Just how "young" are we, exactly?
by TiltingRight on Nov 3, 2009 10:56 AM PST
65 comments
I decided to look up the depth chart from our games vs. Washington in 2007 and this coming week vs. Arizona. We all know we're young, but this visual alone may shock you.
Take a look at the number of *s indicating years in the system as an eligible (non-redshirt) player. Particularly for the starters.
Also, look at the # of starts (out of 11 possible) each had.
Now take a look at the one coming up against Arizona
Look at the difference. I knew in my head that we were a young team, but when you see the number of *s--or even more, the amount of blank space--and the number of starts (out of 8) we're missing from that 07 team (which if you remember, was NOT good)....
Let's put it this way. Imagine you didn't know the Cougs from the Zips (Akron). Now imagine I showed you the first roster and told you it was from a team that lost 7 games, and were blown out by 35, 46, 28 and 33 points in different losses against conference opponents. Now imagine I show you the second roster from the same team just two years later. What would you expect the results to be.
I think that one thing we forget in the debate we have about how far we've fallen, is how bad we actually were to begin with.
This FanPost does not necessarily reflect the views of the site's writers or editors, who may not have verified its accuracy. It does, however, reflect the views of this particular fan, which is just as important as the views of our writers or editors.
3 recs |
65 comments
Email
Print
Comments
More on our pre-Wulff state.
I figured I’d go back and look at the number of blowouts (3td or > loss) we’ve suffered by year. Again, you can see the pattern developing even under Doba.
Doba’s last three years:
2005 1 – 42
2006 2 – 26, 33
2007 4 – 35, 46, 28, 33
Wulff:
2008 9 – 26, 63, 28, 49, 25, 53, 69, 58, 31, 31
2009 5 – 26, 21, 46, 32, 26 (and counting)
Not exactly encouraging in a macro sense, but looking at the margins, you can see some progress. We’ve still got 4 games left, with UCLA (at home) the only one I think we can keep it close with (I include UW if Locker doesn’t play). We may have another 9 blowout season, honestly. That’s depressing.
Next year (already looking ahead… sigh), I don’t think this should be a metric we measure the staff by. We’ll likely get blown out by the class of the conference, but we should be improved enough, that it’s not really a debate (particularly by game 9). If we ARE using blowouts as a metric, then the Wulff experiment will likely fail, if for no other reason, because the well of fan support will be so poisoned that we’d need new blood to get any excitement at all.
by TiltingRight on Nov 3, 2009 1:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Poisened well?
What are you, a Clay Bennett lawyer?
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 3, 2009 1:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
By the way
This is excellent analysis.
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 3, 2009 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Isn't that 10 blowout losses?
That actually makes me feel worse about Wulff. From 10 wins to 10 blowout losses in just five years…
Don’t get me wrong, I’m still very much anti-Doba and don’t understand why there’s a portion of the Cougar population that feels like the ship wasn’t sinking in ‘07. It was probably just because Doba was a great guy off the field and a great Cougar throughout his career. It’s a shame he couldn’t finish it out with a Bowl game, or something big, and ride off into the sunset.
by Grady. on Nov 6, 2009 8:46 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If Wulff had presided over the slide
I’d agree. But he didn’t. Not really fair to dump that on him.
Look, also, at who left, and who replaced them from the 07 team. The dropoff in talent is incredibly stark. Brink, with all the fan-fighting about him, at least had half the fans who thought we could win with him. Rogers/Lopina/Lobster/JT…?
Bumpus and Dillon to Jeshua and Norrell? I like Norrell’s game, and Jeshua is a “what could have been” if he’d made football the priority, but still, massive drop off. Byrd and Rowlands on the line. Jedzilla. Ropati. Johnson and Broadus for depth on the Dline. Abdullah.
How many of those were NFL/borderline NFL players? Not one of those positions had a body to step up and fill in adequately.
Honestly, in hindsight, there’s no reason we shouldn’t have expected to get wiped out regularly.
by TiltingRight on Nov 6, 2009 4:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't get it ...
… on the offense, I counted 15 of 28 people listed on the “two deep” as either Juniors or Seniors. In a four class system, isn’t +50% as upperclassmen about right?
On D it was 13 of 22 as upperclassmen.
I agree that you may have been bad before, but I’m not sure I get the youth argument. Now, youth in key positions is a different point.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 3, 2009 9:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Well, you also have to take into account whether those upperclassmen are impact players
Which I guess is sort of like what you were saying about key positions.
