argh! said:PlayerRep said:argh! said:CDAGRIZ said:
the king of egriz gratuitous posts and threads, numbering in the thousands and usually just self-congratulatory attempts at self-stimulation at showing all his 'cleverness' has spoken. boy, i'm sure put in my place now
Feel free to keep spewing your ignorance and nonsense.
Why is virtually every knowledgeable poster optimistic about the Griz after 2 games? Why are focusing on most of the same things?
wasn't even talking about you, greenie. but, to answer you question, people are optimistic because so far the team looks pretty good. either game could have turned on a couple good or lucky plays by the other team, though. don't know how many here accept that is fact. one thing i will say for you, greenie, is that you realize shit happens, and playing one's best is the most important thing, more important than just winning.
as of now, it is clear that the previous coach recruited some excellent, talented receivers and linebackers, i.e. jlm, toure, akem, olsen, etc, and they all seem healthy. adversity always hits during the season, though, i.e. first team qb's can get hurt and teams wind up relying on untested freshmen at the most important position, etc etc... i think a good test of the team's resilience, etc, will be the oregon game. not the outcome, we all have a pretty good idea of that, but rather how they respond when they are less strong, fast, and talented than the opponent, and the going gets rougher.
oh, and i watched the game on tv, greenie. in some aspects that provides a clearer picture of the level of play, in others (i.e. secondary schemes), watching from one of the highest vantage points in wa-griz is better. i did not talk to former players, and would take what they say with a grain of salt, as many seem to have a chip on their shoulders about stitt, and a great love of hauck. maybe i would agree with them if the experiment was allowed to get to a point where it could be fairly evaluated, but it wasn't (in my view).
Don't agree. Neither game would have turned if a couple plays had gone the other away. Neither game was close. UM pretty much dominated the first game and crushed NA yesterday. Had UM done a few things better in the first game, UM would have crushed them too.
Watching on tv is not a better way to watch a game ever, but yes, more can be seen in certain plays if the camera is right on the key part of the play.
Yes, those players were all good or very good recruits.
None of the ex-players I know want Hauck to do well because they didn't like Stitt. But most (and not all) of them know the game. They are very good indicators of how the games go. They are often very critical too.
The experiment with Stitt was a failure by year two.
