Husky Fan Podcast: A Major Debate then 2 minutes on Arizona
- Thread starter HeretoBeatmyChest
- Start date
HeretoBeatmyChest
New Fish
@Houhusky
You generalize that the OL will have the same problems it had under Sark, Ty, etc.
The one big difference is we have a real strength program now and the coach played as an OL. That should have a big impact on the OL over time. Only one guy is playing as a true freshman (Adams) and overall the OL hasn't had any injuries (knock on wood). Another difference is recruiting. Sark's two blue chip recruits played early and their careers were ruined. In his first few classes Pete got more 4* OL then Sark for his entire tenure. The non blue chip guys do have good size and length and can be developed into something.
So we have better recruiting, better strength program and then Strausser over Coz who everyone hear hates. Unfortunately we don't have a mobile QB who can mitigate the problems of a developing OL. UCLA had that as it took Mora a few years to build a good OL there.
Again with the quality win shit? You are looking at it subjectively. So because WSU has a better record than USC, than beating WSU would be more of a quality win? Arizona has a better record than USC, would that be more of a quality win? What if we beat Cal by 1, Oregon by 1 and lost to USC by 25. We'd be 4-3 but would we really be a better team than what we have at present? We could be 9-4 next year but have the same SRS as this year. Most people don't care about the metrics and thats why most people don't know how to properly analyze a sport that gives us so few data points that are inconsistent with each other given the varied schedules. (And the metrics have stronger predictive value than W/L which is why no one should dismiss them.)
Your arguments are mostly typical emotional fan responses on small things outside of the big picture. Pete had to play Miles last year bc he was the best option. No one knew he'd suck until most of the season was over. He was the best guy available. Those pining for Lindquist have no idea how truly awful he is. He's playing Browning now bc he's the best guy. Next year will be a huge data point for everything but QB will be a big one. Browning's QBR is similar to Goff and Matt Barkley as freshman.
The bottom line. This was a major rebuilding season. Returned among the fewest starters nationally, lost its 5 best players (if you include Ross) and had to start true freshman at QB, OL with the rest of the OL being Sark's 2nd rate recruits. In the spring on our podcasts we were talking about this being a 4-5 win team. Cornell was saying 4 wins and we'd get blown out by Boise. Now Pete needs to win 8 games for him to think its a good year? People here have moved the goalposts for this year.
Most of the current frustration is bc we haven't been good in a long time and folks are carrying that angst. Deep down, posters here so badly want UW to be good that they have a negative lens for everything because they don't want to be disappointed again. If we went 10-3 in 2013 and 10-4 last year people likely would be more optimistic and accept that 2015 would be a rebuilding year. Had we beat Arizona and OSU last year we likely would have been #25-#30 SRS. We will see where things finish but dropping to #41 in a major rebuilding year is damn good for any team who is not a major power and for a program like UW who has basically had one good season in 14 years (2013) and even that was underachieving. Now it is reasonable to think Pete will max out at 8-9 wins the next few years with this group. That is fair but its incredibly difficult to make an argument that this year has been a failure or is below expectations.
At worst, the current young group will compete for the north over the next few years. Most of the best players are young and will get better. That means 8/9 wins. At best, this team will win the north next year and the conference the year after. Regardless, the program will improve the next two years enough for our recruiting to bump up from the 3.1-3.2 level to +3.3. (When Stanford and Oregon started winning, their recruiting improved and they were at 3.4-3.5 consistently). Recruiting is going well but its failed to get above that key 3.3 level. It will start to exceed it within two years and the next group of players will be more talented.
I'm shocked that most people would bet on Pete not even winning the north once. If you polled people nationally, the overwhelming response would be yes, whereas on this board it would be no. Thats purely a reflection of how emotionally damaged everyone here is.
You generalize that the OL will have the same problems it had under Sark, Ty, etc.
The one big difference is we have a real strength program now and the coach played as an OL. That should have a big impact on the OL over time. Only one guy is playing as a true freshman (Adams) and overall the OL hasn't had any injuries (knock on wood). Another difference is recruiting. Sark's two blue chip recruits played early and their careers were ruined. In his first few classes Pete got more 4* OL then Sark for his entire tenure. The non blue chip guys do have good size and length and can be developed into something.
