009 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
#1 for sure, but two or three would seem to be open questions.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Oct 4, 2009 7:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
No. 3 isn't
And I would argue based off of how this year has gone, No. 2 is darn close to being settled, too. No. 1 is still a question mark because of the talent.
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 4, 2009 8:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
Wulff has made adjustments during games (especially at the half) that work and I don’t have any doubt that these guys are behind Wulff. The guys in the current freshman class are 100% positive that they will turn the program around, so the only one in question is #1. We’ll start to figure that out towards the end of the year and definitely next year.
by james_WSU on Oct 4, 2009 8:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really? because watching the Cougs whiff against Oregon's backups for 3/4 of the game would seem to counter your argument
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Oct 6, 2009 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You mean watching the Cougs' *backups* whiff against Oregon's backups?
Plus, if you’re basing it off of that one game … well, that’s an awfully small sample size. What kind of an assessment would everyone reach about Sark and his players from just watching the Stanford game?
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 6, 2009 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that UW turns the ball over too much in the red zone.
…plus the book on Wulff more than exceeds one game.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Oct 6, 2009 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This year?
Apples and oranges comparison if you’re trying to bring last year into the conversation. This year, the team has responded. I’m not convinced the guy is the answer, but I think it’s completely unfair to judge too much off that Oregon game.
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 6, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I'm seeing a team that has been outscored
186 to 72 and wondering how that can be considered competitive. Even the game that you won required two pick sixes to do it … not exactly a ringing endorsement for the “scheme” on either side of the ball. You have as much or more talent than SMU, Hawaii and Oregon’s second unit. This is a coaching issue.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Oct 6, 2009 5:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
"You have as much or more talent than SMU, Hawaii and Oregon’s second unit. "
I’m not sure I’d go that far. And maybe that’s where we’re not seeing eye to eye. If you’re coming from that perspective … well, yeah, you’d think this was a coaching issue.
Honestly? I would say the talent with Hawaii was about equal (the turnovers turned that thing into a blowout), I didn’t see the SMU game so I can’t speak to that, and I think the talent that was on the field on Saturday was less talented than Oregon’s second stringers. That is my honest assessment.
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 6, 2009 6:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Plus, Hawaii's talent was much more experienced
And that also was the case against SMU.
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 6, 2009 6:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and...
I think by competitive, we mean more than just by the scoreboard. Last year our guys just stopped playing once they were down big early in the game. These guys are still fighting (except for maybe the Oregon game? I didn’t see it). I also think we’re one of the most inexperienced teams in the nation—and possibly the youngest team too. I think I read out of 114 guys on the rosters, only 35 have played more than a year!? I’ll have to find that stat to make sure.
by james_WSU on Oct 6, 2009 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't we play at Okie state next year?
That would be a great win for the new era :)
Their 4yr QB is gone and I believe Dez Branyt is too…
I’m confident we’ll be MUCH better next year… no doubt about it.
by james_WSU on Oct 4, 2009 3:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
he should absolutely be on the hot seat
it seems everyone can agree that we have a depleted roster compared to the competition, so in that respect we know going in we’re behind the eight ball so to speak.
but through 1 season and 5 games, i haven’t seen anything that points to Wulff being able to use the strengths of what we do have as opposed to whining about what we don’t.
no adjustments during the game, no apparent planning prior to the game. these kids are not being put in a position to succeed, and looking at their body language on the sideline it doesn’t look like any of them believe they can succeed.
by coug2828 on Oct 4, 2009 3:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Really?
You didn’t see the guys on the sidelines at the USC game? If anything has changed from last year is that the kids have a fighting attitude and play til the end.
I don’t think Wulff should be in the hotseat this year, but it should be getting a little warm. If next year, the games are the same, then something is wrong but at least the next coach would receive a better program than Wulff had when he came in.
by james_WSU on Oct 4, 2009 3:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you attend practices and observe this lack of intensity and coaching?
Do you know the coaches are for a fact are not spending enough time planning for the upcoming week? And are you gathering from sideline visuals that the players dont believe they can win, even after the SMU game? It has been clear to me that at no point in any of the games are the players giving up or are fostering a losing attitude going into games.
by Wazzucrazed on Oct 4, 2009 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yep.
