Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Bell Tolls for Thee" data-source="post: 130981253" data-attributes="member: 1812660">Funny.&nbsp; On one hand WVU loses last week and its because the coaching is poor and the talent would be winning if the coaching was better.&nbsp; WVU wins this week and suddenly it's the pure talent of the previous coach's recruits.&nbsp; Seems like a double standard to me.&nbsp; The overreaction here is astounding.&nbsp; WVU played better than the first 2 games, but the opponent had a young team with a newly installed and very atypical defensive system.&nbsp; So it is encouraging, but as the saying goes you are never as bad as you think when you lose and never as good as you think when you win.&nbsp; We still don't know what we have here and WVU could very easily get smacked in the mouth like the Mizzou game next week. But all these jabs and slights begs a few questions.&nbsp; Why is it so hard to grasp that Dana left WVU without a viable O-line and work in progress QB's?&nbsp; Kendall would've been rusty and playing below his potential the first several games the same way Grier did, having not played an entire season, even if Dana had stayed.&nbsp; Why is it so hard to say that Dana was a decent head coach, but developing players he recruited out of high school and developing even the semblance of depth was not his strong suit?&nbsp; Why is it hard to say that the previous coach relied a bit too heavily on transfers as 1-2 year rental players?&nbsp; Why is it so hard to say that a new head coach that clearly didn't inherit an intact team is going to need time to show what he's made of?&nbsp; When did WVU become such a powerhouse that a new head coach doesn't get at least 2 seasons to develop a true picture of what he is capable of?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Bell Tolls for Thee, post: 130981253, member: 1812660"] Funny. On one hand WVU loses last week and its because the coaching is poor and the talent would be winning if the coaching was better. WVU wins this week and suddenly it's the pure talent of the previous coach's recruits. Seems like a double standard to me. The overreaction here is astounding. WVU played better than the first 2 games, but the opponent had a young team with a newly installed and very atypical defensive system. So it is encouraging, but as the saying goes you are never as bad as you think when you lose and never as good as you think when you win. We still don't know what we have here and WVU could very easily get smacked in the mouth like the Mizzou game next week. But all these jabs and slights begs a few questions. Why is it so hard to grasp that Dana left WVU without a viable O-line and work in progress QB's? Kendall would've been rusty and playing below his potential the first several games the same way Grier did, having not played an entire season, even if Dana had stayed. Why is it so hard to say that Dana was a decent head coach, but developing players he recruited out of high school and developing even the semblance of depth was not his strong suit? Why is it hard to say that the previous coach relied a bit too heavily on transfers as 1-2 year rental players? Why is it so hard to say that a new head coach that clearly didn't inherit an intact team is going to need time to show what he's made of? When did WVU become such a powerhouse that a new head coach doesn't get at least 2 seasons to develop a true picture of what he is capable of? [/QUOTE]

Name