#FirePetersen

[Tequilla]

Some of us hate losing. That's where the hate comes from. Great coaches and players hate losing more than they love winning

You don't fucking say?

You seem confused.

Don't ask the question and then pretend like you knew the answer.

Not confused ... guarantee that I hate losing more than anybody on this board.

You are clueless. You hate losing so much that you need to write tl,dr bullshit every week we do lose? You did it under Sark too. You've been a poster for a long time.

And normally it takes me about 2 days after a loss to set aside my frustration and write about it from a measured and reasoned basis

 

[Tequilla]

I tend to be of the opinion that the fuckers in Vegas know what the fuck they are doing ...

They had UW pegged for 9 wins last year ... we had 8 and pissed away the Arizona game. Bottom line business says Petersen was -1 last year versus unbiased expectations.

They had UW pegged for 4 wins this year ... we already have 3. It's looking like Petersen will exceed expectations this year.

Now, if you want to be pissed off because Petersen isn't getting MORE out of the team, then go for it. But to act like he's run the program into the ground as a disaster ... then I suggest you go back to the days of having coaches like Gilby and Tyrone running the program. That's what a disaster looks like.

We were never predicted to win 4 games this year.

HTH.

Do a quick google search ... you'll find your proof

 

[Dardanus]

For those wanting to fire Pete, I'd recommend directing your ire to firing Pool Boy as not only do you have more ammo, but you wouldn't want Pool Boy making the next hire anyway.

Of course, for as bad as Pool Boy is, also important to at least consider that the next hire could be worse than Pool Boy (not trying to prop him up here ... just stating that that's a possible) ... and given new President ... not convinced that you wouldn't end up with the next generation version of Turner.

That was the only excuse left in the playbook needed for a DOOG BINGO!!

 

[FremontTroll]

I tend to be of the opinion that the fuckers in Vegas know what the fuck they are doing ...

They had UW pegged for 9 wins last year ... we had 8 and pissed away the Arizona game. Bottom line business says Petersen was -1 last year versus unbiased expectations.

They had UW pegged for 4 wins this year ... we already have 3. It's looking like Petersen will exceed expectations this year.

Now, if you want to be pissed off because Petersen isn't getting MORE out of the team, then go for it. But to act like he's run the program into the ground as a disaster ... then I suggest you go back to the days of having coaches like Gilby and Tyrone running the program. That's what a disaster looks like.

We were never predicted to win 4 games this year.

HTH.

Do a quick google search ... you'll find your proof

Vegas set a line on the number of awful gambling analogies you're going to make this weekend:

o2 -250/u2 +200

Does that mean the bookies are predicting you to only make two dumb fucking gambling posts this weekend?

 

[ThomasFremont]

Following the 4 win mark set by Vegas this year and echoed in seemingly every single preseason prediction that I saw, the expectation was that the talent on this team was somewhere between shitty and overly young. You don't get predictions of 4 wins without some sizable holes on the roster.

What those that are whining and crying right now about every single loss is doing is looking at the fact that the 3 losses that we've had have been by a grand total of 15 points and looking at that as an indication of how close we are to being 6-0 ... which if we were would absolutely earn Petersen pole position into the Coach of the Year race. Probably also true if he was 5-1.

But for those carrying the pitchforks, the difference between leading the Coach of the Year race and being a disaster is razor thin.

I could swear that I heard on a certain podcast before the season that the prediction was that if Petersen was the coach that we thought he was that there's no way that he'd have a losing record this year even though the path to 6 or 7 wins didn't look great and was going to require some stretch. He's on the path to do that and the goal posts are being moved.

In the unlikely event that UW beats Stanford this weekend, those that have been the loudest this week won't point to the great job by the team or the coaching staff in beating Stanford. Instead, they'll point to some combination of how they blew games earlier in the season to Boise, Cal, and Oregon or how Shaw/Stanford aren't as good as people think (see loss to Northwestern).

Sark was always just a few plays away from being more than he was too.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda...the calling card of a fucking loser.