So we have better recruiting, better strength program and then Strausser over Coz who everyone hear hates. Unfortunately we don't have a mobile QB who can mitigate the problems of a developing OL. UCLA had that as it took Mora a few years to build a good OL there.
Again with the quality win shit? You are looking at it subjectively. So because WSU has a better record than USC, than beating WSU would be more of a quality win? Arizona has a better record than USC, would that be more of a quality win? What if we beat Cal by 1, Oregon by 1 and lost to USC by 25. We'd be 4-3 but would we really be a better team than what we have at present? We could be 9-4 next year but have the same SRS as this year. Most people don't care about the metrics and thats why most people don't know how to properly analyze a sport that gives us so few data points that are inconsistent with each other given the varied schedules. (And the metrics have stronger predictive value than W/L which is why no one should dismiss them.)
Your arguments are mostly typical emotional fan responses on small things outside of the big picture. Pete had to play Miles last year bc he was the best option. No one knew he'd suck until most of the season was over. He was the best guy available. Those pining for Lindquist have no idea how truly awful he is. He's playing Browning now bc he's the best guy. Next year will be a huge data point for everything but QB will be a big one. Browning's QBR is similar to Goff and Matt Barkley as freshman.
The bottom line. This was a major rebuilding season. Returned among the fewest starters nationally, lost its 5 best players (if you include Ross) and had to start true freshman at QB, OL with the rest of the OL being Sark's 2nd rate recruits. In the spring on our podcasts we were talking about this being a 4-5 win team. Cornell was saying 4 wins and we'd get blown out by Boise. Now Pete needs to win 8 games for him to think its a good year? People here have moved the goalposts for this year.
Most of the current frustration is bc we haven't been good in a long time and folks are carrying that angst. Deep down, posters here so badly want UW to be good that they have a negative lens for everything because they don't want to be disappointed again. If we went 10-3 in 2013 and 10-4 last year people likely would be more optimistic and accept that 2015 would be a rebuilding year. Had we beat Arizona and OSU last year we likely would have been #25-#30 SRS. We will see where things finish but dropping to #41 in a major rebuilding year is damn good for any team who is not a major power and for a program like UW who has basically had one good season in 14 years (2013) and even that was underachieving. Now it is reasonable to think Pete will max out at 8-9 wins the next few years with this group. That is fair but its incredibly difficult to make an argument that this year has been a failure or is below expectations.
At worst, the current young group will compete for the north over the next few years. Most of the best players are young and will get better. That means 8/9 wins. At best, this team will win the north next year and the conference the year after. Regardless, the program will improve the next two years enough for our recruiting to bump up from the 3.1-3.2 level to +3.3. (When Stanford and Oregon started winning, their recruiting improved and they were at 3.4-3.5 consistently). Recruiting is going well but its failed to get above that key 3.3 level. It will start to exceed it within two years and the next group of players will be more talented.
I'm shocked that most people would bet on Pete not even winning the north once. If you polled people nationally, the overwhelming response would be yes, whereas on this board it would be no. Thats purely a reflection of how emotionally damaged everyone here is.
HeretoBeatmyChest
New Fish
No knowledge of anything but my guess is Smith is already gone. Just judging from Pete and Smith's interaction and Smith's demeanor in interviews.
A change in OC though does not necessarily mean the offense will be a lot better.
HeretoBeatmyChest
New Fish
The North is wide open and Stanford and Oregon have as many, if not more "if's than UW.
I expect at least some will pick UW to win the north. If WSU finishes 7-5, they probably will get at least one first place vote.
FremontTroll
New Fish
Major Rebuilding Year™
I'm not at all surprised you think that. None of it means a fucking thing if Petersen doesn't win. The fact that this much digging needs to be done to prop Petersen up shows that things aren't going that well. The bottom line is none of you fucks besides Puppy predicted Petersen to be 11-10 (5-8 in Pac 12) at UW after 21 games. It's bad.
Recruiting: How does it compare to the rest of the conference? At UW, Petersen will have to win without the best talent in the conference. So far, I haven't seen much that leads me to believe he can.