I actually enjoy watching the practices. The guys are excited, but focused and intense; definitely a improvement and you can feel that Wulff truly is developing a PROGRAM, instead of just a team.
by james_WSU on Oct 4, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sorry, post was intended toward coug 2828,
you just posted before I finished…
by Wazzucrazed on Oct 4, 2009 4:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, what was the plan last night?
were we going to try and establish the run or try to spread em out and try to make something happen through the air? from what i could tell, nobody on offense knew what we were trying to do. hell, most the time nobody even looked like they knew what the play was.
what was the game plan on D? if there was one, i didn’t notice. they were breaking off runs at 5+ a clip…maybe throw another guy in the box to slow that down a little. do something different, because whatever it was they were doing wasn’t working. also see hawaii.
and no, i don’t attend practices or film sessions or anything like that, everything i post is from the perspective of a fan who watches a lot of football. and right now i’m a frustrated fan
by coug2828 on Oct 4, 2009 3:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
At some point
talent will overcome the plans that you have. Oregon is firing on all cylinders right now. Plus can you really plan on your starting QB to get injured on the third drive? Do you think went into Autzen without a plan either? Because they got beat just as badly as we did. We just played a game the previous game where we came in with a plan and other than the first quarter, we played pretty damn well. Why forget that now?
by james_WSU on Oct 4, 2009 3:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
fair points
but doesn’t there also come a point as a team where you say “this is who we are, this is what we do, let’s go execute it even if it’s just one thing we do well” ie, be a running team if that’s what your strengths are. freshman QB, senior RB….pound the RB right at them, make them try to stop our strength?
like i said, i’m just a frustrated fan. i’d like to believe that as a team, the coaching staff could find something they do well and just do that. too often we’re seeing a team that doesn’t appear to be able to do anything well. and it’s brutal to watch
by coug2828 on Oct 4, 2009 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's what we had last year
When we lost to USC 69-0. We were going to run the ball. Didn’t feel so good when we were still going off tackle on 3rd and 9.
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 4, 2009 4:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah that was brutal.
At least we are no longer running the ball on 3rd and long.
by cfred on Oct 6, 2009 4:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Strengths?
So you must not understand that a SR RB does not mean that is your strength. Do you understand how a RB is successful? OL. A great RB can overcome a decent OL. He can be all world behind a good OL. I dont care if Adrian Peterson is behind our OL. The results would be the same. Line play is huge in football. You don’t have it you don’t win. Both lines are injury riddled. This means on D we allow their OL to get up on the LB’s and open big holes. On offense that means they can’t open holes to run through, or protect the passer. Don’t throw out ages of skill players as where we should go. Know better than that.
by diehardcoug on Oct 4, 2009 8:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
sorry chief, how bout this
last night on the O-line we started a senior in Alfred, 3 juniors in Eppele, Hannam and Danaher, one freshman in Pencer, and a senior at tight end too. i would think on a team so young, an upperclassman filled line would be one of our strengths. guess i’m just wrong.
by coug2828 on Oct 4, 2009 8:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Danaher did not play
You can see our two-deep from last night here. We started a senior who is good, a junior who is above average, a junior who was second string at the beginning of the year, a redshirt freshman who was second string at the beginning of the year and a true freshman who was supposed to be redshirting.
Granted, three of the five starters were upperclassmen. But I think that’s a bit of an oversimplification. And don’t even start with the tight ends, because they are the worst blocking group of tight ends I’ve ever seen. And that’s not me being hyperbolic — they really are the worst I’ve ever seen at this level.
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 4, 2009 9:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry chief, you weren't paying attention
O-Line was a glaring weakness going in and we knew it. We started Alfred at center and Tuel’s BLINDSIDE was manned by an overmatched RS Freshman in Pencer and a true Freshman in Reitnouer. Also, experience != strength
by cougfan on Oct 4, 2009 9:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The ASU game
will be the real test on how far this team has improved. Wulff even said that they match up better with them, so I’m looking forward to (and hoping for) a good game.
by james_WSU on Oct 4, 2009 4:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Everyone take a deep breath
First, I just think we’re being way too swayed by emotion right now. I know that’s weird for me to say, since I’ve written some of the most emotional things on this blog over the past year. But I was prepared for what we witnessed yesterday, so I guess I’m not really too upset today.