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 3, 2009 9:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Part of the point with the asterisks is that a lot of our "upperclassmen" are JC transfers
At least I think that’s what it means. So in theory there’s the disadvantage of learning a new offense or defense, despite being older.
by johnnycougar on Nov 3, 2009 10:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
by way of comparison
UW has upperclassmen in just 12 of 28 offensive “two deep” positions and only 11 of 28 on the defensive side.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 4, 2009 6:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You're not taking into account time in the system.
I wasn’t just talking about youth by class, but also inexperience, like johnnycougar said.
There are 13 players on that O that have zero game experience in the Pac10 before this year. 22 out of the 27 players (some positions list 3 deep) have one year or less Pac10 experience.
There are 12 players on the D that have zero game experience in the Pac10 before this year. 19 out of the 24 players have one year or less Pac10 experience.
Saying it the other way, only 10 of our 51 (1 in 5) players have more than 1 year on the field.
by TiltingRight on Nov 4, 2009 8:32 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Looking ahead
Assuming all the single and double asterisk players this year (the ones who don’t graduate, that is) are contributing next year, we’ll have 18 players back with at least 2 years of playing experience. (35% vs 20% this year)
by TiltingRight on Nov 4, 2009 8:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, and the University of Washington has exactly two more wins than WSU
Granted, they’ve been much more competitive than WSU and two of those wins were over pretty darn good teams, but let me ask you one question: What if your quarterback this year was Nick Montana? Would you have any wins with all that other inexperience?
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 4, 2009 10:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The point of the comment was to simply say
That Washington is also showing just how hard it is to win with a team dominated by young guys. I would argue that the biggest difference between them and us is that they actually have some impact upperclassmen (Locker, Te’o Nesheim, Savannah, Foster). But their youth is making it difficult to bring it week in and week out.
Imagine if these Cougs were in a similar situation and just had a couple of more guys, like Brandon Gibson and Greg Trent, back for this year? How much of a difference would that have made?
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 4, 2009 12:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
easy there...
… we were even younger last year and we lost all 12. I get that integrating youth is difficult. I was just expressing confusion about the main point of the post which is that WSU is a “young” team. They really are not.
I would also point out that the younger UW team is also in a completely new system this year.
It would seem to me that the “bad player” case is more of an issue than “young player” case. However, I have made the argument that the issue could be “wrong scheme for talent on hand”, but I suspect we’ve exhausted that debate.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 4, 2009 1:29 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Fair points
And I wouldn’t argue that our Seniors are particularly good. Kenny Alfred’s probably the only one I could say would for sure start on another team in the Pac10.
In fact, all of our best players seem to be young. If that’s the case after the redshirts come off next year, we could be even younger, both in actual terms, and in playing experience.
by TiltingRight on Nov 4, 2009 1:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Where did the Brink haters go?
God I’ll long for the day when we suck but can still score points by the boat load. I’m not sure Alex Brink will ever get his just due, but everytime my friends speak fondly of the Cougs, we always raise our glasses to toast to the former #10. A Coug through and through, and he did it despite a large portion of the fans counting him out.
Sorry, just seeing him atop the first depth chart brought that random thought up. Didn’t mean to threadjack.
by playerkyle14 on Nov 3, 2009 11:31 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
...
If we had brink on our team we wouldn’t win a single game more.
2009 – 5 sacks per game
2008 – 3.23 sacks per game
2007 – 1.833 sacks per game
… Brink had all the time in the world
by Roy Weaver Stuckey on Nov 4, 2009 6:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Now that's an interesting stat
Yarno remains the only member of the old coaching staff I wish was still on the sidelines
by Grady. on Nov 6, 2009 8:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Him and Levy...
who could be gone after this year with JT leaving.
by TiltingRight on Nov 6, 2009 4:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope they get rid of Sturdy and promote Levy back to OC
It’ll never happen. But I can dream.
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 6, 2009 5:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that may be the only way he stays.
Who knows, though? His son is within driving distance, so maybe he sticks around a while longer….
I just have a feeling JT was the only reason he stuck around before. You’ve gotta imagine he knew what was coming after 07, or at least had a good idea of how bad it was going to be.
by TiltingRight on Nov 6, 2009 10:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I know you guys are all into staying positive...
…. and that any serious debate on whether or not PW should retain his job is nearly a bannable offense, but the fact that you are trading messages on the status of assistants is really quite amazing.
Several weeks ago, I suggested that you measure progress not in incremental (fractional) improvement in select statistics but, rather, in answering a simple question at the end of every game: Did we gain the respect of our opponents. A positive answer to that question means that the coach and his staff prepared the team to give more than what the opposition was expecting. That hasn’t happened a single time since I asked the question (with the possible exception of ASU but, even then, probably not).
