Bob Rondeau Doog
- Thread starter Tequilla
- Start date
TierbsHsotBoobs
New Fish
He's a paid employee. I don't expect him to have standards.
This ^^
AtomicDawg
Active poster
I wonder what Damon would think. Paid employees are all predictable.
PostGameOrangeSlices
Well-known poster
Enough with the KJR talk, professor doogie.
Can we get a fucking KJR talk bored?
Can we get a fucking KJR talk bored?
HeretoBeatmyChest
New Fish
Given that this team went 9-4 last year, had a top 15 advanced metrics finish, returns 17/22 starters and has a better coach and easier schedule, its fucktarded to say you'd take 9 wins. Even if it comes from a UW employee.
In 2012 Rondeau did say he would take 6 wins. That team with Petersen goes 9-4 even with losing 4 OL. Rondeau sets the bar way too low.
In 2012 Rondeau did say he would take 6 wins. That team with Petersen goes 9-4 even with losing 4 OL. Rondeau sets the bar way too low.
PostGameOrangeSlices
Well-known poster
Those "advanced metrics" are bullshit. The only thing UW was top 15 in was penalties
dhdawg
New Fish
Dave Softy Mahler@Softykjr·
Rondeau says he would take 9 wins for UW right now. Agree?
some real doog responses
Andy Sommerville@AndySomm503·10h
@Softykjr PAC 12 will be as tough as ever. 8 wins would still be a good season.
andy harkleroad@HarkleHawk·10h
@Softykjr NO 9 would be disappointing, unless one of those 9 is Oregon (nothing else matters)
Dugan@DavePdxdawg·10h
@Softykjr Yes. Good way to start off the Peterson Era...
Nick Smith@UWNICKY·10h
@Softykjr New QB, new coach. Anymore than 9 would be unreal
BennyBeaver
Active poster
hey, I know 2 Andy Sommervilles.
sarktastic
New Fish
Why does Softy hate Peterman? Why does he hold Peterman to a higher standard than he did his buddy Sark? Softy was dancing' in the streets when Sark won 5 games with half the roster filled with future NFL'ers. Why the new standard?
D
[Deleted User]
Guest
Any time you can be a hypothetical top 15 team in year five then that's special.
Rondeau is an excellent play-by-play guy. I can extend him some slack. I'd probably take 10 (regular season) wins, so it's not an outrageous comment.
Plus he has some class and isn't a fat slob loudmouth mouthbreather Doog like Softy, or some amazon Affirmative Action Doog like Elise (I'd still tear it up -queer Kim wink
).
Plus he has some class and isn't a fat slob loudmouth mouthbreather Doog like Softy, or some amazon Affirmative Action Doog like Elise (I'd still tear it up -queer Kim wink
).
Last edited:
HeretoBeatmyChest
New Fish
The metrics more than anything else have the most predictive value for the next season. My friend did a big study on it.
Wins and championships are what matter most but the metrics are another way to show how good teams really are because they adjust for schedule difficulty and margin of victory.
BTW, SRS (sports-reference) metrics has UW's 1991 team as the 2nd best college football team of all time, just slightly behind Nebraska 1995.
I'll give you a pass but the metrics are not bullshit. Wise up before making another comment like that again.
Dawgfan406
New Fish
Some would take 9 wins as long as one was @ oregon and a bowl win to get to 10.
fivehundredmileDAWG
New Fish
We are done with that bullshit ...
10 wins before the bowl or his ass gets hot ...
10 wins before the bowl or his ass gets hot ...
PostGameOrangeSlices
Well-known poster
Uhhh
The metrics are fucking bullshit. They fail to account for Sark's complete coaching ineptitude in big games. UW would never finish in the top 15 under Sark; under no hypothetical metric bullshit scenario does Sark lead UW to the top 15
The metrics are there to show that based on talent and a number of other factors not related to the coach, how good a team is. The fact that we are top 15 in metrics but only top 25 in reality points exactly to how mediocre of a coach Sark is. It's an alternative to looking at a team getting a top recruiting class but then still being shit when that class steps on the field. Ultimately it points to what we have all been saying: UW is a program with all the tools to succeed on a national level in college football but hasn't because shitheads have been running it.
PostGameOrangeSlices
Well-known poster
The whole team was full of chokers and it started with the head coach. The metrics can't account for that. I also don't buy the top-15 talent argument. UW isn't in the top 2/3 of the fucking SEC as far as talent. UW is probably around #25 in talent, right where they are ranked.
The metrics don't actually see the games and watch UW get boatraced in the ways that they do.
also, the Pac-12 sucked.
UW was what they were ranked, a borderline top-25 team with borderline top-25 talent...and top-15 in penalties
Last edited:
Yes if you take into account all the factors we have been bitching about UW is rightfully a top 25 team. But that's why metrics are a good tool, it gives you an idea of the team without those factors. Just because the SEC is the best conference in the country doesn't mean that our personnel had no business being top 15. It's just that we had no business being top 15 because of the culture of the team and Dude Bra.