Forget all the back and forth. 3-7 and 0-10 are their own justification. Whether he's a great guy or a jackass, common coaching parameters require some pretty extraordinary circumstances to retain this kind of performer. I don't think that has been demonstrated here.
Too many other coaches who are statistically better have been canned this year to justify PM's retention.
That wasn't a joke about Wilson. It was a grave error letting him go. To flesh out the point, Murphy let him go despite the progress he had made. The move was a statement that not winning was not good enough an more. Wilson landed on his feet, got a promotion after a year at Rutgers, and is en route back to the Big Ten. Good for him, and Columbia's loss.
That's right. How could we have been foolish enough to let a 17-43 (10-32 in the Ivies)football "overachiever" like Norries get away and just when he was hitting his stride with his 1-9 "progress" in his 6th year? Only the desperate folk in the AD's office could consider the Wilson years to be the "Golden Age" of Columbia football.
You really shouldn't be wasting your time making inane comments on this blog. Get cracking on that revised resume. Try to think of some creative way to hide the years you worked at Columbia.
I hope the message is not to buy out Pete's contract. If anything, he owes and should leave town like the hobo he is with a potato sack over his shoulder containing canned peaches.
Norries was a great guy and coach, but maybe not a great HEAD coach. He had the program on the cusp but he could never turn the corner. That HC loss to Penn was the climax for him, he lost more and more momentum after that. It was time to let him go.
Most of us wanted Gilmore as his replacement but out of nowhere came PM. Even then we all tried to rationalize that he was a good hire and his resume, both in the Ivies and pros, looked promising. I would have to say, though, that he has been disappointing since then. He has not reached out to the former players, alums and fans. He has put a lousy product on the field. The future looks extremely cloudy and it will take a nearly miraculous turnaround this coming year for him to survive.
I hope he succeeds for Columbia's sake but it still perplexes me how poorly he has reached out to the CU community. His bunker mentality just makes it harder on him and has severely limited the patience and support he might otherwise have at this point.
Jake...that is not Charlie/UMass HC...You might want to use another picture. He was far more competitive in D1 then PM was in Ivies the last two years btw.
If you prefer Mangurian to Wilson, so be it. Wilson was building something, with two 4-6 seasons before the stumble season in which his team was in a position to win most of its games despite a unusually large raft of injuries - QB, 3 RBs, OL, etc. I would have given him one more year to show that was an aberration. He had some great players, the ones Jake is highlighting, but like most Columbia teams, he couldn't get the depth to overcome the injuries in 2011. He had a 5-5 season with Teller's last seniors, a huge turnaround frm the prior season impossible without coaching ability, and waded through two bad seasons with Shoop's upperclassmen, subpar recruiting classes. Thus the overall record. If you want to take a position of "I don't care what's going on, provide a winning season right away or go," that's fine. But you'll condemn CU to another 80 years of futility. Turning this ship around is a process that takes more than 4-5 years. That's what history teaches.
WOF, you may be right about Wilson. I think the "culture" he created and his leadership were head coach caliber. I remember the gutty performance he got from his team in that last game against Brown. That spoke volumes. And the criticism of Mangurian for not reaching out (why would he with the attitudes expressed here?) is little more than nostalgia for Wilson's inclusiveness.
Uh huh. So Mangurian never reached out to the small core group of Columbians who support football because they re too nasty and would attack him for no reason? You make less sense than that David M. character. The only logic to that remark is that he knew he was incompetent and would be a disaster, so he remained secretive. And even that is illogical. If you can't do the job, at least schmooze withe customers.