I know you guys are sensitive to this kind of thing (and, having endured the Ty debate last year, I get it) but the PW experiment is clearly not working. There are many examples of team with “lesser talent” giving big teams better games and PW has yet to do that a single time. If you think I’m wrong, I ask you to consider what Kevin Sumlin has done at Houston (he was apparently the runner up to Wulff). Does anyone seriously believe that Sumlin inherited less talent than Wulff?
Coaching matters. PW and his staff are not getting it done and I can’t believe its not getting air time in this forum.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 8, 2009 10:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
"Coaching matters. PW and his staff are not getting it done and I can’t believe its not getting air time in this forum."
Um, it’s getting plenty of discussion …
http://www.cougcenter.com/2009/11/2/1110353/two-reasons-why-people-who-blame
http://www.cougcenter.com/2009/11/2/1111210/the-scores-have-improved-but-how
Nearly 100 comments between the two posts.
I won’t put all of what’s happened on the players, but as you’ll see in a post later today, there’s also a reality to what Wulff has to work with versus what Price and Doba had to work with.
There is also a point where you do more damage by changing than you do by just sticking with a guy. After two years, if you change now, you potentially lose much of this recruiting class. What good does that do? Now you’ve cut two out of three recruiting classes off at the knees, and an already talent-poor program becomes that much poorer. For now, the players are buying into the program, and the recruits they want are still committing. Those are good signs.
Now, if this crap is still happening at the end of next year? We’ll be first in line to call for his job. Because at that point, we’ll have two solid recruiting classes back in the program and then you go get a coach who actually looks like he knows what to do with them. But to do anything before that point is going to be seriously counterproductive. Besides, we can’t expect you to understand, but there’s also an economic reality to changing coaches at WSU.
If recruiting was flailing and the current players were quitting, that would be a different matter. But neither of those two things are happening. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by changing head coaches at the end of this year.
Now, assistants? All this stuff you’re talking about “give more than what the opposition was expecting” lands primarily on the shoulders of the assistants. After all, if assistants don’t matter that much, why are you paying your defensive coordinator more than our coach?
Oh, and Kevin Sumlin also has a Heisman Trophy candidate under center. I think that makes a little bit of a difference …
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 9, 2009 6:27 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The exact points I made to my UW alum friend
Over some adult beverages Saturday night. First, economically we simply aren’t in a position to fire Wulf and make a splashy hire, so on some level the debate ends for me there.
But really, more importantly we need players. And we need them now. If we fire Wulf this year, and make the type of hire we can afford in that scenerio, we lose most of this class. And we might lose some of the players in the program. Simply put, we are worse off talent wise, and probably would be taking a gamble on another young up and coming coach who may or may not be ready for Pac 10 football. If we could afford our version of a Sarkisian and Holt, then by all means I would be saying go for it. But our version of that is the Wulf level, and we might as well ride what we have to make sure it’s not going to work before bailing too early.
by 02Coug on Nov 9, 2009 7:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
This is an interesting point that has been raised before.
… so, what is the price difference between a “good” coach and “project” coach. More importantly, what is the return on the spread. I can’t answer that. It does raise the question though – is it an inevitable conclusion that Wulff won’t work out and that the administration is just waiting for the contract to expire? Is he already a sitting duck and, if so, at what point does the situation evolve into Ty 2.0.
If it is not an inevitable conclusion in the making, then what are the critiques that MUST get ironed out in terms of coaching prowess before you believe he can be a long-term fixture in the Palouse?
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 9, 2009 7:40 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see us riding out his contract
But I see riding it out one more year. The economy dictates that in some ways.
As far as the price difference? As has been brought up, Holt makes more as a DC then Wulff does as our head man. And Holt is not the only assistant in the country that makes more then our head coach. I think most established coaches would expect around 750k to be the head man, and probably would expect around a million a year. We can’t do that. So we’re left offering jobs to assistants for whom pay is less important (as some may not be taking much of a raise) but who want the chance to run a program themselves.
The friend I had dinner with had just been looking at TV revenue for this year. WSU is obviously last in the conference, as we will not be a featured team on any broadcasts this year. True, winning gets you on TV more, but so does having a media market surrounding your campus. One issue at WSU is that when we struggle, we end up not being on TV. When other teams in our conference struggle (UW, UCLA, Cal, etc.) the nearby media markets keep them on TV. A new TV contract could help that.
by 02Coug on Nov 9, 2009 8:00 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
To add some detail
From Bud Withers
“So in seven games, WSU’s participant share is a mere $300,000. Compare that to Washington, coming off an 0-12 season, but with five regional or national appearances worth about $2.1 million.”