We all understand that we are young. We all understand this team wasn't winning 10 games, but it's still disheartening to lose home games to mediocre teams especially when the conference is down. Is there a single genuinely good team outside of Stanford in this conference? There are maybe 1-2 teams that could squeak into the top 25.
Poo pooing Petersen being 2-9 or whatever against winning teams is as doogish as it fucking gets. We have the worst offense in the conference again. This will be Petersen's 4th straight season with a declining win total. It's early, but we have two years of decline at UW from that special 2013 season. The other Boise State coaches all failed after leaving Boise. Your head is in the sand if you dismiss all of these things.
I honestly don't think Petersen will win championships at UW. I know some coaches take off later in their tenures, but many don't. It's context, but it has nothing to do with how Petersen will do at UW.
How are we surpassing Oregon or Stanford?
Oregon is serious about football. Luckily they have Helfrich coaching, but they still have a lot of talent and the proper backing. The game is in Eugene next year and quite frankly, they own this program until proven otherwise. Their program is superior to UW's any way you measure it.
Stanford develops their players better than anyone else in the league. They lose Hogan, but they will still have a lot of studs on the team. They have lost a lot of really good players the past few years and they keep marching on.
Support Petersen if he wins. He hasn't so far so fuck him.
Last edited:
doogsinparadise
New Fish
11-10.
Tequilla
Active poster
And @RoadDawg55 once again proves that he can't see the forest through the weeds ...
I just took a quick look at a 5-year trending of SRS for the 12 teams in the PAC and if I get around to it this weekend I'll put some charts/thoughts together on the topic. As Chest mentioned, we're better per the metrics this year than we were last year (currently 38th versus 41st last year). Moreover, if you look at the 5 year trending of UW, it's been since 2011: 57, 49, 13, 41, 38.
The last time we had what we thought was a massive rebuilding season (2012) not only were we a better team than we thought (in hindsight), but it also provided the spring board into what should have been a high end team in 2013.
Think back to what was in place in 2013:
3-year starter at QB
Depth at the skill positions
Foundation built for strong defensive team
These are characteristics that you're looking for when looking for teams that should be contenders to win their conference/division. But instead, what we found was a mentally soft team that didn't perform well when they were punched in the mouth.
Now, setting every single thing to the side about what Pete has or has not done well yet, the one thing that I don't think anybody can argue with is that comparatively to the Sarkisian coached teams, the Pete coached teams have shown a consistent ability to play hard for 60 minutes and outscore teams over the 2nd half. When they get punched and knocked down, they have a resiliency to get back up and punch back. That's not by chance. That's a mentality being built into the program. Something that will serve this program well in the long run.
In the 5 year SRS trends for Washington that I mentioned above, I also think that it is important to note where UW stands in relation to the average SRS of the conference over that period: 52.3, 42.9, 29.8, 36.8, and 44.3. Only in 2013 and 2015 has UW fielded a team that is considered an above average team in the conference. I do think that this is important to keep in mind.
There has been a lot of talk about record and whatnot (with reason) and included in that has been a consideration of how the Cougs have done this year so far. And, without taking anything away from them, they are only responsible for playing those on the schedule as they come. But at the same time, it's why looking at records midway through the year can be a bit of a challenge and misleading. After all, why according to SRS is UW (an under .500 team) ranked at 38 while the Cougs and their gaudy 5-2 record is at 63? Let's take away the names of the teams that each has played (excluding the D2 teams) and instead compare the SRS's of the teams that they have played YTD and what remains on their schedule:
UW:
@ 40: L
vs 66: W
vs 28: L
@ 10: W
vs 51: L
@ 8: L
vs 64: TBD
vs 11: TBD
@ 54: TBD
@ 97: TBD
vs 63: TBD
WSU:
@78: W
vs 125: W
@ 28: L
@ 51: W
vs 97: W
@ 64: W
vs 8: TBD
vs 54: TBD
@ 18: TBD
vs 90: TBD
@ 38: TBD
The big takeaways here are that UW's schedule that they've played so far this year has been a challenge. They've probably lost the games that they should have (barring the USC game) and won the games that they should have (barring Oregon, although I think that their numbers are slightly skewed lower with Adams missing most of the year so far). Switch the order of the games with Wazzu where we play Oregon without Adams/Carrington and Cougs play with Adams/Carrington, the results are probably switched. Is that an excuse? No. UW still had enough chances to win the game on their own merits. But it also goes to show that when you play teams and what injuries they have at the time does matter.