Someone posted here, can't find it at the moment, that Mark Cuban defended Mangurian in today's Dallas Morning News. Ridiculous. Cuban was asked about rumors Jason Garrett will be fired as Cowboys' coach. Cuban said if a pro sports coach has the right knowledge of the game AND HASN'T LOST THE LOCKER ROOM, you should keep him and provide the best players you can, etc. The Ivy League isn't the NBA or NFL. You can't buy players. The coach needs to find and recruit talent. These remarks were about Jason Garrett and have no relevance to PM except possibly for the "locker room" Issue which is crucial but something I can't speak to. As others have said, I wish current or recent players would give their testimony here so the team's fervent supporters can Han have some truthful info about what's going on. It is anonymous, you know.
You illustrate the problem here. You can't distinguish between what other people say and may intend and your own cramped projections. I neither said nor intended your interpretation. It is entirely your invention. You take whatever is said, put it through your personal lens and spit out vileness. Now you're upset that some people don't want to have anything to do with you. Look in the mirror, buddy.
To person directly above: HUH? What the hell and who the hell are you talking about? It can't be me but your remarks don't in the least indicate at whom or what you're directing your vile temper. You should look in the mirror and inform yourself that other posts often posted in between yours and the one that aroused your ire.
Whose philosophy? Or "who's" as you would say, since you write "your" for "you're". Is that a new Ivy style ? And of course I'm not from Columbia since I root only for great football teams. Actually I read very well, having struggled through CU and the nation's best high school, also grad school. What I can't do is remember every single syllaBULL of every irrelevant thought that strays through your mind. Some idiot at the Dallas News asked another idiot about the Cowboys' coaching situation, got an idiotic answer and you're likening that to CU and complaining about me? Stick to the point, please.
To the poster who brought it up, I cannot find anything on Mark Cuban mentioning Pete Mangurian and I cannot fathom why it would even cross his mind. I am curious because I actually knew Cuban during his broadcast.com days. He qualifies as the sharpest businessman ever. He completely fleeced Yahoo. That is the only reason he is a billionaire now. I am very surprised yahoo is still standing after that major league fleece. He is quite brilliant in many areas of business and high tech savvy to be sure. He made his money selling Yahoo a technology that would become outdated in a year or so. I would respect a statement made by Mark Cuban in support of Pete M if it was made but I do not see the connection.
WOF, he's not hiding. From the look of things, he's doing his job recruiting next year's class. Maybe he's just focusing his time and effort where they will most likely generate results?
Did he finally decide to focus on results? Where has he been these first two years?
I suspect you will say that it doesn't matter but wouldn't it make a little bit of sense to communicate with your alumni and fan base real effectively if you believe your only chance of turning around a perennial loser is by getting even worse, historically worse, the first two years?
Effective communication would have minimized a great deal of all the animosity you read on this board and it would have easily bought him another year or two of support. How can you/he not understand that?
I keep asking and never seem to get a good answer but what clues have we been given thus far to have any sense of hope that he is capable of turning things around?
I have posted repeatedly that the D will have at least 9 guys with solid experience. As well as a bench that can backup. If the QB situation gets straightened out, there will be your turn around. Prediction: 4 and 6. No blowout losses.
A losing record is not a "turn around". When will you time servers in the AD's office learn that "good enough" is NOT good enough? You've been allowed to believe that as long as you can scrape together three or four victories, you deserve lifetime job security. 4 and 6 means AD Murphy's TENTH straight season without a winning record. Only in the bizarre world of Columbia athletics would an AD be ALLOWED ten failing (and humiliating) years.
Hey, I don't know about the rest of you, but if Mango goes 10-0 next year I'll be ecstatic. In fact, if he goes 5-5 I'll take my hat off to him. It's all about the team getting better and being competitive, not about the coach.
I believe I speak for most of us here when I say simply that we do not believe based on current evidence that he has the capability to accomplish the above. This is why we see the commentary here. But please, Mango, prove us wrong. We want you to. But so far, all we've seen/heard is silence and questionable behavior on the field and in the locker room.
