Kim says spring ball should be interesting

[RoadDawg55]

No one. The discussion ends when Titus Young is brought up.

I'm pretty sure Peterman recruited Titus Young. So who exactly has Sark ever recruited that's worse than that guy?

This will never make it through Kim's Berlin Wall style of censorship .. so here's my response back - and Pepsi is right on the mark here

We'll he did. I think the more interesting question would be.....why?

But you don't know the answer to that. Nobody does not named Chris Petersen.

The entire discussion has centered around Petersen not taking the guys that Sark did ... and we know that the company line is that Sark and staff were great recruiters (let's not let facts like 4-5, 5-4, 5-4, 5-4, and 5-4 OR his record in games where he trailed at halftime get in the way) and that if Sark would have stayed that he would have landed a MONSTER class this year. The idea being pushed is that Petersen wouldn't have recruited the guys that Sark would have (read Petersen might not be able to deliver said MONSTER class) and that since the roster consists of plenty of guys that Sark recruited that have an "edge" (btw, most football players have that), there's going to be a massive problem with this "culture shift."

Yet, when countered with a guy that unquestionably has more character flaws than the example presented and that player WAS on Petersen's team, there's no possible comeback. NONE.

I stopped reading at 5-4, 5-4, 5-4. They were 9-4 and ranked 25th. If Coons made two FG's in 2012, Sark would have had back to back 9-4 seasons.

 

[[Deleted User]]

No one. The discussion ends when Titus Young is brought up.

I'm pretty sure Peterman recruited Titus Young. So who exactly has Sark ever recruited that's worse than that guy?

This will never make it through Kim's Berlin Wall style of censorship .. so here's my response back - and Pepsi is right on the mark here

We'll he did. I think the more interesting question would be.....why?

But you don't know the answer to that. Nobody does not named Chris Petersen.

The entire discussion has centered around Petersen not taking the guys that Sark did ... and we know that the company line is that Sark and staff were great recruiters (let's not let facts like 4-5, 5-4, 5-4, 5-4, and 5-4 OR his record in games where he trailed at halftime get in the way) and that if Sark would have stayed that he would have landed a MONSTER class this year. The idea being pushed is that Petersen wouldn't have recruited the guys that Sark would have (read Petersen might not be able to deliver said MONSTER class) and that since the roster consists of plenty of guys that Sark recruited that have an "edge" (btw, most football players have that), there's going to be a massive problem with this "culture shift."

Yet, when countered with a guy that unquestionably has more character flaws than the example presented and that player WAS on Petersen's team, there's no possible comeback. NONE.

I stopped reading at 5-4, 5-4, 5-4. They were 9-4 and ranked 25th. If Coons made two FG's in 2012, Sark would have had back to back 9-4 seasons.

Disagree as this year was a mythical 11-2 season. Remember the season fell apart once Van Winkle got hurt. It made sense once I found that out.

 

[Tequilla]

No one. The discussion ends when Titus Young is brought up.

I'm pretty sure Peterman recruited Titus Young. So who exactly has Sark ever recruited that's worse than that guy?

This will never make it through Kim's Berlin Wall style of censorship .. so here's my response back - and Pepsi is right on the mark here

We'll he did. I think the more interesting question would be.....why?

But you don't know the answer to that. Nobody does not named Chris Petersen.

The entire discussion has centered around Petersen not taking the guys that Sark did ... and we know that the company line is that Sark and staff were great recruiters (let's not let facts like 4-5, 5-4, 5-4, 5-4, and 5-4 OR his record in games where he trailed at halftime get in the way) and that if Sark would have stayed that he would have landed a MONSTER class this year. The idea being pushed is that Petersen wouldn't have recruited the guys that Sark would have (read Petersen might not be able to deliver said MONSTER class) and that since the roster consists of plenty of guys that Sark recruited that have an "edge" (btw, most football players have that), there's going to be a massive problem with this "culture shift."

Yet, when countered with a guy that unquestionably has more character flaws than the example presented and that player WAS on Petersen's team, there's no possible comeback. NONE.

I stopped reading at 5-4, 5-4, 5-4. They were 9-4 and ranked 25th. If Coons made two FG's in 2012, Sark would have had back to back 9-4 seasons.

Fuck you and your Kimmie-inspired response.

Anybody that is too FS to understand what 4-5, 5-4, 5-4, 5-4, and 5-4 is and tries to debate around that by pointing to pointless beatdowns of overmatched opponents like the Idaho State Spud Jumpers and saying wins like that are meaningful in the grand scheme of things should go watch a double feature of Lemon Party and 2 girls 1 cup.

These same FS people think that winning the (Unsponsored) Fight Hunger Bowl is a great season. Fuck that. Competing for conference championships in November, going to Rose Bowls, and winning big games on big stages are what good seasons are made of.

(And yes, I realize that you were whoosing, but since a FS person monitors these boreds like he's fucking Santa making out his naughty or nice list, I'm more than happy to take that opportunity to make a non-PC response).

 

[CFetters_Nacho_Lover]

The rebuttal to Kim's line that Peterman can't recruit the same caliber of talent is to point out what each coach did with his respective talent.

Peterman's lesser talent won a lot more games than Sark's all-world talent coaches by the best staff in 'Merica.