Unless you’re just convinced beyond belief that you’ve made the wrong hire, the soonest you can truly evaluate a coach is after year three. We’re not even halfway into year two. But if you want to evaluate, there’s really three categories. Here’s how I think he stacks up:
RECRUITER: Looks good so far. Best class we’ve had in a while last year, with a number of players contributing right away. This year looks good, too. The jury is obviously still out until these guys fully develop, but so far so good.
MOTIVATOR: Looks amazing so far. This was seriously in question last year with the way the team quit, but the offseason commitment of players (in the wake of last season’s debacle) and the fight they’ve shown in this season speaks volumes about what his players think of him.
GAME COACH: Huge question mark. Are the blowouts due to poor preparation and strategy? Or are they just a reflection of the “jimmies and joes”? Can’t tell right now.
And that’s where next year becomes the “show me” year. In year three, the players are mostly his, they’ve got experience, and they ought to be more talented than in year one. Better do something with them at that point.
If he doesn’t show an ability to do something with them at that point, then yeah — I think a change is fair. Bring in someone who can do something with the talent. But at this point? I think the positives he’s shown — as far as building a sustainable program — have far outweighed the negatives.
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 4, 2009 4:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Oh, and we've played the three best teams in the conference
Don’t forget that, either.
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 4, 2009 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
We've played the two best
Cal is better than Stanford, until I’m proven otherwise
by Grady. on Oct 4, 2009 7:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You honestly think Cal is better than Stanford right now?
They might have their crap together by the end of the year, but if they played right now, Cal would lose.
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 4, 2009 8:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Skyline HS
could beat Cal right now. Not sure why Tedford always loses the handle when they reach top-5 territory. Cal has seriously lost their way.
If you could splice Tedford and Riley together, they would never lose. Cal looks good early and OSU finishes the season strong (Civil War ’08 not included).
by DCinSEA on Oct 4, 2009 9:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They need a QB
Plain and simple. Kevin Riley is like Marshall Lobbestael with better players around him.
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 4, 2009 9:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's almost like Oregon knew this when they played Cal
Toss 8 or 9 in the box and completely shut down Best. Riley couldn’t throw his way out of a paper bag
by cougfan on Oct 4, 2009 9:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The shine is coming off of Tedford as a QB guru isn’t it…
by kirkd on Oct 5, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wulff
A few questions for anyone who has an opinion: I know we can’t totally trust those preseason recruiting magazines and what not, but as far as recruiting goes, I’ve got a general consensus that we just didn’t capitalize as best we could have. Didn’t we still finish last in the Pac-10? Am I way off base here?
I am a little confused by this whole motivator idea. In the 2 FBS games we’ve won, we’ve come out flat and had to put together major rallies to win those games. Great in-game motivation, poor pre-game planning?
It seems there are a lot of people to potentially blame for this mess. Wulff has indirectly blamed Doba, over and over and over. If we are in the blame game, can we blame Rawlins, Sterk, and everyone else for not giving Price an above average deal? It doesn’t matter of course. I am just looking for anyone’s opinions.
Lastly, next year is a year we can all finally get to hold Wulff accountable. It’ll be more than about time (hopefully for better) and we can leave all this behind. But even if we suck, I look forward to being able to point the finger, finally.
Go Cougs
by LACoug on Oct 4, 2009 5:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And, we did not finish last in the Pac-10 in recruiting last year
Scout.com had us ranked No. 7. But I’m not sure that’s relevant. Look at what you see on the field — Long, Simone, Tuel, etc. can all play. There’s far more young talent in the program now than there was when he took over.
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 4, 2009 5:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I almost totally agree. . .
The one fact that I don’t agree with is saying that for him it is year 3. With how the recruiting went before his first season, I don’t really think that should “count” as year one. The recruiting process was not strong to say the least when he came in. He had to scramble to try to get some of the still available talent in. Really, he only has the current true freshman that are his “own”. I know this point is a litle in the gray area, but that is my thought process.
Lets say we were to put him on the hot seat next year and then decide to get rid of him. What level of coach do you expect to get in to Pullman? Akey? OK. I am sure we can get him, but I would still argue that Wulff is a better coach than him. Eastern really isn’t that far below Idaho. Give him time. Let him get this years freshman to become juniors or redshirt sophomores. Then if you don’t see the changes bring it up. Let him age his talent and see what he can do.