Write as many essays as you want, but these are the same old excuses.

 

[Sundevil76]

Freeme, I'm right there with you. We all know Petersen won't get fired. He's an upper campuses wet dream off the field, so we are stuck with him unless he has multiple losing seasons. It's pretty tough to be that shitty in this day and age with the schedules. If he is eventually an 8 win coach (I think that's much more likely than a championship one) he will stay as long as he wants.

He fucking sucks though and we can talk about youth all we want, but fucktarded coaching has cost us multiple games over the past two seasons. We lost to two mediocre teams at home just this season. Unacceptable. The fact that we have the best defense in the Pac 12 and Petersen's expertise is on the offensive side of the ball makes it even worse.

Where do you get the "Best Defense in the PAC 12"? Maybe you should wait until the season is over before claiming that title.

 

[JaWarrenJaHooker]

Tequilla deserves a good ol fashioned 41-0 plunger this weekend

 

[JaWarrenJaHooker]

I tend to be of the opinion that the fuckers in Vegas know what the fuck they are doing ...

They had UW pegged for 9 wins last year ... we had 8 and pissed away the Arizona game. Bottom line business says Petersen was -1 last year versus unbiased expectations.

They had UW pegged for 4 wins this year ... we already have 3. It's looking like Petersen will exceed expectations this year.

Now, if you want to be pissed off because Petersen isn't getting MORE out of the team, then go for it. But to act like he's run the program into the ground as a disaster ... then I suggest you go back to the days of having coaches like Gilby and Tyrone running the program. That's what a disaster looks like.

If that is your opinion, what did you ever have against Sark?

He was for Sark until the Arizona St game

 

[TyronesGhost]

I tend to be of the opinion that the fuckers in Vegas know what the fuck they are doing ...

They had UW pegged for 9 wins last year ... we had 8 and pissed away the Arizona game. Bottom line business says Petersen was -1 last year versus unbiased expectations.

They had UW pegged for 4 wins this year ... we already have 3. It's looking like Petersen will exceed expectations this year.

and Tyrone running the program. That's what a disaster looks like.

You called Tequilla? Let me tell you about failed expectations. I know about failed expectations.

---Numero uno (i'm fluent in your tortilla speak)

You said yourself that Petersen underperformed last year. -1. So he did worse than expected.

---Adios Seniors

We are losing Littleton, Feeney, Clay and Tupou on defense which are all major contributors. We may take a step back this year, and while the defense looks good now..it could be the last bit of talent before we step into an unknown world.

---TacoBell#3 Combo

In 2013 we were #3 in the Pac 12 in recruiting. We're now in the 6-8 range. I don't care about his bs OKG motto or whatever. Bottom line is Petersen won 8 games with Sarks drunk recruiting...if he fails to recruit better than Sark we are hosed. Because if he can't win with top quarter Pac-12 classes for upper classmen. He isn't going to win with middle of the pack classes either. This isn't boise. This is a Power 5.

So what's he's show me is...

- He will perform below unbias expectations.
- We are graduating some of our biggest contributors to Kawasaki's defense this year.
- He's recruiting lower than what we had when he showed up.

That all leads me to believe he's going to make us worse than what Sark did.

 

[FremontTroll]

I tend to be of the opinion that the fuckers in Vegas know what the fuck they are doing ...

They had UW pegged for 9 wins last year ... we had 8 and pissed away the Arizona game. Bottom line business says Petersen was -1 last year versus unbiased expectations.

They had UW pegged for 4 wins this year ... we already have 3. It's looking like Petersen will exceed expectations this year.

and Tyrone running the program. That's what a disaster looks like.

You called Tequilla? Let me tell you about failed expectations. I know about failed expectations.

---Numero uno (i'm fluent in your tortilla speak)

You said yourself that Petersen underperformed last year. -1. So he did worse than expected.