The article is at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/budwithers/2010147782_withers28.html
Our financial reality is a painful part of our football situation currently. But that reality is that you can’t hire a new coach, or pay the buyout for a current coach, on credit and IOU’s.
by 02Coug on Nov 9, 2009 8:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
oh yeah
… I lived for the past seven years in Minneapolis and I can only remember two or three UW games over that entire span that did not make it on my airwaves.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 9, 2009 8:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks Nuss...
… however, the point of that quoted statement was to ask where the debate is. In each of those posts, there was only one voice of dissension and a virtual beat down was administered to mute out the protest (I challenge you to go back and re-read the “FireWulff” debate – the only posters getting personal were those that opposed the dissident’s opinions).
In reality, I’m reliving the whole Ty situation all over again and it is very Groundhog Day. Here were the things I was saying about why I thought we ought to keep Ty before last year:
1. He inherited a mess
2. He’s getting good recruiting classes (including some kid named Locker and another named Polk)
3. He needs time
4. He’s won before and has a track record in the Pac 10
5. His team is young
With the exception of #4, the arguments in here are exactly the same. The mistake I made then was that I thought incremental progress that could be measured in the stats mattered. They don’t. Turnaround teams don’t improve incrementally. They improve in bursts of accomplishment. If the burst doesn’t come shortly after the new coach arrives, it doesn’t seem like it ever does.
I just think a little more honest debate is warranted in this forum as this place seems like it has become a virtual rubber stamp for the current coach. I would understand if it is just a matter of fatigue (assuming you feel like you have been through enough debate on this issue), but then starting a string of point/counter-points on assistants is odd.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 9, 2009 7:41 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
If people want to debate, we're all for it
Coming in here and complaining is not debate. If you go back and read FireWulff’s comments, there were no constructive comments coming. All we ask is that people be solution oriented. You can’t just say a guy needs to be fired without considering the potential ramifications of such a move. In this case, I think most of us agree that firing the coach would be more counterproductive than productive.
As for the Willingham comparison, he got four years. I don’t think I heard anyone wanting him fired after two. Husky fans are correct in saying that you would have been better off cutting ties after year three to give a better coach an opportunity to work with the talent he amassed. I think the same holds true here. If next year is a disaster, let’s give a new guy an opportunity to work with the talent.
At that point, you’ll know where to find me — I’ll be the guy driving that bus.
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 9, 2009 8:19 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think one thing the Ty comparison doesn't work in...
is that Wulff’s players are consistently playing with their all and putting their hearts in every game. The players truly believe that they will turn the program around and they are excited about it. Ty was the antithesis of “excited”
by james_WSU on Nov 9, 2009 10:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
you guys keep saying that ... but I don't understand why.
are you sure or is this just something you want to believe? What about all of those upperclassmen that are not playing – are they disenfranchised or are they happy sitting on the bench for a team that is not performing remotely like a FCS program? If any of you are close to the team on a regular basis, I’d love to hear your insights.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 10, 2009 6:52 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
meant to type FBS. Freudian slip
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 10, 2009 8:15 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What upperclassmen?
The only ones who aren’t playing are injured — except for Lopina.
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 10, 2009 8:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I hear you ...
… and I get what you are saying because I was that Ty guy. I really do much prefer a good Cougar team, thus I’m making these points. I’m of the personal opinion that in a year and a half, we’ve seen not a single piece of evidence that Wulff can prepare a team to surprise an opponent early in the game or to make some kind of crucial adjustment that takes a competitor off guard. Even if you have better talent a few years from now, recruiting is only part of the equation. If Wulff can’t contribute a gameday advantage through preparation and scheme, its all for not. We should have seen one or two examples of his ability to prepare, scheme and adjust by now. Since we have not, I’m not optimistic.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 9, 2009 8:38 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
All true
But here is the difference between Wulf and Ty in that arena.
Ty was expected to be able to gameplan in the Pac 10 from the get go. It’s legitimate to expect that, he coached in the conference and succeeded and then spent years at ND, where for all their faults they do play legitimate competition. Gameplanning for this level is something Ty should have come with.
I think if we thougth Wulf was coming into this being able to game plan we were fooling ourselves. But it can be learned, and I think the conference shows that. Maybe not our level of current failure, but in learning the conference there are examples. Pete the wonder coach struggled at USC initially. As did Mike Stoops at U of A. Stoops might be a flash in the pan, but he’s turned it around. We know what USC has done.