Also, I do like your comment about being too emotional about what we should do after a game. Is he and our team the same ones who played USC last week? Yes. The type of team they played were completely different. USC, physical. Oregon, spread you out and burn you with mismatches and speed. Strength we can conrol. Speed is a different story. We have recruited faster and faster players. Let them take off their redshirts over the next two years and then see what we have. Lets just calm down and look ahead to what could be in 2011 (yes I said 2011, the year in which we should have a huge difference shown on the field).
by diehardcoug on Oct 4, 2009 8:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would love to give give him more time...
but I don’t know how much longer I can back him up. There are a lot of people that only see the box scores and blame it all on the coach and when you try telling them different… well, they just don’t want to hear it. Give him 4 years and we’ll be Pac10 contenders every year.
by james_WSU on Oct 4, 2009 8:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
close L's are wins for Coug fans.....
Not holding Doba acountable got us in this position. Question: if wulff can keep every game within 10 next year do we keep him around because he is making progress? And the next year if he wins 3 games but a bunch of others are close do you give him another? I would fire him 2 seconds after the Apple Cup blow out this year. But of course I like winning. You ask who could we get that is better? Who could we get that is worse? Any coach can grab a couple recruits with “lets turn it around”. That will be gone after another 1 win season. Some times you have to cut your L’s and not sit around praying for the impossible. Wulff winning is the impossible and hoping he can get his 2 star recruits to compete week in week out in this conference is a pipe dream. Bring on basketball.
by donkeyjon12 on Oct 4, 2009 9:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
His recruits are the ones that are making plays...
Tuel, Simone, Long, Bland… all are his recruits…
The majority of his first FULL recruiting class has yet to be seen as they are redshirting.
The stars next to the name are not always right, hell they seem to be wrong a lot of the times. Our highest ranked class turned out to be one of the worst. What WSU has always done is find those 2-3 star recruits that have a lot of potential and build it up. Marcus Trufant was a 2 star recruit whose only other offer was from a Big Sky team!
by james_WSU on Oct 4, 2009 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow, Trufant was??!
I did’nt know that that is crazy..Too bad his brother was a trader to the fam ;( we could have really used him.
by Wazzucrazed on Oct 5, 2009 11:04 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
He looked pretty good against ND, too
Bummer.
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 5, 2009 11:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fumble return for TD and some nice man play
He’s going to be good. Starting as a true freshman corner isn’t easy and he’s been doing well. That said, I still hate him
by cougfan on Oct 5, 2009 12:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wulff should have until year 4 for the hotseat
Give him at least 2 full classes playing before the hotseat arrives. His first class was put together in a matter of weeks and they already lost their biggest talent in that class in Mackay.
I guess I just don’t know how you assess how Wulff is doing at this point. There was so little for him to work with coming in so the turnaround was about recruiting. Then the incredible amount of injuries and attrition.
Mackay/Kooyman are your starters at d-end and out or gone.
Luapo was a key d-tackle rotation guy and is out for the season. Wolfgramm…who knows at this point.
Bland has been hurt since the start of the year.
Montgomery was your biggest playmaker and is out for the season. Tardy has a high ankle sprain.
Zack Williams and Guerra are out.
Are people just ignoring the inuries? Please tell me another team that wouldn’t take a huge step back with this type of attrition?
by BornCoug on Oct 4, 2009 6:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
are you ignoring that they were not competitive before the injuries?
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Oct 4, 2009 7:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
against stanford?
who the Dawgs also got blasted by a similar score. We actually played stanford better than UW did. We contatined Gerhart to 100 yards rushing. Yet gave up 2-3 big plays by Owusu that cost us the game.
by Wazzucrazed on Oct 4, 2009 7:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Our O-line actually looked good in that game too :(
Imagine what Tuel could’ve done in that game…
by james_WSU on Oct 4, 2009 8:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about against Hawaii and SMU
What puzzled me was we’re playing the same scheme and we still couldn’t stop SMU for 3 quarters. In the Hawaii game we came out in a 3-3-5 AGAIN, which was frustrating, and brought no pressure. You saw the quotes from their players. It was like taking candy from a baby. The next week we got ripped apart by the same scheme! We were getting blown out of the water by SMU in a game where the players should’ve known what was coming.
I’m not impressed with his game prep and coaching at this point. Until he shows me something that won’t change. And can we please not come out flat in the first half anymore either
by cougfan on Oct 4, 2009 9:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hawaii, O-Line, Defense
Hawaii is the real stinker that after Stanford nobody was expecting. To get the doors blown off was hard to understand.