This is not an excuse for the 0/10 season, but how many of you that ran or worked for a company that had under 100 employees that lost 25% of your most experienced people, with 40% of them your best workers, every year. If your company was successful, you have accomplished a mighty task. The best of the Ivy coaches are extraordinary men, that are hard to find. It seems like CU head coaches have gone from the frying pan into the fire too many times in the past. The next one may be worse than all the previous ones. I am not DM or PM or any other shill for the administration.
75% of the complaints about PM are about his personality. Also, that he sits 3 or 4 kids that should be playing more. Did an interview reveal these traits? If so how will the process change?
If we had the worst team in I-AA we could fire its coach. But we didn't. Sagarin had six teams behind Columbia. The worst, by a large margin, was Davidson (0-11 with a much worse strength of schedule than Columbia). Maybe CU should consider them for a future game? Anyway, let's stick to facts. The reality was bad enough without making stuff up so it'll look worse. And it doesn't help your credibility any.
There are six teams worse than Columbia? Perhaps the AD's office should put out a press release. Good God, are the failures inhabiting the AD's office so deluded that they think being six teams from the bottom and not being the absolute bottom will save their jobs? How can there be any hope while people who think this way are in charge?
No, the point is that you misrepresent the facts, and then when you are called for misrepresenting the facts, accuse the poster who corrects you of "inhabiting the AD's office."
If 6th from the bottom isn't good, then say 6th from the bottom. When you're caught and launch an ad hominen attack, it shifts the focus from the facts to your mode of argument.
If 9 defensive players returning with experience is all you need to have confidence in the team I applaud your optimism. Our defense was bad in historic proportions!
1 year of growth and experience in the life of an 18/19 year old can be dramatic. A statement Sunday from Terry Bradshaw went something like this. "Good D is more important than good O" I also noted that the QB situation must get taken care of. Way too many weak links this season. No depth at many spots. Not entirely present staffs doing.
Remember when you were a kid picking sides for a sand lot BB game. The last pick always played right field. With 2 outs and the bases loaded, the ball was always hit to right and went through the kid's legs, The CU coaches have several "right fielders" playing on both sides of the ball, with no back up players to step in. It will take 4 years of great recruiting to get competitive enough to contend for an Ivy title. Any dreams of becoming a 6 and 4 team are at least 2/3 years away.
The beauty of coaching football vs baseball is that not everyone can hit to right field on que, but taking advantage of a weak DB or a DL man in football is just a matter of watching game films.
1 year of growth can be dramatic but putting your eggs in a basket of freshman who were historically bad is a bit of a stretch.
If that and hoping that the QB situation gets straightened is enough to give you hope I applaud you.
And did anyone see the Browns' owner Jimmy Haslam today acknowledge and accept criticism for their lousy performance and then promise to make it better? Even Jason Garrett was big enough to accept blame and fault. Both of them also acknowledged that their fans had a right to be unhappy.
Apparently Ivy League coaches don't need to do things like that....
Again the broad brush job. Not all freshmen were bad. Remember there are Juniors and Seniors that will contribute in 2014. 3 out of 6 frosh that got plating time had some bad reviews on this blog. KH needed better protection, but got valuable playing time. He will be a good back up if the upperclassmen do not produce. The two WRs will have to learn to catch the ball in traffic. The big OL kid will get better. If Watson puts on some muscle and gains some speed, he will be a breakaway threat, maybe this year. The other freshmen that got playing time at S will be a year ahead of most of the leagues frosh S.
No, the anonymous poster who answered my question for optimism used the 9 returning defensive freshman as reason to have hope. I don't know if you are that person or not but that was an extremely broad stroke to think that a historically bad group would improve that much regardless of class.
The point is that the team showed zero improvement over the season. They were getting beaten just as badly week 11 as they were week 1. You might even argue that they regressed = very little optimism for me.
Jake, of course you know I was being facetious. The coach at St Joe's Prep in Philadelphia just won a State Championship. Three years ago he was in year two and amidst widespread criticism. What he didn't do at that time was hide from the former players and alums. Instead, he accepted ALL of the blame and criticism and acknowledged he had to do better... That was a HS coach!