A second takeaway from the UW standpoint is that the schedule gets very friendly over the next few weeks. Assuming Browning plays, the Arizona game at home looks very winnable as does the game at Oregon State. The Cougs and Arizona are very comparable skill level teams and getting the Cougs at home makes that also very winnable. Arizona State is probably a toss up game on the road. Utah at home is definitely one that on paper we probably aren't supposed to win. However, given the general performance this year, we shouldn't expect to be blown out either.
The Cougs look like the sexy team right now because they are 3-1 in conference. But by the numbers, they look at best like a 5-4 conference team as they should lose to Stanford, @ UCLA, and at best split the ASU/UW games. In contrast, UW looks to be down on the luck by having a front loaded schedule sitting at 1-3 but there's at least 3 winnable games remaining on the schedule and very possibly a 4th. Switch Utah/Colorado between the two teams and there's not even a debate. As @HeretoBeatmyChest talks about, given that schedules are not comparable anymore, even for teams in the same division, you do have to look just a little further under the rug when trying to figure out where teams are at in the process.
The only year in the last 4 where UW has gone backwards (so far for 2015) is last year ... which is really when Pete "blew it up" while also inheriting nothing at the QB position that has magnified the shortcomings of Smith (which may be a blessing in disguise in the long run). Even when you go back and look at the losses from last year, generally speaking, UW has been losing to the teams that they are supposed to lose to and beating the teams that they should beat (last year's losses and SRS as follows, recall UW's SRS last year was 41):
vs Stanford: 20
@ Oregon: 1
vs Arizona St: 16
vs UCLA: 14
@ Arizona: 22
vs Oklahoma St: 65
The only outlier on this list is Oklahoma St who meandered through a forgettable 2014 season before turning to a true frosh QB in November, growing up a bit during the month, getting better with the 15 bowl practices, and is now sitting undefeated this year and ranked 22nd in SRS).
So really, when you look at it, the biggest complaint (outside of Smith/Pease) that you can have with the program at this point is that it's winning the games that it is supposed to and not finding ways to win a lot of games that it isn't. In my mind, that's something that you don't really start seeing until the depth of a program's culture is fully developed.
And not that this should be terribly surprising for those that pay attention, but the programs in the conference that are in big trouble right now in terms of trending are Oregon (from 2011-2014, SRS was never outside of 5, 51 this year) and Arizona St (54th this year, has gone up from 7th in 2013 to 16th in 2014). Arizona's downturn this year would be a red flag in my mind that's too early to call on whether or not their injury problems are the main cause or whether it's Rich Rod being Rich Rod. UCLA has also slightly gotten worse since 2013 but the level of talent that they bring in continues to keep them in the top 20. Also, perhaps not surprisingly, Kyle Whittingham is a good coach as over the last few years the fruits of Utah joining the PAC and being able to recruit better athletes (compared to their first few years in the league playing with Mountain West players weekly in the PAC) is paying off as they've gone from 60th in SRS in 2012 to 11th this year.
I just took a quick look at a 5-year trending of SRS for the 12 teams in the PAC and if I get around to it this weekend I'll put some charts/thoughts together on the topic. As Chest mentioned, we're better per the metrics this year than we were last year (currently 38th versus 41st last year). Moreover, if you look at the 5 year trending of UW, it's been since 2011: 57, 49, 13, 41, 38.
The last time we had what we thought was a massive rebuilding season (2012) not only were we a better team than we thought (in hindsight), but it also provided the spring board into what should have been a high end team in 2013.
Think back to what was in place in 2013:
3-year starter at QB
Depth at the skill positions
Foundation built for strong defensive team
These are characteristics that you're looking for when looking for teams that should be contenders to win their conference/division. But instead, what we found was a mentally soft team that didn't perform well when they were punched in the mouth.