To say you can’t turn around a losing program with time is a mistake. Maybe Wulf hasn’t shown much to prove he can at this point, but by next year he will either show evolution in his game planning from two offseasons of reflection and film watching, or he won’t. And if he doesn’t, he’ll likely be gone.
by 02Coug on Nov 9, 2009 7:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
On Sumlin
I did a big long evaluation of his situation on Cougfan. I was kinda tipsy and we’d gotten spanked (again) and I was curious if I thought we’d actually be better with him. I ended up concluding there’s no real reason to think so… yet.
Sumlin stepped into a winning program. Houston had been bowling the previous 3 or 4 years, and was always battling for tops in CUSA. The fact that they’re a lower conference school, in TX (highest number of D1 recruits in the nation) mean that if they lock down second tier talent in their home state, they have winning seasons every year with decent coaching.
If that’s the standard… Wulff did that at Eastern, without the benefit of a massive recruiting base. The only difference (and it IS a big one, I know) is he did it at an FCS school, rather than FBS (though non-BCS (I feel like I’m in the military with all the acronyms)). Sumlin spent so much time in TX and OK, that I doubt he would have had contacts in WA, OR, UT, HI, CA that a successful recruiter at WSU needs.
Could he have gotten way better results than Wulff? Maybe. It’s all speculation. But comparing Sumlin’s situation at UH to Wulff’s here at WSU is comparing apples to Jones Turkey Gravy Soda.
by TiltingRight on Nov 9, 2009 9:16 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'm not on board with that analysis.
… if Houston was really a better situation, do you think Sumlin would have chosen the job as a first choice over a WSU offer?
Point 2: your Texas recruiting point is not very convincing when you look at teams like UTEP, North Texas and SMU.
Point 3: Before Sumlin got there, Hou was not beating any ranked teams and were losing games to the likes of Miami, Oregon, TCU, East Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas and ’ Bama. Change coaches and boom you now have wins against a few ranked teams and other good and/or ranked teams like Texas Tech, Oklahoma St, East Carolina, Tulsa, and Miss St.
Coaching matters. Nevertheless, the turkey gravy soda line was worth the price of admission.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 9, 2009 9:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Never said coaching "doesn't matter."
My point was that there’s no reason to believe what we see on the field or scoreboard would be significantly better.
1- UH has had a winning program in CUSA for a number of years before Sumlin got there. It was ranked (in conference) top 3 in winning percentage, recruiting (according to Scout) and athletic budget before Sumlin came on board. Comparing WSU’s position in the Pac10 to UH’s position in the CUSA is the comparison I was making, and there’s no comparison.
I’m guessing given both job offers, he chooses WSU, but that’s because of pay/prestige/competition rather than comparing rosters vs. the competition.
2- With the players Sumlin is winning with now, Houston was 6-6, 9-3 and 8-4 pre-Sumlin, and 7-5 and 8-1 so far this year with him. Nice results. I’m not taking anything away from him. But it seems he had decent teams to work with, which would explain some of the success he’s had. Walking into WSU would NOT have given him the same situation with regard to the recruits that were here compared to our competition. There’s no reason to believe the results on the field would be substantively different at this point under Sumlin than they are now under Wulff.
Having winning programs in the MWC, WAC, CUSA, MAC or other “mid-major” conferences should be easier than at the BCS level. The financial resource disparity and talent disparity aren’t nearly as great at that level as they are in BCS conferences. There are tons of guys every single year that JUST miss the cut of getting a BCS offer. Texas has more D1 talent than any other state in the country. By a lot. That would mean they’d also have more of those “JUST missed” talents as well. Houston, UTEP, SMU and North Texas should be competing at or near the top of their respective conferences based on the recruiting resources they have in their back yards. Houston has been. UTEP sometimes does. SMU will be. North Texas has (4 conf championships this decade)
Besides all that, him not having west coast recruiting contacts still holds.
3- As said above, not taking anything away from Sumlin’s success this year. But him beating OkState and TxTech with Houston’s roster, doesn’t mean he’d do it with this roster.
Coaching matters. It shows up most at the margins, though. In other words, Mike Holmgren may have gotten this team to beat Hawaii (though that was a bit of a fluke game with all the TOs), and we might not have had to go into overtime to beat SMU. We might have averaged 3-7 more points per game than we do now. But with this talent and experience, I just don’t see it making much of a difference last year or this year.
My point in all of this isn’t to say Wulff is “The Guy.” I don’t know anyone making THAT argument. Just that situations are different and you can’t make a direct comparison.