Wrong again! There is only 1 returning frosh on the D that got playing time. Can't blame you if you thought there were 9 going to start. It's the O that needs the young kids to step up. One frosh WR that got playing time at the end of the year looked good. Put him in with a good QB and the upper classmen WRs and we will have a shot in a lot of games
WOF, I will still be a fan, no matter the results between now than. Losses do not cause me to turn against the players or staff. As it does to many on this blog. Irate remarks about young men giving their all to a losing cause, turns my stomach. Not referring to you, but too many others.
I will always be a fan, too, and I respect and root for everyone who has ever worn Columbia Blue. I don't think very many on this board have a problem with the players, either.
I am extremely disappointed with the coach's lack of interest and effort in including the former players. If you ask me PM has no clue about this aspect of his job. I am OK with the smaller line and some of his other decisions but he has royally offended the former players.
And I have spent 30+ years being disappointed with the admins lack of interest and support of CU sports and it just continues...
50 comments:
Yes, a lot like when Columbia fired Norries Wilson. Thanks for reminding us, Jake!
Cut the NW jokes. He made us competitive at least.
Forget all the back and forth.
3-7 and 0-10 are their own justification.
Whether he's a great guy or a jackass, common coaching parameters require some pretty extraordinary circumstances to retain this kind of performer. I don't think that has been demonstrated here.
Too many other coaches who are statistically better have been canned this year to justify PM's retention.
U obviously never coached before. BUT I don't agree with what I hear about PM.
Umass is delusional if they thought they were going from FCS to FBS and going to be competitive right away.
That is very true..it takes time and a plan.
That wasn't a joke about Wilson. It was a grave error letting him go. To flesh out the point, Murphy let him go despite the progress he had made. The move was a statement that not winning was not good enough an more. Wilson landed on his feet, got a promotion after a year at Rutgers, and is en route back to the Big Ten. Good for him, and Columbia's loss.
"It was a grave error letting him go."
That's right. How could we have been foolish enough to let a 17-43 (10-32 in the Ivies)football "overachiever" like Norries get away and just when he was hitting his stride with his 1-9 "progress" in his 6th year? Only the desperate folk in the AD's office could consider the Wilson years to be the "Golden Age" of Columbia football.
You really shouldn't be wasting your time making inane comments on this blog. Get cracking on that revised resume. Try to think of some creative way to hide the years you worked at Columbia.
I hope the message is not to buy out Pete's contract. If anything, he owes and should leave town like the hobo he is with a potato sack over his shoulder containing canned peaches.
Norries was a great guy and coach, but maybe not a great HEAD coach. He had the program on the cusp but he could never turn the corner. That HC loss to Penn was the climax for him, he lost more and more momentum after that. It was time to let him go.
Most of us wanted Gilmore as his replacement but out of nowhere came PM. Even then we all tried to rationalize that he was a good hire and his resume, both in the Ivies and pros, looked promising. I would have to say, though, that he has been disappointing since then. He has not reached out to the former players, alums and fans. He has put a lousy product on the field. The future looks extremely cloudy and it will take a nearly miraculous turnaround this coming year for him to survive.
I hope he succeeds for Columbia's sake but it still perplexes me how poorly he has reached out to the CU community. His bunker mentality just makes it harder on him and has severely limited the patience and support he might otherwise have at this point.
Jake...that is not Charlie/UMass HC...You might want to use another picture. He was far more competitive in D1 then PM was in Ivies the last two years btw.