Now, setting every single thing to the side about what Pete has or has not done well yet, the one thing that I don't think anybody can argue with is that comparatively to the Sarkisian coached teams, the Pete coached teams have shown a consistent ability to play hard for 60 minutes and outscore teams over the 2nd half. When they get punched and knocked down, they have a resiliency to get back up and punch back. That's not by chance. That's a mentality being built into the program. Something that will serve this program well in the long run.
In the 5 year SRS trends for Washington that I mentioned above, I also think that it is important to note where UW stands in relation to the average SRS of the conference over that period: 52.3, 42.9, 29.8, 36.8, and 44.3. Only in 2013 and 2015 has UW fielded a team that is considered an above average team in the conference. I do think that this is important to keep in mind.
There has been a lot of talk about record and whatnot (with reason) and included in that has been a consideration of how the Cougs have done this year so far. And, without taking anything away from them, they are only responsible for playing those on the schedule as they come. But at the same time, it's why looking at records midway through the year can be a bit of a challenge and misleading. After all, why according to SRS is UW (an under .500 team) ranked at 38 while the Cougs and their gaudy 5-2 record is at 63? Let's take away the names of the teams that each has played (excluding the D2 teams) and instead compare the SRS's of the teams that they have played YTD and what remains on their schedule:
UW:
@ 40: L
vs 66: W
vs 28: L
@ 10: W
vs 51: L
@ 8: L
vs 64: TBD
vs 11: TBD
@ 54: TBD
@ 97: TBD
vs 63: TBD
WSU:
@78: W
vs 125: W
@ 28: L
@ 51: W
vs 97: W
@ 64: W
vs 8: TBD
vs 54: TBD
@ 18: TBD
vs 90: TBD
@ 38: TBD
The big takeaways here are that UW's schedule that they've played so far this year has been a challenge. They've probably lost the games that they should have (barring the USC game) and won the games that they should have (barring Oregon, although I think that their numbers are slightly skewed lower with Adams missing most of the year so far). Switch the order of the games with Wazzu where we play Oregon without Adams/Carrington and Cougs play with Adams/Carrington, the results are probably switched. Is that an excuse? No. UW still had enough chances to win the game on their own merits. But it also goes to show that when you play teams and what injuries they have at the time does matter.
A second takeaway from the UW standpoint is that the schedule gets very friendly over the next few weeks. Assuming Browning plays, the Arizona game at home looks very winnable as does the game at Oregon State. The Cougs and Arizona are very comparable skill level teams and getting the Cougs at home makes that also very winnable. Arizona State is probably a toss up game on the road. Utah at home is definitely one that on paper we probably aren't supposed to win. However, given the general performance this year, we shouldn't expect to be blown out either.
The Cougs look like the sexy team right now because they are 3-1 in conference. But by the numbers, they look at best like a 5-4 conference team as they should lose to Stanford, @ UCLA, and at best split the ASU/UW games. In contrast, UW looks to be down on the luck by having a front loaded schedule sitting at 1-3 but there's at least 3 winnable games remaining on the schedule and very possibly a 4th. Switch Utah/Colorado between the two teams and there's not even a debate. As @HeretoBeatmyChest talks about, given that schedules are not comparable anymore, even for teams in the same division, you do have to look just a little further under the rug when trying to figure out where teams are at in the process.
The only year in the last 4 where UW has gone backwards (so far for 2015) is last year ... which is really when Pete "blew it up" while also inheriting nothing at the QB position that has magnified the shortcomings of Smith (which may be a blessing in disguise in the long run). Even when you go back and look at the losses from last year, generally speaking, UW has been losing to the teams that they are supposed to lose to and beating the teams that they should beat (last year's losses and SRS as follows, recall UW's SRS last year was 41):
vs Stanford: 20
@ Oregon: 1
vs Arizona St: 16
vs UCLA: 14
@ Arizona: 22
vs Oklahoma St: 65
The only outlier on this list is Oklahoma St who meandered through a forgettable 2014 season before turning to a true frosh QB in November, growing up a bit during the month, getting better with the 15 bowl practices, and is now sitting undefeated this year and ranked 22nd in SRS).