---Adios Seniors

We are losing Littleton, Feeney, Clay and Tupou on defense which are all major contributors. We may take a step back this year, and while the defense looks good now..it could be the last bit of talent before we step into an unknown world.

---TacoBell#3 Combo

In 2013 we were #3 in the Pac 12 in recruiting. We're now in the 6-8 range. I don't care about his bs OKG motto or whatever. Bottom line is Petersen won 8 games with Sarks drunk recruiting...if he fails to recruit better than Sark we are hosed. Because if he can't win with top quarter Pac-12 classes for upper classmen. He isn't going to win with middle of the pack classes either. This isn't boise. This is a Power 5.

So what's he's show me is...

- He will perform below unbias expectations.
- We are graduating some of our biggest contributors to Kawasaki's defense this year.
- He's recruiting lower than what we had when he showed up.

That all leads me to believe he's going to make us worse than what Sark did.

Awful analysis.

Littleton and Feeney are the big losses. Tupou and Clay are just guys who are easily replaceable. Its nice that they are contributing but nobody expected them to theyve just been coached up.

We lost far more talemt last year and the defense got better. DE/BUCK/OLB is where we have the most CP recruits in the pipeline so somebody will step up.

You're going to the Sark was a great recruiter well? Why because everybody says so? One of the primary reasons we didn't have depth last year and we are so young this year is because the 2012 class was a total bust filled with Sark washouts. It's already abundantly clear that CP will have a higher hit rate with the 2 and 3* guys.

There are many areas of concern but recruiting and the defense are not among them.

 

[CokeGreaterThanPepsi]

I tend to be of the opinion that the fuckers in Vegas know what the fuck they are doing ...

They had UW pegged for 9 wins last year ... we had 8 and pissed away the Arizona game. Bottom line business says Petersen was -1 last year versus unbiased expectations.

They had UW pegged for 4 wins this year ... we already have 3. It's looking like Petersen will exceed expectations this year.

and Tyrone running the program. That's what a disaster looks like.

You called Tequilla? Let me tell you about failed expectations. I know about failed expectations.

---Numero uno (i'm fluent in your tortilla speak)

You said yourself that Petersen underperformed last year. -1. So he did worse than expected.

---Adios Seniors

We are losing Littleton, Feeney, Clay and Tupou on defense which are all major contributors. We may take a step back this year, and while the defense looks good now..it could be the last bit of talent before we step into an unknown world.

---TacoBell#3 Combo

In 2013 we were #3 in the Pac 12 in recruiting. We're now in the 6-8 range. I don't care about his bs OKG motto or whatever. Bottom line is Petersen won 8 games with Sarks drunk recruiting...if he fails to recruit better than Sark we are hosed. Because if he can't win with top quarter Pac-12 classes for upper classmen. He isn't going to win with middle of the pack classes either. This isn't boise. This is a Power 5.

So what's he's show me is...

- He will perform below unbias expectations.
- We are graduating some of our biggest contributors to Kawasaki's defense this year.
- He's recruiting lower than what we had when he showed up.

That all leads me to believe he's going to make us worse than what Sark did.

Awful analysis.

Littleton and Feeney are the big losses. Tupou and Clay are just guys who are easily replaceable. Its nice that they are contributing but nobody expected them to theyve just been coached up.

We lost far more talemt last year and the defense got better. DE/BUCK/OLB is where we have the most CP recruits in the pipeline so somebody will step up.

You're going to the Sark was a great recruiter well? Why because everybody says so? One of the primary reasons we didn't have depth last year and we are so young this year is because the 2012 class was a total bust filled with Sark washouts. It's already abundantly clear that CP will have a higher hit rate with the 2 and 3* guys.

There are many areas of concern but recruiting and the defense are not among them.

Basically my exact thoughts as well. For me all my concerns are on offense, which is not good at all.

The defense is sound and being well coached, it is sustainable as evidenced by getting better after losing the top end talent they lost last year. Plus, the recruiting on defense is going very well.

