official blame stitt thread

[argh!]

I think people generally care more about two stats: (1) wins, and (2) losses.

Okay, how would you rate Stitt on that? How about making the playoffs and advancing? How about winning the conference? How about beating the Cats? How about attracting recruits who can make the NFL?

good point. stitt's won-loss record was so-so, but better than what is going on now. what are the griz in conference now, 2-3? they certainly aren't going to win it. as far as nfl talent, i don't know - didn't somebody say some scouts were looking at buss at one point? i would think olsen will get some looks. did hauck bring anybody in this year who might be that quality in his recruiting class? he did have quite a few scholarships.

 

[AllWeatherFan]

Yes. Time will tell and all will be revealed.

 

[AZGrizFan]

Your list is nothing but a bunch of excuses. Hawkins has UCD ready to win the conference in year two. Year TWO! With a team that's younger than ours and historically has SUCKED balls in ways way worse than your sad list of excuses. If he can do it, surely the savior BH can?

No UCD did not historically suck balls. They have traditionally been the best of the three cali schools, Cal Poly and Sac State.
Although your point is taken that Hawkins will run circles around Hauck in every aspect of the game.

2012 - 4-7
2013 - 5-7
2014 - 2-9
2015 - 2-9
2016 - 3-8
2017 - 5-6

routinely behind Suck St and CP...not sure which UCD team you’re thinking of....

Didn't realize that "traditionally" meant only back to 2012

Well that’s as long as they’ve “traditionally” been in the Big Suck.

 

[AZGrizFan]

I think people generally care more about two stats: (1) wins, and (2) losses.

Okay, how would you rate Stitt on that? How about making the playoffs and advancing? How about winning the conference? How about beating the Cats? How about attracting recruits who can make the NFL?

Couldn’t care less how many make the NFL.

 

[AZGrizFan]

2012 - 4-7
2013 - 5-7
2014 - 2-9
2015 - 2-9
2016 - 3-8
2017 - 5-6

routinely behind Suck St and CP...not sure which UCD team you’re thinking of....

Maybe you're junior high age and historically means six years to you. They have been deep into the Div II playoff many times. They have owned Sac State head to head and also have the edge head to head against Cal Poly.

The ones that had never before beat the Griz?

"UC DAVIS VS. MONTANA
• Saturday's game is the eighth all-time meeting between UC Davis and Montana, and the fifth to take place in Missoula
• UC Davis has not won any of the seven previous games vs. the Grizzlies"

Uh! so what.. We are 0-7 against Oregon, and 0-11 against Utah does that mean we have "historically sucked balls"? The point was that of the California schools in our conference UCD has been the best of them historically. That is just a fact.

Why do I care what they did in D-II? Seriously? How is that even remotely relevant to this conversation?

 

[grizindabox]

No UCD did not historically suck balls. They have traditionally been the best of the three cali schools, Cal Poly and Sac State.
Although your point is taken that Hawkins will run circles around Hauck in every aspect of the game.

2012 - 4-7
2013 - 5-7
2014 - 2-9
2015 - 2-9
2016 - 3-8
2017 - 5-6

routinely behind Suck St and CP...not sure which UCD team you’re thinking of....

Didn't realize that "traditionally" meant only back to 2012

Well that’s as long as they’ve “traditionally” been in the Big Suck.

Not sure either has much tradition in the Big Suck

 

[Fahque]

Ochs started playing on Oct. 4. Played in 9 games that season. Threw 8 picks and 9 TD's. 59% and 179 passing yards per game.

Sneed's stats are a bit better this year than Ochs'. With the tough crowd on egriz now, which I think are mostly Jensen/Stitt supporters, people would be calling for Ochs' head with his "horrible" stats.

https://stats.gogriz.com/custompages/sports/m-footbl/2003-2004/plyr_7.htm

He also played injured a majority of that year if I recall correctly

 

[AZGrizFan]

2012 - 4-7
2013 - 5-7
2014 - 2-9
2015 - 2-9
2016 - 3-8
2017 - 5-6

routinely behind Suck St and CP...not sure which UCD team you’re thinking of....

Didn't realize that "traditionally" meant only back to 2012

Well that’s as long as they’ve “traditionally” been in the Big Suck.

Not sure either has much tradition in the Big Suck

Six straight years of mediocrity in the past six years far outweighs what they did in the 80’s.

 

[PlayerRep]

Maybe you're junior high age and historically means six years to you. They have been deep into the Div II playoff many times. They have owned Sac State head to head and also have the edge head to head against Cal Poly.

The ones that had never before beat the Griz?

"UC DAVIS VS. MONTANA
• Saturday's game is the eighth all-time meeting between UC Davis and Montana, and the fifth to take place in Missoula
• UC Davis has not won any of the seven previous games vs. the Grizzlies"

Uh! so what.. We are 0-7 against Oregon, and 0-11 against Utah does that mean we have "historically sucked balls"? The point was that of the California schools in our conference UCD has been the best of them historically. That is just a fact.

Why do I care what they did in D-II? Seriously? How is that even remotely relevant to this conversation?

Actually, what Davis did in D-II is completely relevant to the discussion, which was how Davis' program had done traditonally, not what it had done in FCS. No one asked you to care about it. Do you think what App
St did in FCS is not remotely relevant to what App St has done traditionally?

 

[PlayerRep]

Didn't realize that "traditionally" meant only back to 2012

Well that’s as long as they’ve “traditionally” been in the Big Suck.

Not sure either has much tradition in the Big Suck

Six straight years of mediocrity in the past six years far outweighs what they did in the 80’s.

No, don't agree.

 

[PlayerRep]

I think people generally care more about two stats: (1) wins, and (2) losses.

Okay, how would you rate Stitt on that? How about making the playoffs and advancing? How about winning the conference? How about beating the Cats? How about attracting recruits who can make the NFL?