If you prefer Mangurian to Wilson, so be it. Wilson was building something, with two 4-6 seasons before the stumble season in which his team was in a position to win most of its games despite a unusually large raft of injuries - QB, 3 RBs, OL, etc. I would have given him one more year to show that was an aberration. He had some great players, the ones Jake is highlighting, but like most Columbia teams, he couldn't get the depth to overcome the injuries in 2011. He had a 5-5 season with Teller's last seniors, a huge turnaround frm the prior season impossible without coaching ability, and waded through two bad seasons with Shoop's upperclassmen, subpar recruiting classes. Thus the overall record. If you want to take a position of "I don't care what's going on, provide a winning season right away or go," that's fine. But you'll condemn CU to another 80 years of futility. Turning this ship around is a process that takes more than 4-5 years. That's what history teaches.
WOF, you may be right about Wilson. I think the "culture" he created and his leadership were head coach caliber. I remember the gutty performance he got from his team in that last game against Brown. That spoke volumes. And the criticism of Mangurian for not reaching out (why would he with the attitudes expressed here?) is little more than nostalgia for Wilson's inclusiveness.
Uh huh. So Mangurian never reached out to the small core group of Columbians who support football because they re too nasty and would attack him for no reason?
You make less sense than that David M. character.
The only logic to that remark is that he knew he was incompetent and would be a disaster, so he remained secretive. And even that is illogical. If you can't do the job, at least schmooze withe customers.
Someone posted here, can't find it at the moment, that Mark Cuban defended Mangurian in today's Dallas Morning News. Ridiculous. Cuban was asked about rumors Jason Garrett will be fired as Cowboys' coach. Cuban said if a pro sports coach has the right knowledge of the game AND HASN'T LOST THE LOCKER ROOM, you should keep him and provide the best players you can, etc.
The Ivy League isn't the NBA or NFL. You can't buy players. The coach needs to find and recruit talent. These remarks were about Jason Garrett and have no relevance to PM except possibly for the "locker room"
Issue which is crucial but something I can't speak to.
As others have said, I wish current or recent players would give their testimony here so the team's fervent supporters can Han have some truthful info about what's going on. It is anonymous, you know.
You illustrate the problem here. You can't distinguish between what other people say and may intend and your own cramped projections. I neither said nor intended your interpretation. It is entirely your invention. You take whatever is said, put it through your personal lens and spit out vileness. Now you're upset that some people don't want to have anything to do with you. Look in the mirror, buddy.
To person directly above: HUH?
What the hell and who the hell are you talking about?
It can't be me but your remarks don't in the least indicate at whom or what you're directing your vile temper. You should look in the mirror and inform yourself that other posts often posted in between yours and the one that aroused your ire.
Sir, you can't read. It said "philosophy". Not Cuban directly defending PM. Your not Ivy are you?
Whose philosophy? Or "who's" as you would say, since you write "your" for "you're". Is that a new Ivy style ?
And of course I'm not from Columbia since I root only for great football teams. Actually I read very well, having struggled through CU and the nation's best high school, also grad school. What I can't do is remember every single syllaBULL of every irrelevant thought that strays through your mind. Some idiot at the Dallas News asked another idiot about the Cowboys' coaching situation, got an idiotic answer and you're likening that to CU and complaining about me? Stick to the point, please.
To the poster who brought it up, I cannot find anything on Mark Cuban mentioning Pete Mangurian and I cannot fathom why it would even cross his mind. I am curious because I actually knew Cuban during his broadcast.com days. He qualifies as the sharpest businessman ever. He completely fleeced Yahoo. That is the only reason he is a billionaire now. I am very surprised yahoo is still standing after that major league fleece. He is quite brilliant in many areas of business and high tech savvy to be sure. He made his money selling Yahoo a technology that would become outdated in a year or so. I would respect a statement made by Mark Cuban in support of Pete M if it was made but I do not see the connection.
To the guy who asked me why PM should bother reaching out to us:
Are you serious?
He earned the criticism and skepticism with his losses and actions and hiding out only makes it look worse.
To the guy who asked me why PM should bother reaching out to us:
Are you serious?
He earned the criticism and skepticism with his losses and actions and hiding out only makes it look worse.