We saw in the Stanford game that our defense was slow and could not pressure the QB. Even with Hawaii the defense has seemed to improve over the first 5 games. Not by leaps and bounds but improved.
The O-line is a shadow of its former self. Alfred and Hannam are the last starters standing from fall camp. Even worse is the only true offensive playmaker in Montgomery is out and Tardy is playing injured. Not a good recipe for the offense.
We still do not have the d-tackles on defense and that will continue to hurt us next year. We would have had pretty good d-end potential with a group of Kooyman, Mackay, Long, Feagin, and Hamlett. That back 7 will get younger but a lot faster next year. We need a Rankin badly and another d-tackle out of the jc’s with as much talent as Rankin.
by BornCoug on Oct 4, 2009 9:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
your forgetting an important detail
Wulf and Ball insisted on switching to a nickel, zone type of coverage which accounted for the 2 picks taken back for scores. We still were in more man-to-man with SMU because they were runnign the ball more frequently than Hawaii. However the coaches realised the short passign game was what SMU was relying more on and switched up the D brought some pressure forcing the QB out of his comfort zone and leading to Myron Beck and Hoffman-Ellis being in the zone to scoop up errant passes. Again proper halftime adjustment, and we were back in busines. Why he did not realise this and use a zone sooner? who knows. With SMU I can understand due to having to keep an eye on a talented rusher. WIth Hawaii we should have realised this much sooner, like after the 1st quarter instead of the half. Then we might have a W instead of an L.
by Wazzucrazed on Oct 4, 2009 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
comment above aimed at cougfan.
Once again I omitted to see your post during my response.
by Wazzucrazed on Oct 4, 2009 10:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Uh.....
We sat in zone both of those games from the beginning. Those offenses are made to pick apart zones. They spread the field and the WRs run either seam routes or sit in the gaps in the zone. That’s also why you would see so many crossing routes. Those pick sixes came as a result of a hit by Long on the QB, and of Beck finally smarting up and jumping the short route that was in his zone the whole game. He was having to choose, due to being in zone, and he was sticking with the deeper man and keeping the flat route in front of him. That receiver burned us the ENTIRE game. He had something like 17 catches, almost all coming from him finding a hole in the zone.
We were rushing three and dropping eight, getting picked apart. The reason they forced turnovers was bringing pressure, finally, not switching to zone. In fact when you bring pressure, it leaves you in man, due to you rushing more than you can provide men to cover in zone. So in reality it was man under when we blitzed the backers.
by cougfan on Oct 4, 2009 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You may be right
however, I am just going by what I heard, from online sources and the hawaii players. One who mentioned after the game that it was fun playing against the cougar D and they were playing man to man, not changing a thing and giving space. Not the type of thing you wanna hear from the opposing wideout. Which probably means there was some halftime adjustments.
by Wazzucrazed on Oct 5, 2009 12:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
apparently you didn't watch UW/Stanford game...
… and I’m not sure how that counters my point that WSU was not competitive before the injuries.
I’m really indifferent as to whether or not Wulff is retained, but I’m surprised by the swelling of support that he is getting on the blog.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Oct 6, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't exactly call it a swelling of support
More like tepid hope. Because, what else can be done at this point? Besides, the only game that has been a stinker from start to finish was Oregon, and there are a lot of legitimate reasons why that game got out of hand. That’s not excusing the way they failed to respond as the game wore on, but a team is allowed a total and complete stinker (UW/Stanford). The key is how they respond — can’t have a bunch of them like last year.
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 6, 2009 1:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and, I do believe that Gerhart had over 120 yds, a couple of TDs and nearly 6 yds a carry average
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Oct 6, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stats can be misleading
He was more or less contained for the majority of the game. He ran over us on the first drive, and broke a long 4th-and-1 TD run through a run blitz on his final carry. For the rest of the game — about 50 minutes worth of game action — he averaged about 3.3 yards per carry.
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 6, 2009 1:40 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and your third string qb was 10/15 with a TD and 0 interceptions...
…which implies that your most “competitive” qb is deep on the bench right now.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Oct 6, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know you don't watch the team that closely
Because if you did, you’d know the third string QB — who’s currently injured, by the way — wasn’t as good as the numbers might suggest. He was our first string quarterback last year and threw 11 INTs to zero TDs. Besides the fact that those Stanford numbers were inflated to a certain degree by RBs in the flat taking off for decent yards, he also followed up that Stanford performance with 18-of-32 for 177 yards and two INTs.