The offense and everything about it is my main and (quite, honestly) only major concern right now. Recruiting does matter, but evaluation and development are what truly matter. Sark "recruited" well by stars, but his evaluation, especially on offense was pure shit. Couple that with losing 50% of a class within 2 years of entering school and you are fucked.

 

[ThomasFremont]

I tend to be of the opinion that the fuckers in Vegas know what the fuck they are doing ...

They had UW pegged for 9 wins last year ... we had 8 and pissed away the Arizona game. Bottom line business says Petersen was -1 last year versus unbiased expectations.

They had UW pegged for 4 wins this year ... we already have 3. It's looking like Petersen will exceed expectations this year.

and Tyrone running the program. That's what a disaster looks like.

You called Tequilla? Let me tell you about failed expectations. I know about failed expectations.

---Numero uno (i'm fluent in your tortilla speak)

You said yourself that Petersen underperformed last year. -1. So he did worse than expected.

---Adios Seniors

We are losing Littleton, Feeney, Clay and Tupou on defense which are all major contributors. We may take a step back this year, and while the defense looks good now..it could be the last bit of talent before we step into an unknown world.

---TacoBell#3 Combo

In 2013 we were #3 in the Pac 12 in recruiting. We're now in the 6-8 range. I don't care about his bs OKG motto or whatever. Bottom line is Petersen won 8 games with Sarks drunk recruiting...if he fails to recruit better than Sark we are hosed. Because if he can't win with top quarter Pac-12 classes for upper classmen. He isn't going to win with middle of the pack classes either. This isn't boise. This is a Power 5.

So what's he's show me is...

- He will perform below unbias expectations.
- We are graduating some of our biggest contributors to Kawasaki's defense this year.
- He's recruiting lower than what we had when he showed up.

That all leads me to believe he's going to make us worse than what Sark did.

Recruiting doesn't matter if you can't develop talent, or ignore glaring gaps in the roster (Sark).

It also doesn't matter if you get all the OKGs in the world if you're running the worst offense in the conference (Pete). Water brained game management doesn't help either.

 

[Houhusky]

I tend to be of the opinion that the fuckers in Vegas know what the fuck they are doing ...

They had UW pegged for 9 wins last year ... we had 8 and pissed away the Arizona game. Bottom line business says Petersen was -1 last year versus unbiased expectations.

They had UW pegged for 4 wins this year ... we already have 3. It's looking like Petersen will exceed expectations this year.

and Tyrone running the program. That's what a disaster looks like.

You called Tequilla? Let me tell you about failed expectations. I know about failed expectations.

---Numero uno (i'm fluent in your tortilla speak)

You said yourself that Petersen underperformed last year. -1. So he did worse than expected.

---Adios Seniors

We are losing Littleton, Feeney, Clay and Tupou on defense which are all major contributors. We may take a step back this year, and while the defense looks good now..it could be the last bit of talent before we step into an unknown world.

---TacoBell#3 Combo

In 2013 we were #3 in the Pac 12 in recruiting. We're now in the 6-8 range. I don't care about his bs OKG motto or whatever. Bottom line is Petersen won 8 games with Sarks drunk recruiting...if he fails to recruit better than Sark we are hosed. Because if he can't win with top quarter Pac-12 classes for upper classmen. He isn't going to win with middle of the pack classes either. This isn't boise. This is a Power 5.

So what's he's show me is...

- He will perform below unbias expectations.
- We are graduating some of our biggest contributors to Kawasaki's defense this year.
- He's recruiting lower than what we had when he showed up.

That all leads me to believe he's going to make us worse than what Sark did.

Awful analysis.

Littleton and Feeney are the big losses. Tupou and Clay are just guys who are easily replaceable. Its nice that they are contributing but nobody expected them to theyve just been coached up.

We lost far more talemt last year and the defense got better. DE/BUCK/OLB is where we have the most CP recruits in the pipeline so somebody will step up.