Right now, I’m willing to give him next year. If we aren’t turning it around next year, I’ll want him out.
by TiltingRight on Nov 9, 2009 3:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
One other point.
If we hired Sumlin and he won, he would be gone in 3-4. At some point Wulff may have gotten the nod because we know he wants to win at WSU and stay. Was that a good reason to hire the coach? Probably not. Would I trade 3 years of laughingstock status for 3 years of competative records and a bowl game, with the coach bailing for greener pastures at the end. Yes. But I agree with TiltingRight, we can’t say for sure that Sumlin would win at WSU, and we are where we are.
by 02Coug on Nov 9, 2009 7:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
hmmm...
… I agree that there is no reason to believe that Sumlin could have won with this roster … but the flip of that is just as true. Unless you are arguing that Wulff was the right selection, you would have to believe that Sumlin would have gotten more from this team.
The fact that Wulff did not get mentored by any well established coaches in well established systems is a big differentiator between these candidates. Sumlin, a former WSU assistant, was Bob Stoops offensive coordinator for four or five years. He coached at WSU, Minnesota, Purdue and Texas A&M. He saw a lot of thing from a lot of coaches while Wulff saw Easter Washington for almost 10 years.
He just seems completely over matched. I’m not sure where he is going to acquire the learning experiences that he would have gotten as a seasoned assistant. Regardless, I’m guessing that Sumlin would have given the Cougs a better chance to be more competitive based on the following:
1. Better preparation – he has seen more of WSU’s opponents in person, on tape and through previous matchups against like coaches
2. More teaching of the older players – Sumlin knows the futility of trying to throw young undeveloped bodies into FCS games
3. Better scheme – let’s face it, Oklahoma’s schemes have worked. He was taught them and then he taught them
In the end its a wild guess, but the total body of work screams “more impact”.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 9, 2009 8:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not much to disagree with here.
I would have had no problem with Sumlin, and I’m not running him down. I liked his pedigree, I liked the fact that he was young, and even that he’s African-American.
My point was more regarding the crappy position we’re in. I don’t know that any of the above makes a difference at WSU in 2008 or 2009.
Re: point 2, the upperclassmen were part of the problem. I’ve heard from multiple sources that the attitude among players towards the end under Doba was horrid. Their work in the offseason abysmal (or non- existant). Unless Sumlin can do a better job of making lazy kids NOT rebel and be poisonous in the locker room when you EXPECT them to work, I don’t see Sumlin being any more successful there, either.
Upperclassmen that show leadership on the field DO play. Alfred, Kooyman (pre-injury) Chima, Turpin (sometimes) Hannam, Stripling…. It’s just that there aren’t many BCS talented kids in those upper classes. Literally, the 17, 18 and 19 year old kids are better players than the 20, 21 and 22 year olds. You can’t play your back ups as starters just because they’re older, can you?
by TiltingRight on Nov 10, 2009 9:35 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
CPW Coaching Skills On the Table
New to this blog and love the quality insights. Have to admit I have not been a PW fan from the get go. Love Coug everything though, hoped for better results, understand the financial issue, but I am with ‘Gekko Mojo’ that PW has not shown the ability to coach even a talented team to a significant (progress marking) win. It can’t be any clearer that this is indeed Ty 2.0.
The other issue is that if we end this season 1-11 and PW is the continued object of even more speculation he’ll be fired by administration, what D-1 caliber ‘family’ (that’s a reality) in their right mind is going to commit to a coach who is on such a huge bubble??? The talent curve will go down,__ not up. ‘Mojo’ has pointed out some very fair comparisons and many are just willing to ignore it or look the way or blame the talent. Man, coaching is everything even at this level, there has been enough talent available for at one or two surprises the last two years, maybe the UW win last year was one?
by valleycoug on Nov 9, 2009 10:40 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I'll answer your questions with other questions
Which team has PW had that is “talented?” He hasn’t shown the ability because he hasn’t had the opportunity. Do you perhaps mean last year, when our most promising QB was a freshman (and Wulff’s recruit), the 3rd stringer, and currently looks relatively poor this season? Our offensive line couldn’t block a scarecrow (Portland State racked up the sacks and took out two of our QBs) and Gibson was our only (barely) NFL caliber player on either side of the ball? Our defense had a few decent players but very few would be starting for any other team in the Pac 10. Despite all that, we did still manage to win the Apple Cup. Did you mean this years team, where our most exciting wide receiver dropped out to run track, where true freshmen are our best offensive threats in the passing game and our good running backs fail to find any holes behind a patchwork offensive line?