He just is what he is. Yes, he’s accurate, but he makes questionable decisions, doesn’t always see wide open receivers, and has a below-average arm. He’s never going to make plays in the passing game, and this team needs someone who can do that. Tuel is the ONLY guy on the roster who fits that bill.
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 6, 2009 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't disagree with you ...
… just countering the argument that WSU was competitive in the Stanford game and not in subsequent games because of injuries.
Like I said, I’m indifferent to whether or not WSU keeps PW. I just can’t get over the comparisons to the TW situation. Ty had UW much more competitive in season 2 than Wulff does today. But he was who he was going to be even back then. Its an important lesson.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Oct 6, 2009 3:47 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great Points
well put BornCoug. Speakign of Mackay however, is it still undetermined if he is coming back next year? Or was the injury a career ending one?
by Wazzucrazed on Oct 4, 2009 7:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't ever count on him coming back
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 4, 2009 8:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe he is still paralyzed from the waist down...
he is supposed to be starting classes here again the Spring semester though.
by james_WSU on Oct 4, 2009 8:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good points
I put my post in above before reading yours.
by diehardcoug on Oct 4, 2009 8:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hey!
Don’t hate on the black and yellow uniforms those look good!
by Duck4Lif3 on Oct 4, 2009 10:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Except that one of OSU's colors is black
So I think Oregon wearing black is pretty silly …
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 5, 2009 6:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wow.
Did you guys know that Hayward is only 17 years old?! and he’s a RS Frosh?
He started his freshman year at 16 and playing Pac10 ball at 17… he also led the team in tackles (9) with Bland and 2 of those were for a loss…
by james_WSU on Oct 5, 2009 8:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The defense will get better, faster, and younger
Tackles: Buckley, Spitz, Laurenzie, Clayton, Turpin, Wolfgramm
Ends: Long, Hamlett, Rankin, Pu’u Robinson
LB: Hoffman-Ellis, Bland, Barrington, Kaufusi, Markle, Beck
S: Daniels, Block, Atofau, Carpenter, Locker, Matthews, Toomer
CB: Simmons, Hayward, Washington
This is a much more athletic and explosive group of players although most are just names right now. It also won’t ultimately change the results until the linemen really grow up. They really need Buckley and a quality JC d-tackle to solidify the line. They probably also will need to find another JC d-end to go along with Rankin. They just don’t seem to have the numbers at the moment.
Yup, Hayward is young but did some nice things against Oregon. Simmons has also shown the signs of being a legit Pac 10 corner. Add Washington and you have a nice trio of corners to build up the secondary.
It’s going to take another year after this and that will probably be too much for a lot of us to take. It’s the reality of though. Next year we will get more hope but the payoff of winning is still a ways away. That’s just the reality of it in my mind. I would love to see it happen sooner.
by BornCoug on Oct 5, 2009 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Long and Rankin would be a formidable force
we wouldnt need another Jc transfer end.
by Wazzucrazed on Oct 6, 2009 11:17 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
We need some depth
Rankin and Long are a potentially great 1-2 but they can’t take every snap. I have heard a lot of good things about Pu’u Robinson but he could project to d-tackle. He’s probably d-end next year. Then there is Hamlett. That’s 4 and very little depth. I guess there is Jesse Sanchez. Has he played this year yet?
by BornCoug on Oct 6, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kooyman looks to be going for a medical redshirt
by james_WSU on Oct 6, 2009 9:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's looking very likely at this point
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 6, 2009 9:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It was in Grippi's latest article.
Kooyman REALLY wants to be here next year… I wonder why…
by james_WSU on Oct 6, 2009 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I REALLY would like for him to be here
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 6, 2009 10:21 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So would I
I like this decision. If he isn’t going to be ready to go by Cal then a redshirt is a good idea. He can get healthy and then go about getting stronger for next year.
Rankin, Long, Kooyman is a good start at d-end for next year. I like it!
by BornCoug on Oct 7, 2009 12:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Assuming Rankin makes it
I haven’t heard any updates, and can’t find any anywhere. And that’s usually the first step of a guy floating off into obscurity. I hope that turns out to be very wrong.
by Jeff Nusser on Oct 7, 2009 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on CougCenter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