You're going to the Sark was a great recruiter well? Why because everybody says so? One of the primary reasons we didn't have depth last year and we are so young this year is because the 2012 class was a total bust filled with Sark washouts. It's already abundantly clear that CP will have a higher hit rate with the 2 and 3* guys.

There are many areas of concern but recruiting and the defense are not among them.

Basically my exact thoughts as well. For me all my concerns are on offense, which is not good at all.

The defense is sound and being well coached, it is sustainable as evidenced by getting better after losing the top end talent they lost last year. Plus, the recruiting on defense is going very well.

The offense and everything about it is my main and (quite, honestly) only major concern right now. Recruiting does matter, but evaluation and development are what truly matter. Sark "recruited" well by stars, but his evaluation, especially on offense was pure shit. Couple that with losing 50% of a class within 2 years of entering school and you are fucked.

People forget that even Sark had positives going on with his team, all shitty teams have one or two things they can point to and say they have going for them. Remember Price in 2011 (as a RS Sophomore) breaking the UW single season TD passing record, throwing for 4 TDs and rushing for 3 against a ranked Baylor team in the bowl game... There are always a few positives, even for the shitty coaches.

Im not saying your are wrong, but it is going to be difficult to find anything positive to say after the tree DPs (Double plungers) our ass on national TV on ESPNs prime time midnight game.

 

[FremontTroll]

I tend to be of the opinion that the fuckers in Vegas know what the fuck they are doing ...

They had UW pegged for 9 wins last year ... we had 8 and pissed away the Arizona game. Bottom line business says Petersen was -1 last year versus unbiased expectations.

They had UW pegged for 4 wins this year ... we already have 3. It's looking like Petersen will exceed expectations this year.

and Tyrone running the program. That's what a disaster looks like.

You called Tequilla? Let me tell you about failed expectations. I know about failed expectations.

---Numero uno (i'm fluent in your tortilla speak)

You said yourself that Petersen underperformed last year. -1. So he did worse than expected.

---Adios Seniors

We are losing Littleton, Feeney, Clay and Tupou on defense which are all major contributors. We may take a step back this year, and while the defense looks good now..it could be the last bit of talent before we step into an unknown world.

---TacoBell#3 Combo

In 2013 we were #3 in the Pac 12 in recruiting. We're now in the 6-8 range. I don't care about his bs OKG motto or whatever. Bottom line is Petersen won 8 games with Sarks drunk recruiting...if he fails to recruit better than Sark we are hosed. Because if he can't win with top quarter Pac-12 classes for upper classmen. He isn't going to win with middle of the pack classes either. This isn't boise. This is a Power 5.

So what's he's show me is...

- He will perform below unbias expectations.
- We are graduating some of our biggest contributors to Kawasaki's defense this year.
- He's recruiting lower than what we had when he showed up.

That all leads me to believe he's going to make us worse than what Sark did.

Awful analysis.

Littleton and Feeney are the big losses. Tupou and Clay are just guys who are easily replaceable. Its nice that they are contributing but nobody expected them to theyve just been coached up.

We lost far more talemt last year and the defense got better. DE/BUCK/OLB is where we have the most CP recruits in the pipeline so somebody will step up.

You're going to the Sark was a great recruiter well? Why because everybody says so? One of the primary reasons we didn't have depth last year and we are so young this year is because the 2012 class was a total bust filled with Sark washouts. It's already abundantly clear that CP will have a higher hit rate with the 2 and 3* guys.

There are many areas of concern but recruiting and the defense are not among them.

Basically my exact thoughts as well. For me all my concerns are on offense, which is not good at all.

The defense is sound and being well coached, it is sustainable as evidenced by getting better after losing the top end talent they lost last year. Plus, the recruiting on defense is going very well.

The offense and everything about it is my main and (quite, honestly) only major concern right now. Recruiting does matter, but evaluation and development are what truly matter. Sark "recruited" well by stars, but his evaluation, especially on offense was pure shit. Couple that with losing 50% of a class within 2 years of entering school and you are fucked.