So really, when you look at it, the biggest complaint (outside of Smith/Pease) that you can have with the program at this point is that it's winning the games that it is supposed to and not finding ways to win a lot of games that it isn't. In my mind, that's something that you don't really start seeing until the depth of a program's culture is fully developed.
And not that this should be terribly surprising for those that pay attention, but the programs in the conference that are in big trouble right now in terms of trending are Oregon (from 2011-2014, SRS was never outside of 5, 51 this year) and Arizona St (54th this year, has gone up from 7th in 2013 to 16th in 2014). Arizona's downturn this year would be a red flag in my mind that's too early to call on whether or not their injury problems are the main cause or whether it's Rich Rod being Rich Rod. UCLA has also slightly gotten worse since 2013 but the level of talent that they bring in continues to keep them in the top 20. Also, perhaps not surprisingly, Kyle Whittingham is a good coach as over the last few years the fruits of Utah joining the PAC and being able to recruit better athletes (compared to their first few years in the league playing with Mountain West players weekly in the PAC) is paying off as they've gone from 60th in SRS in 2012 to 11th this year.
I understand that SRS does matter, and it shows meaning behind the curtain, but for fucks sake, scoreboard baby!?!?!!?
I get it, we are probably slightly better than our record indicates, but that and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee. There is no 2nd place in the North SRS trophy. At the end of the day, metrics may say things are trending better (and they may in fact be), but I still see our record, and it sucks. And our record is how we are judged, and ranked, and as it stands we will not be at whatever bowl the 41st best team in the country gets to go to (unless we run the table). If we even get bowl eligible, we will be at the retard paint eating bowel for the 8th place team in the dreck Pac-12 or whatever the fuck.
Bleh.
I get it, we are probably slightly better than our record indicates, but that and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee. There is no 2nd place in the North SRS trophy. At the end of the day, metrics may say things are trending better (and they may in fact be), but I still see our record, and it sucks. And our record is how we are judged, and ranked, and as it stands we will not be at whatever bowl the 41st best team in the country gets to go to (unless we run the table). If we even get bowl eligible, we will be at the retard paint eating bowel for the 8th place team in the dreck Pac-12 or whatever the fuck.
Bleh.
The idea of the grand triple bomb exit is growing more intriguing
Tequilla
Active poster
@Swaye
I get your frustration ... I really do. It's also why I think the points that Chest has made over the last 1-2 weeks are so important.
I absolutely think that a lot of the frustration from so many isn't really about Pete but more of an indictment on the performance of this program over the past 15 years. It's the impatience of wanting a winner. It's the feeling of hope and optimism that the Pete hire had that hasn't turned into instant gratification.
Before the season, as Chest pointed out, there was a lot of talk about getting to a bowl being a really good season. This was shaping up to be a long year ... it was KNOWN before the season. Now some of the very same people are moving the goal posts ... and some of the people doing this are also the very same people that are quick to the draw on accusing others of moving the goal posts.
If this year ends at 4-8 or 5-7, I think that there's definitely room to be concerned going forward.
If this year ends without a change being made with Smith (and in my mind also Pease), I think that there's room to be very concerned.
As both Chest and Pepsi have called out, there's no doubt that there's some areas where there's room for concern moving forward. But at that point, we're talking about things that have so many variables behind where we are when we get there that's its undoubtedly the proverbial jumping the gun. Judging this year on its merits, all indications are that this year will end up being ahead of schedule ... which ultimately, 2 months ago, we would have all been very pleased with.
It's hard in a world that is growing more and more into impatience and rewarding the here and now to stay patient and the course. We all want the instant fix and the magical wand waved. But it doesn't happen like that often. The program is moving in the right direction. The numbers and metrics are saying as much. Both are emotionless. And particularly in times like these, taking the emotion out of the equation is really what is needed.
I get your frustration ... I really do. It's also why I think the points that Chest has made over the last 1-2 weeks are so important.
I absolutely think that a lot of the frustration from so many isn't really about Pete but more of an indictment on the performance of this program over the past 15 years. It's the impatience of wanting a winner. It's the feeling of hope and optimism that the Pete hire had that hasn't turned into instant gratification.