Couldn’t care less how many make the NFL.

No one asked you to care about it, but alot of us enjoy watching the progress of the guys who play in the NFL, or try to make it.

 

[PlayerRep]

I think people generally care more about two stats: (1) wins, and (2) losses.

Okay, how would you rate Stitt on that? How about making the playoffs and advancing? How about winning the conference? How about beating the Cats? How about attracting recruits who can make the NFL?

good point. stitt's won-loss record was so-so, but better than what is going on now. what are the griz in conference now, 2-3? they certainly aren't going to win it. as far as nfl talent, i don't know - didn't somebody say some scouts were looking at buss at one point? i would think olsen will get some looks. did hauck bring anybody in this year who might be that quality in his recruiting class? he did have quite a few scholarships.

Don't you think it will take a few more years to see how Hauck's one year of recruits turn out?

As of now, Buss, Olsen, the right tackle maybe. Maybe some of the frosh. What about the Demmings, or one of them?

 

[AZGrizFan]

I think people generally care more about two stats: (1) wins, and (2) losses.

Okay, how would you rate Stitt on that? How about making the playoffs and advancing? How about winning the conference? How about beating the Cats? How about attracting recruits who can make the NFL?

Couldn’t care less how many make the NFL.

No one asked you to care about it, but alot of us enjoy watching the progress of the guys who play in the NFL, or try to make it.

Oh I enjoy it...in fact they’re the ONLY reason i can even stomach watching any NFL-games...but I’d trade it all for more consistent success for the Griz at the college level...at the end of the day, pro players from Montana was just icing on the cake

 

[AZGrizFan]

Well that’s as long as they’ve “traditionally” been in the Big Suck.

Not sure either has much tradition in the Big Suck

Six straight years of mediocrity in the past six years far outweighs what they did in the 80’s.

No, don't agree.

Certainly more relevant to what Hawkins has been able to accomplish.

 

[PlayerRep]

Okay, how would you rate Stitt on that? How about making the playoffs and advancing? How about winning the conference? How about beating the Cats? How about attracting recruits who can make the NFL?

Couldn’t care less how many make the NFL.

No one asked you to care about it, but alot of us enjoy watching the progress of the guys who play in the NFL, or try to make it.

Oh I enjoy it...in fact they’re the ONLY reason i can even stomach watching any NFL-games...but I’d trade it all for more consistent success for the Griz at the college level...at the end of the day, pro players from Montana was just icing on the cake

Agreed. Guys like Mariani, Reynolds, Anderson, Balogh will be at the Cat game, I think. Maybe Horn.

 

[PlayerRep]

This is how that argument started.

AZ says "historically (Davis) has SUCKED balls in ways way worse than your sad list of excuses."

Next poster says: "No UCD did not historically suck balls. They have traditionally been the best of the three cali schools, Cal Poly and Sac State."

AZ, are you still saying that "historically, Davis has sucked"? Note the word "historically". In your view, "historically" is only 6 years? Why don't you either admit you were wrong, or give up your silly position.

 

[AZGrizFan]

This is how that argument started.

AZ says "historically (Davis) has SUCKED balls in ways way worse than your sad list of excuses."

Next poster says: "No UCD did not historically suck balls. They have traditionally been the best of the three cali schools, Cal Poly and Sac State."

AZ, are you still saying that "historically, Davis has sucked"? Note the word "historically". In your view, "historically" is only 6 years? Why don't you either admit you were wrong, or give up your silly position.

They have sucked balls since they’ve been in the BSC. Better? They’ve been completely irrelevant. Horrible. Non-existent. And suddenly a new coach and in year two he’s got them undefeated and positioned for the conference title. THAT is the argument. Why can’t Bobby do that?

 

[indian-outlaw]

Maybe you're junior high age and historically means six years to you. They have been deep into the Div II playoff many times. They have owned Sac State head to head and also have the edge head to head against Cal Poly.

The ones that had never before beat the Griz?

"UC DAVIS VS. MONTANA
• Saturday's game is the eighth all-time meeting between UC Davis and Montana, and the fifth to take place in Missoula
• UC Davis has not won any of the seven previous games vs. the Grizzlies"

Uh! so what.. We are 0-7 against Oregon, and 0-11 against Utah does that mean we have "historically sucked balls"? The point was that of the California schools in our conference UCD has been the best of them historically. That is just a fact.

Why do I care what they did in D-II? Seriously? How is that even remotely relevant to this conversation?

You really are an idiot. div II was a tougher conference than what is known today as FCS until the div I-aa days of the early 80's.

 

[grizindabox]

Didn't realize that "traditionally" meant only back to 2012

Well that’s as long as they’ve “traditionally” been in the Big Suck.

Not sure either has much tradition in the Big Suck

Six straight years of mediocrity in the past six years far outweighs what they did in the 80’s.

Then maybe don't use the word "tradition"

And I could say that for the past 6 years, the Griz are mediocre.

 

[kemajic]

This is how that argument started.

AZ says "historically (Davis) has SUCKED balls in ways way worse than your sad list of excuses."

Next poster says: "No UCD did not historically suck balls. They have traditionally been the best of the three cali schools, Cal Poly and Sac State."

AZ, are you still saying that "historically, Davis has sucked"? Note the word "historically". In your view, "historically" is only 6 years? Why don't you either admit you were wrong, or give up your silly position.

They have sucked balls since they’ve been in the BSC. Better? They’ve been completely irrelevant. Horrible. Non-existent. And suddenly a new coach and in year two he’s got them undefeated and positioned for the conference title. THAT is the argument. Why can’t Bobby do that?

Bobby still has a chance to do that. Hawkins was 5-6 in his first year. Why couldn't Stitt do that in his second year?