So I guess I’m blaming the talent. I’m totally unconvinced that Wulff would know what to do if he did have the talent, but that’s not the point. That’s why you have to give him at least one more full season, besides all the financial and recruiting-blow reasons given above. If his recruits are Juniors and Seniors and we’re still getting blown out, fire him then. At least the new coach will have a talent base to work with upon arrival.
Your point about recruiting makes sense, and that’s why I think the WSU administration will stand firmly behind Wulff. At this point, all the speculation about firing is coming from the fans. I haven’t even heard much from the media about it, other than “oh he needs to start winning next year” but nothing specific about being fired. I refuse to consider Wulff as Ty 2.0 until his players openly quit on him, the administration is publicly wavering, he’s losing games he clearly should win, and he closes himself off from the public and goes golfing all day. As far as I know, none of that is happening yet. In fact, largely the opposite is true. He’s been fairly open and honest about this year’s team and his coaching, and the players seem to respect him. We’re not winning games we shouldn’t but other than perhaps the Hawaii game we aren’t losing games we should win.
by johnnycougar on Nov 10, 2009 10:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
are you telling me that the Cougs don't have the same type of talent right now as
… Navy
… Indiana
… Duke
… UNLV
… Idaho
… Northwestern
… Vanderbilt
Each of these teams managed to upset or at least give a valiant battle against teams that were ranked and highly favored. Good coaching can overcome even severe talent deficiencies in short bursts. In two years, we’ve seen no such bursts from a PW coached team. What is he going to do if he ever assembles “enough” talent? No one knows.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 10, 2009 2:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No
The Cougars definitely do not have the talent of those teams right now.
What don’t you understand about the worst offensive line in BCS football, if not all d-1 football?
How many other teams lost their top 2 WRs? Their number 1 RB. 3 or 4 safeties. Have a true freshmen QB who was 3rd on the rotation starting. Not to mention have a few linebackers out. Not to mention all the guys on their team to begin with were underclassmen and not anything special to begin with according to rivals and scout rankings.
Navy has a Jr QB and Jr RB, 3 JR WRs, and I’m guessing their o-line is full of upperclassmen…
We don’t have the luxury of playing upperclassmen due to injuries and poor recruiting.
by Roy Weaver Stuckey on Nov 10, 2009 3:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, that's what I'm telling you
And I don’t think it’s even close for most of those schools, save for maybe Idaho or UNLV.
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 10, 2009 4:11 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
If we played that schedule we'd go 2-6.
Our talent is that good.
by TiltingRight on Nov 10, 2009 4:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
line of the night.
I disagree with this assessment. Hard data is not possible here, but WSU’s recruiting class rankings by Scout are:
2004: 21 (third in Pac 10)
2005: 47
2006: 45
2007: 54
2008: 74
A few of those years, you had classes ranked higher than UW, Oregon and OSU. Excuse me if I can’t subscribe to the “state of talent” argument right off the bat. Even if you throw out 2004, you should have enough talent to match up against the likes of those teams I noted before.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 10, 2009 4:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ah, this is where you show your lack of knowledge of the program
Go ahead and look at how many recruits from those classes are still on the roster. Go ahead. We’ll wait.
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 10, 2009 5:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
...
Those recruiting classes are only as high as they are because of JC guys that are long gone and have under-achieved. Look at today’s depth chart and tell me how many guys are juniors or seniors and then look at the underclassmen and tell me how many of them are elite prospects.
by Roy Weaver Stuckey on Nov 10, 2009 5:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
we already went through the junior/senior debate earlier in this thread. WSU is not as young as is assumed
… and if all those recruits just disappeared, where did they go and who replaced them? You are still fielding a team, are you not.
My point is still the same … WSU has traditionally recruited in that 40ish/50ish range. There is no reason to think that this team has such a lower ceiling than your middle-of-the-road traditional WSU team.
But I like a good challenge, so I looked up your “best recruits” by year
2005: 2 of 5 top recruits still on roster (not counting JCs) based on Scout star system
2006: 3 of 5 top recruits still on roster (not counting JCs) based on Scout scoring system
2007: 4 of top 5
2008: 4 of top 5 (and your top JC is still there too)
Given the fact that there are always kids that don’t get in and there are inevitable dropouts, this doesn’t look that unusual.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 10, 2009 6:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And if you go back and look at our recruiting classes over the years
It often wasn’t the top guys who end up being the best, something that’s the case at a lot of schools. WSU has always had to rely on diamonds in the rough. Beside, evaluating the longevity and impact of four recruiting classes by pointing to 13 guys is flawed — I mean, that’s 13 guys on an 85-man roster. It takes a heck of a lot more than that to be competitive in the Pac-10.