Before the season, as Chest pointed out, there was a lot of talk about getting to a bowl being a really good season. This was shaping up to be a long year ... it was KNOWN before the season. Now some of the very same people are moving the goal posts ... and some of the people doing this are also the very same people that are quick to the draw on accusing others of moving the goal posts.
If this year ends at 4-8 or 5-7, I think that there's definitely room to be concerned going forward.
If this year ends without a change being made with Smith (and in my mind also Pease), I think that there's room to be very concerned.
As both Chest and Pepsi have called out, there's no doubt that there's some areas where there's room for concern moving forward. But at that point, we're talking about things that have so many variables behind where we are when we get there that's its undoubtedly the proverbial jumping the gun. Judging this year on its merits, all indications are that this year will end up being ahead of schedule ... which ultimately, 2 months ago, we would have all been very pleased with.
It's hard in a world that is growing more and more into impatience and rewarding the here and now to stay patient and the course. We all want the instant fix and the magical wand waved. But it doesn't happen like that often. The program is moving in the right direction. The numbers and metrics are saying as much. Both are emotionless. And particularly in times like these, taking the emotion out of the equation is really what is needed.
I do get what you, Chest and others are saying. But, I guess I am in the Race (and others camp) that are just completely exhausted with the "wait until next year" refrain. I have been waiting for next year for 15 years (perhaps this is the emotionally damaged thing Chest speaks of). I am sick of waiting for shit that never seems to happen. Other coaches come in, fix shit, and start winning. Why are we the only ones that always need all this culture shift shit?
I guess I am just exhausted by the whole fucking thing. As I have stated elsewhere, were it not for this merry band of miscreants (community), I would have probably already moved on. It sure seems to me that I spent a whole bunch of fucking years being way more invested in this team than anyone in the AD is. That's a problem.
Last edited:
FremontTroll
New Fish
WSU?
WSU?!?
Who gives a shit about WSU.
"The Cougs are a sexy team" said no strawman ever.
The Cougs suck. So do we.
We all want to not suck.
We probably won't suck in the next couple years which will be awesome but will we top out at 9 wins again or will we compete for a conference title?
With every additional loss to the "teams we are supposed to lose to" during these "major rebuilding year(s)" scenario one looks more and more likely.
Last edited:
doogsinparadise
New Fish
Jesus fucking christ dude, have you even been watching the games? I don't need to read a fucking novella on SRS to see that the coaching staff has blown 3-4 games over the past year and a half. They're close to losing the team, and they've clearly already lost the fans.
Tequilla
Active poster
Agree with your last point ... and that's a huge area of concern for me.
But as it comes to the program and what Pete is doing, it's also not fair for me to put 12-15 years of frustrations that he wasn't responsible for on his shoulders.
I get that it is easier said than done, but trying to separate what's happened and can't change versus sitting back and judging what is happening in the here and now on its own merits is the only way to avoid the pitfalls of jumping off the ledge every other week.
I really do question what happens if say next year we go 10-2 what the reaction will be when we lose those 2 games. I think so many here so desperately want to have a huge winner (in part because those assholes in Eugene have thrown it in our face for so long) that we need a natty to throw it back on them. Not that I disagree with that, but I guess if there's anything getting older and living through the last 15 years has taught me, it's I guess a little bit of perspective:
Back when I was a kid, growing up with the 1990-1992 teams, you never thought about losing. The week the Billy Joe stuff came out, he got suspended, and we lost at Arizona was one of the worst days I can remember as a kid. I hadn't been stomach punched by a game like that as a kid. The last loss prior to that was in 1990 when Greg Lewis got hurt and we lost a game to UCLA at home in the rain ... only thing that that loss told me was that Greg Lewis was really good and our offense wasn't without him. But by 1992, the thought of UW losing another game ever just didn't occur to me.
The only other game where I remember losing my shit on a bit was losing at Oregon in 2000 knowing that we had a good team and that the loss had a good chance to cost us a trip to the Rose Bowl and a National Championship.
But the losses over the years in key spots (both by UW and TCU), as well as the down period for UW, has taught me that winning isn't easy and is far from a given. When sitting in the Top 10, you're going to get everybody's best shot and you are going to lose a game from time to time that you shouldn't. There's going to be some great moments in there as well as your team shows the character and fight in coming back when down and out to win a game that you shouldn't win. And sometimes you'll play another good team and they'll make one more play in the game than you do.