WOF, he's not hiding. From the look of things, he's doing his job recruiting next year's class. Maybe he's just focusing his time and effort where they will most likely generate results?
Excellent point!
Did he finally decide to focus on results? Where has he been these first two years?
I suspect you will say that it doesn't matter but wouldn't it make a little bit of sense to communicate with your alumni and fan base real effectively if you believe your only chance of turning around a perennial loser is by getting even worse, historically worse, the first two years?
Effective communication would have minimized a great deal of all the animosity you read on this board and it would have easily bought him another year or two of support. How can you/he not understand that?
I keep asking and never seem to get a good answer but what clues have we been given thus far to have any sense of hope that he is capable of turning things around?
I have posted repeatedly that the D will have at least 9 guys with solid experience. As well as a bench that can backup.
If the QB situation gets straightened out, there will be your turn around. Prediction: 4 and 6. No blowout losses.
"Prediction: 4 and 6. No blowout losses."
A losing record is not a "turn around". When will you time servers in the AD's office learn that "good enough" is NOT good enough? You've been allowed to believe that as long as you can scrape together three or four victories, you deserve lifetime job security. 4 and 6 means AD Murphy's TENTH straight season without a winning record. Only in the bizarre world of Columbia athletics would an AD be ALLOWED ten failing (and humiliating) years.
0 to 4 is a turn around you A hole.
When will you jerks accept the fact that is not the NFL,
Not every positive post is from the ADs office.
Hey, I don't know about the rest of you, but if Mango goes 10-0 next year I'll be ecstatic. In fact, if he goes 5-5 I'll take my hat off to him. It's all about the team getting better and being competitive, not about the coach.
I believe I speak for most of us here when I say simply that we do not believe based on current evidence that he has the capability to accomplish the above. This is why we see the commentary here. But please, Mango, prove us wrong. We want you to. But so far, all we've seen/heard is silence and questionable behavior on the field and in the locker room.
This is not an excuse for the 0/10 season, but how many of you that ran or worked for a company that had under 100 employees that lost 25% of your most experienced people, with 40% of them your best workers, every year. If your company was successful, you have accomplished a mighty task. The best of the Ivy coaches are extraordinary men, that are hard to find. It seems like CU head coaches have gone from the frying pan into the fire too many times in the past. The next one may be worse than all the previous ones. I am not DM or PM or any other shill for the administration.
If we fire the HC who fielded the worst team in I-AA this year and the worst team in the history of the Ivy League, the next guy may be worse?
How is that possible?
75% of the complaints about PM are about his personality. Also, that he sits 3 or 4 kids that should be playing more. Did an interview reveal these traits? If so how will the process change?
If we had the worst team in I-AA we could fire its coach. But we didn't. Sagarin had six teams behind Columbia. The worst, by a large margin, was Davidson (0-11 with a much worse strength of schedule than Columbia). Maybe CU should consider them for a future game? Anyway, let's stick to facts. The reality was bad enough without making stuff up so it'll look worse. And it doesn't help your credibility any.
There are six teams worse than Columbia? Perhaps the AD's office should put out a press release. Good God, are the failures inhabiting the AD's office so deluded that they think being six teams from the bottom and not being the absolute bottom will save their jobs? How can there be any hope while people who think this way are in charge?
No, the point is that you misrepresent the facts, and then when you are called for misrepresenting the facts, accuse the poster who corrects you of "inhabiting the AD's office."
If 6th from the bottom isn't good, then say 6th from the bottom. When you're caught and launch an ad hominen attack, it shifts the focus from the facts to your mode of argument.
If 9 defensive players returning with experience is all you need to have confidence in the team I applaud your optimism. Our defense was bad in historic proportions!
1 year of growth and experience in the life of an 18/19 year old can be dramatic. A statement Sunday from Terry Bradshaw went something like this. "Good D is more important than good O" I also noted that the QB situation must get taken care of.