People forget that even Sark had positives going on with his team, all shitty teams have one or two things they can point to and say they have going for them. Remember Price in 2011 (as a RS Sophomore) breaking the UW single season TD passing record, throwing for 4 TDs and rushing for 3 against a ranked Baylor team in the bowl game... There are always a few positives, even for the shitty coaches.

Im not saying your are wrong, but it is going to be difficult to find anything positive to say after the tree DPs (Double plungers) our ass on national TV on ESPNs prime time midnight game.

What if I don't think we are getting plungered?

 

[mobey]

Just want it on record (take all the screenshots you need) that once again I am FIRST!!1! to recognize that the loser HC needs to be door.ass.out. ASAP.

No, we don't need to LIPO. We have seen enough.

No, we don't need better talent. The talent is there.

It's the head coach.

Always has been, always will be.

Yes, because all UW coaches should win all games.

Too bad we didn't fire DJ in year two at 5-6, it would have saved us from years of terrible teams.

Year 3 tells.

 

[RoadDawg55]

Petersen hasn't done anything to deserve patience. He's been doing poorly since he came on board. I'm talking about on-field results because everything else is bullshit. Saying he only needs an offense is true on the surface, but we'll see. Will Muschamp only needed an offense at Florida.

The coaching decisions, especially in close games are equally concerning. The good coaches win the majority of close games. Petersen has lost almost every one. Petersen does what he wants to do, regardless of whether it helps to win the game. He's still running his shitty offense after years of struggle. Browning throws 30+ times no matter what.

 

[ThomasFremont]

Just want it on record (take all the screenshots you need) that once again I am FIRST!!1! to recognize that the loser HC needs to be door.ass.out. ASAP.

No, we don't need to LIPO. We have seen enough.

No, we don't need better talent. The talent is there.

It's the head coach.

Always has been, always will be.

Yes, because all UW coaches should win all games.

Too bad we didn't fire DJ in year two at 5-6, it would have saved us from years of terrible teams.

Year 3 tells.

There's a pretty big gap between "should win all games" (which isn't what I said), and Pete's current 11-9 record.

HTH

 

[FremontTroll]

Petersen hasn't done anything to deserve patience. He's been doing poorly since he came on board. I'm talking about on-field results because everything else is bullshit. Saying he only needs an offense is true on the surface, but we'll see. Will Muschamp only needed an offense at Florida.

The coaching decisions, especially in close games are equally concerning. The good coaches win the majority of close games. Petersen has lost almost every one. Petersen does what he wants to do, regardless of whether it helps to win the game. He's still running his shitty offense after years of struggle. Browning throws 30+ times no matter what.

Actually record in close games is mostly luck and is not predictive. A good record in close games along with a highly positive turnover differential is a hallmark set up for an overachieving team due for a crash.

Just for an example that I saw recently...Bret Bielema started his career 21-12 in one-possession games. He then lost 13 in a row before beating Tennessee a couple weeks ago. Nick Saban is 7-7 in one possession games since 2010.

There is just only so much that a head coach can do to influence a game with time management and coaching strategy- the game is played on the field with an oblong and slippery pig skin that tends to bounce in the most unpredictable ways. What I'm saying is- there is a lot of luck involved.

THAT BEING SAID...CP has clearly negatively influenced UW's chances of winning multiple games with his clock management, 4th down decision-making, and general offensive scheme.

We can expect that the bad luck involved in some of the losses (Arizona namely) will even out over the long run HOWEVER if the coach is still making bad decisions that open up the possibility of luck going against UW that is still highly concerning.

We thought we were getting a coach that would take calculated risks and put his team in the best position to win. A coach that would have his team playing with an edge. I don't know if that coach ever existed but he hasn't shown up at Washington.

 

[RoadDawg55]

Petersen hasn't done anything to deserve patience. He's been doing poorly since he came on board. I'm talking about on-field results because everything else is bullshit. Saying he only needs an offense is true on the surface, but we'll see. Will Muschamp only needed an offense at Florida.

