Mike Leach, Washington State

S

skersfan

Donor
I think Coach Leach has been at Washington Stage going 4 years. He stated going in that there was talent there, but it would take awhile to mold that talent and bring other parts missing to get the program where the fans wanted it.

I am watching the game with Stanford, currently it seems they are playing quite well against a strong Stanford team.

Maybe it just takes some time. I have no love fest with the current staff, but do feel we need to curb some of the fire instantly talk, 9 games in, I have seen some improvement, seen some kids I do not think are giving 100%. A coaching staff that has made mistakes.

I do not think this was a rebuilding job, but it was a attitude changing challenge. I think it will be the same for anyone taking the job.

Yea we lost to Purdue, Michigan State was very close to doing the same. Mental attitude, I really do not think we are helping the kids with all this fire the coach talk.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Washington state didn't have 9 wins when Leach took over, Washington state isn't a storied program, Washington state wasn't a possible contender in their conference, Washington state isn't even the best team in their respective state, leach has had success, Riley never has. I think that covers it. BYE RILEY

 
Nebraska's 9 wins was not a strong 9 wins. I think many of us thought the wheels on Bo's wagon would fall off during his time here, but he was saved in '13 and '14 by some heroics. Some of it luck, some of it made (AA and RG were big pieces to the puzzle last year and neither has been replaced).

I think this *was* a rebuilding job, we just thought/hoped it wasn't. But some of it is also regression brought on by the staff themselves.

The rest? Injuries, depth, scheme change, culture change, you name it.

We could still even win out, as unlikely as it seems. The same Minnesota team that got pummeled by Nebraska nearly beat Michigan today. The same Texas team that beat Oklahoma got blanked by Iowa State. CFB is a wild, crazy ride. Sometimes you lose four games in 10 seconds each and then your backup QB has five turnovers.

I like Leach as well. RichRod, too. The bottom line is, it takes time to define a program. Early returns aren't good, but I think some wait and see is in order.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mike Leach is a spread offense with no defense. Wouldn't want any part of that at Nebraska. He isn't a bad coach, but a conference winning or title winning coach is something I don't ever see him being. If you're OK with settling for 3 losing seasons before things pick up and he still doesn't win anything, then he's your dude.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
While I don't particularly care for him as a coach or the style of football he employs, Leach had a history of legitimate success before he started coaching at Washington State. Riley's resume pales in comparison to Leach's.

Washington State was a horrid program before Leach took over there. I don't really think I'd consider it to be a great gig for a coach, but Leach has them going in the right direction for sure.

Regardless of how much we want to argue about the state of Husker football when Mike Riley took over, I don't think there is any comparison at all to the program Leach took over in Pullman to the program Riley took over in Lincoln.

Like it or not, this is why Leach gets more latitude in a place like Pullman than Riley gets in Lincoln.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Leach was also considered a rock star hire for Washington St. Everyone knew if you gave Leach the keys to a program he would turn it into a success. I have no confidence that Riley can do that.

 
I just remember his comments when taking over the program.

I think they were very similar, except the players would have had an easier task of buying in.

We know that some of the kids loved the past coach. Knew they were not recruited for the style that was coming.

I think we need to give them time. But if the administration says they go, I will support that to.

Just want the kids to get the support they need, and the staff the support to recruit what they feel they need. I supported Frank till the day he was gone, same with BC. The past had a history I did not respect or like. Current, not impressed but understand what he is facing, I think.

I would also agree that he is the type that might just say, if it is, just too much, I need to move on. I do not think he is doing it for the money.

 
Jeremy said:
How long for the wait and see? I can't blame people who don't want to watch this crap for another 3 years.
Click to expand...
We should be paying attention to what Riley says week to week because we're seeing in real time how he addresses issues. We don't need to wait to see that. When questioned about a decision, Riley will give an answer suggesting the problem needs addressing. Next week, same questions because we see many of the same decisions. It's really apparent since conference play started and you can tell even the media is starting to really question things. The media is usually the last to do so, if for no other reason than they're reliant on cooperation for their stories.

Let's ignore the question on if he has control of the players and ask if he has control of the coaches.

 
InOmaha said:
I thought Shaw brought what we wanted. 12-3 at half. Not really a power rushing team.
Click to expand...
Stanford and Georgia Tech both have strong tendencies to lose games when not scoring much or having leads before half. We used to have the same discussions back in the day. Some are just too young, or too forgetful, to remember.

 
Mike Leach interview at halftime. Priceless.

I think we compare more to Texas. Charlie Strong has been working through some poor attitude issues for a while now and still hasn't turned them around. When people are saying the players that gave the best effort today were the younger players, I'd say we have some issues. Riley's approach to handling things are different from Strong and might be preferable. Strong probably alienated some of the younger players by cleaning out some of their buddies and created some lingering issues. When you know there are player problems I don't think it's right to demand firing a coach. I think 3 years is enough time based on what we have seen so far. We already suspect that the current staff cannot coach a run game which is antithetical to what we know is needed at Nebraska (balance in my opinion). Due to horrible blocking we cannot declare that this staff doesn't want to run more. They say they do and I believe them. Can they? Time will tell. Defensively, I think Banker might have the correct scheme which makes sense for the B1G. A couple of factors- learning new scheme and player talent/effort make it difficult to say that it won't work. We went through the same thing with Bo's defense. It worked in the Big 12 and then we saw a drop off when we moved to the B1G. It took several blowout record setting losses to realize that Bo's philosophy was to stop the pass first and that he wasn't willing to make adjustments. After the first blowout we didn't all demand Bo be fired.

 
Back
Top