Way too many weak links this season.
No depth at many spots. Not entirely present staffs doing.
Remember when you were a kid picking sides for a sand lot BB game. The last pick always played right field. With 2 outs and the bases loaded, the ball was always hit to right and went through the kid's legs, The CU coaches have several "right fielders" playing on both sides of the ball, with no back up players to step in. It will take 4 years of great recruiting to get competitive enough to contend for an Ivy title. Any dreams of becoming a 6 and 4 team
are at least 2/3 years away.
The beauty of coaching football vs baseball is that not everyone can hit to right field on que, but taking advantage of a weak DB or a DL man in football is just a matter of watching game films.
1 year of growth can be dramatic but putting your eggs in a basket of freshman who were historically bad is a bit of a stretch.
If that and hoping that the QB situation gets straightened is enough to give you hope I applaud you.
And did anyone see the Browns' owner Jimmy Haslam today acknowledge and accept criticism for their lousy performance and then promise to make it better? Even Jason Garrett was big enough to accept blame and fault. Both of them also acknowledged that their fans had a right to be unhappy.
Apparently Ivy League coaches don't need to do things like that....
WOF: I'm sure many Ivy coaches have taken the blame in the past. Just not Pete.
Again the broad brush job.
Not all freshmen were bad.
Remember there are Juniors and Seniors that will contribute in 2014. 3 out of 6 frosh that got plating time had some bad reviews on this blog. KH needed better protection, but got valuable playing time. He will be a good back up if the upperclassmen do not produce. The two WRs will have to learn to catch the ball in traffic. The big OL kid will get better. If Watson puts on some muscle and gains some speed, he will be a breakaway threat, maybe this year. The other freshmen that got playing time at S will be a year ahead of most of the leagues frosh S.
No, the anonymous poster who answered my question for optimism used the 9 returning defensive freshman as reason to have hope. I don't know if you are that person or not but that was an extremely broad stroke to think that a historically bad group would improve that much regardless of class.
The point is that the team showed zero improvement over the season. They were getting beaten just as badly week 11 as they were week 1. You might even argue that they regressed = very little optimism for me.
Jake, of course you know I was being facetious. The coach at St Joe's Prep in Philadelphia just won a State Championship. Three years ago he was in year two and amidst widespread criticism. What he didn't do at that time was hide from the former players and alums. Instead, he accepted ALL of the blame and criticism and acknowledged he had to do better... That was a HS coach!
WOF: I got ya, no worries.
Wrong again! There is only 1 returning frosh on the D that got playing time.
Can't blame you if you thought there were 9 going to start. It's the O that needs the young kids to step up. One frosh WR that got playing time at the end of the year looked good. Put him in with a good QB and the upper classmen WRs and we will have a shot in a lot of games
That kid was #9 Douglas. 6'4" with good hands. Why he didn't get more time early is ?. Should contribute in 14.
I meant 9 returning players, same idea though: Not enough to give anyone confidence - I am afraid you are grabbing for straws.
If you are new to CU football I respect and understand. But don't be shocked if you are as frustrated and negative as me in 2040 or thereabouts.
WOF,
I will still be a fan, no matter the results between now than. Losses do not cause me to turn against the players or staff. As it does to many on this blog. Irate remarks about young men giving their all to a losing cause, turns my stomach. Not referring to you, but too many others.
WOF,
I hope to be in Heaven by then.
Maybe I can help from there.
GP
I will always be a fan, too, and I respect and root for everyone who has ever worn Columbia Blue. I don't think very many on this board have a problem with the players, either.
I am extremely disappointed with the coach's lack of interest and effort in including the former players. If you ask me PM has no clue about this aspect of his job. I am OK with the smaller line and some of his other decisions but he has royally offended the former players.
And I have spent 30+ years being disappointed with the admins lack of interest and support of CU sports and it just continues...
It gets old but my heart will always be with CU.
Post a Comment