The coaching decisions, especially in close games are equally concerning. The good coaches win the majority of close games. Petersen has lost almost every one. Petersen does what he wants to do, regardless of whether it helps to win the game. He's still running his shitty offense after years of struggle. Browning throws 30+ times no matter what.

Actually record in close games is mostly luck and is not predictive. A good record in close games along with a highly positive turnover differential is a hallmark set up for an overachieving team due for a crash.

Just for an example that I saw recently...Bret Bielema started his career 21-12 in one-possession games. He then lost 13 in a row before beating Tennessee a couple weeks ago. Nick Saban is 7-7 in one possession games since 2010.

There is just only so much that a head coach can do to influence a game with time management and coaching strategy- the game is played on the field with an oblong and slippery pig skin that tends to bounce in the most unpredictable ways. What I'm saying is- there is a lot of luck involved.

THAT BEING SAID...CP has clearly negatively influenced UW's chances of winning multiple games with his clock management, 4th down decision-making, and general offensive scheme.

We can expect that the bad luck involved in some of the losses (Arizona namely) will even out over the long run HOWEVER if the coach is still making bad decisions that open up the possibility of luck going against UW that is still highly concerning.

We thought we were getting a coach that would take calculated risks and put his team in the best position to win. A coach that would have his team playing with an edge. I don't know if that coach ever existed but he hasn't shown up at Washington.

Turnovers and defensive scores have been frequent under Petersen. They have kept us in the game numerous times while the offense puttered around. The Boise and Cal games this year were only close games because of a defense/ST TD. Stanford and ASU last year. We lost anyways so it doesn't really matter, but fans use these "close" games ( all to mediocre teams) are a reason they think we are right there.

 

[FremontTroll]

Petersen hasn't done anything to deserve patience. He's been doing poorly since he came on board. I'm talking about on-field results because everything else is bullshit. Saying he only needs an offense is true on the surface, but we'll see. Will Muschamp only needed an offense at Florida.

The coaching decisions, especially in close games are equally concerning. The good coaches win the majority of close games. Petersen has lost almost every one. Petersen does what he wants to do, regardless of whether it helps to win the game. He's still running his shitty offense after years of struggle. Browning throws 30+ times no matter what.

Actually record in close games is mostly luck and is not predictive. A good record in close games along with a highly positive turnover differential is a hallmark set up for an overachieving team due for a crash.

Just for an example that I saw recently...Bret Bielema started his career 21-12 in one-possession games. He then lost 13 in a row before beating Tennessee a couple weeks ago. Nick Saban is 7-7 in one possession games since 2010.

There is just only so much that a head coach can do to influence a game with time management and coaching strategy- the game is played on the field with an oblong and slippery pig skin that tends to bounce in the most unpredictable ways. What I'm saying is- there is a lot of luck involved.

THAT BEING SAID...CP has clearly negatively influenced UW's chances of winning multiple games with his clock management, 4th down decision-making, and general offensive scheme.

We can expect that the bad luck involved in some of the losses (Arizona namely) will even out over the long run HOWEVER if the coach is still making bad decisions that open up the possibility of luck going against UW that is still highly concerning.

We thought we were getting a coach that would take calculated risks and put his team in the best position to win. A coach that would have his team playing with an edge. I don't know if that coach ever existed but he hasn't shown up at Washington.

Turnovers and defensive scores have been frequent under Petersen. They have kept us in the game numerous times while the offense puttered around. The Boise and Cal games this year were only close games because of a defense/ST TD. Stanford and ASU last year. We lost anyways so it doesn't really matter, but fans use these "close" games ( all to mediocre teams) are a reason they think we are right there.

True.

The way the team is set up leads to us losing a lot of "close" games in really ugly ways. The losses aren't as close as they look since our offense is completely incapable of putting together a drive when it matters. (this is why the fake punt against Stanford is who gives a fuck for me- we were never going to win that game anyways as exemplified by the 8 identical losses since then.)