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 10, 2009 8:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
the class of 2004 turned out to be one big bust. I believe the guys at WSUFootballblog.com already went over that class.
by james_WSU on Nov 10, 2009 9:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
weren't bumpus and harrison in that class?
I’m totally confused how you could call that a bust.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 11, 2009 2:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh, Bumpus has been gone for two years
Harrison three. I don’t understand your point.
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 11, 2009 10:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
He said the class of 2004 ws a big bust. I thought Harrison and Bumpus were part of that class. Were they not pretty good?
… I wasn’t trying to make a point, I was asking a question.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 13, 2009 12:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Gotcha
I think he was trying to say in terms of its impact on last season, since the point of this whole thing is to try and figure out how we got in the mess of these past two seasons. Both Bumpus and Harrison were obviously awesome.
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 13, 2009 2:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes they were ...
… and Harrison was even one of those dreaded JC transfers if memory serves.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 13, 2009 3:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
JC transfers can be fantastic
But you see what happens — they’re here for a couple of years, and then they’re gone. He was amazing, but he’s also part of the reason why that class hasn’t had the lasting impact.
by Jeff Nusser on Nov 13, 2009 5:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
youthful
Gekko, what part of young isn’t clear? 77% of the Coug team are freshman, RS frosh or sophs… two starting “junior” DT’s Luapo/Wulfgramm started their first Div I game this year. Upper class vets matter in football more than any other NCAA sport. It is sheer power and speed and I can attest from personal experience that the difference from HS to college is staggering. The growth from frosh to junior year is an amazing leap as well. Depth isn’t even an option for the current team… one injury means another frosh plays. It isn’t an excuse that the cupboard was bare coming out of Doba’s regime, it is a stark and frustrating reality. Toss on the three years of less scholies than EVERY OTHER PAC 10 team and the ability to take a flyer on a juco or add another o-linemen to RS and put on the iron is gone fro Wulff and his coaches for his first three groups. I am not a Wulff apologist, I just don’t think people are seeing the reality of what had happened at WSU to culture of the football program. Optional training table? What college kid isn’t going to opt for Xbox and ramen noodles or pizza at home? Just watching Amu and Eichelberger get shoved off the ball you knew what choice they made. This is a rebuild of the first order. From the ground up- comparisons to previous Coug teams are meaningless- it has never ben this thin ever before in the history of Coug football. This team has started 18 freshman this year- that is 12 more than any other year that I can recall. Just look at the impact seniors in the last two years… it won’t take long, there are only about 10. Seniors matter- the Coug haven’t had them for two consecutive seasons… unreal when you think about it. What happened 3 and 4 years ago that left it so barren? This is a rebuild, it takes seasons to do it— not a few saturdays. Go Cougs
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Nov 12, 2009 12:59 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
just based on the two deep posted in this fan post
… it would appear that over 50% of your “two deep” players on both sides of the ball are upperclassmen. Sure you have some JC guys, but they are still experienced and physically developed. You asked me what part “isn’t clear” – the 77% isn’t.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 13, 2009 12:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
%
I am using roster numbers off of several sites. Of the 100 guys on the roster 77 are 1st or second year Cougs. There are 5 to 10 more ‘walk ons’ depending on who’s list you pick, and all are true frosh, but if you exclude them, as I did – the % number is still quite high. That equates to a lack of experience plain and simple. Look at the stars by the names on the two deep list you name… how many seniors do you see? How many guys with more that 2 or more letter winning years? That game experience matters. There is a heckuva lot more to this than girth. Most especially check out the trenches wherein there are ZERO guys on the d-line with more than one year. That is astounding. Over on the o-line, there are several slots w/ no previous experience, and 2 players w/ 2 or more. You’re spitting into the wind gekko- the facts are right there. Inexperience at EVERY position n the 2 deeps. No where on the Cougs can you replace a guy w/ a player who has more than a year of experience. It is unreal. At corner back a vital position for experience and recognition and reads, the Cougs have no player with more than a year experience, starter or sub…it is just a sad reality. The Cougs have started 12 frosh this season… I do not have the “official” stat, but I do follow this stuff and the most I remember prior to this is 5 in 1998 when they didn’t win a conference game coming off of the Leaf/Bender 10 win Pac 10 title year. All those 5 BTW, were stellar Cougs in the back to back to back 10 win seasons. I have no idea what you are even arguing, the evidence is clear. Go Cougs
If you can't Go Cougs... don't go.
by hollyweirdcoug on Nov 14, 2009 10:58 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
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.