Right now, all I want from the program is to get itself back into a position where it is competing for the conference championship. I'll worry about more than that once we're back there. But I'm going to enjoy the ride on the way up as you see things that are building the foundation for the future because that ride is going to be starting before most realize it. And trust me, after what I've gone through the last 2 years with TCU, it's a fun ride when it happens.
But as it comes to the program and what Pete is doing, it's also not fair for me to put 12-15 years of frustrations that he wasn't responsible for on his shoulders.
I get that it is easier said than done, but trying to separate what's happened and can't change versus sitting back and judging what is happening in the here and now on its own merits is the only way to avoid the pitfalls of jumping off the ledge every other week.
I really do question what happens if say next year we go 10-2 what the reaction will be when we lose those 2 games. I think so many here so desperately want to have a huge winner (in part because those assholes in Eugene have thrown it in our face for so long) that we need a natty to throw it back on them. Not that I disagree with that, but I guess if there's anything getting older and living through the last 15 years has taught me, it's I guess a little bit of perspective:
Back when I was a kid, growing up with the 1990-1992 teams, you never thought about losing. The week the Billy Joe stuff came out, he got suspended, and we lost at Arizona was one of the worst days I can remember as a kid. I hadn't been stomach punched by a game like that as a kid. The last loss prior to that was in 1990 when Greg Lewis got hurt and we lost a game to UCLA at home in the rain ... only thing that that loss told me was that Greg Lewis was really good and our offense wasn't without him. But by 1992, the thought of UW losing another game ever just didn't occur to me.
The only other game where I remember losing my shit on a bit was losing at Oregon in 2000 knowing that we had a good team and that the loss had a good chance to cost us a trip to the Rose Bowl and a National Championship.
But the losses over the years in key spots (both by UW and TCU), as well as the down period for UW, has taught me that winning isn't easy and is far from a given. When sitting in the Top 10, you're going to get everybody's best shot and you are going to lose a game from time to time that you shouldn't. There's going to be some great moments in there as well as your team shows the character and fight in coming back when down and out to win a game that you shouldn't win. And sometimes you'll play another good team and they'll make one more play in the game than you do.
Right now, all I want from the program is to get itself back into a position where it is competing for the conference championship. I'll worry about more than that once we're back there. But I'm going to enjoy the ride on the way up as you see things that are building the foundation for the future because that ride is going to be starting before most realize it. And trust me, after what I've gone through the last 2 years with TCU, it's a fun ride when it happens.
Tequilla
Active poster
I'd love to know which 3-4 games that were blown. @TheChart rightfully said that plays needed to be run against Arizona last year and that you couldn't just take a knee and run the clock out. Failure to run the clock out results in a punt situation (see Michigan vs Michigan St) or a game last year involving I believe East Carolina where one of the teams took a knee to leave essentially a hail mary attempt against them and then were scored on. Would you be saying that Harbaugh blew the Michigan St game?
It's why I've said that the offseason is going to be the crucial part of Petersen's tenure in how he fixes the offense, fires Smith (and Pease), and what he does for replacements. Doing nothing WILL lose the team.
As for the fans, honestly, at this point, fuck them. This was going to be a long year regardless. People are generally irrational and citing attendance on a night where the majority are not going to go out of their way to watch a rebuilding team when there are plenty of other alternatives for entertainment isn't exactly going out on a limb.
As I said before the season, I thought that there was a lot more talent on this team than people were giving credit for and will still be surprised if they don't make it to a bowl game. I will be far from shocked if we don't end up going 4-1 to end the season. I think that that is very, very doable.
doogsinparadise
New Fish
TL, DR.
As for perspective, if football's just a game then why get so worked up about it? Why invest that much of your personal worth in a game? But I think we all know that it has a much deeper impact on our lives than that, and so that's why you have to hold the line against mediocrity. Because as pathetic as freaking out about a game would be, it's a whole lot worse to freak out about a game that you fucking suck at. Besides that there's the massive amount of money invested in the program, and if you're going to suck it isn't ethical to not move that money somewhere else like full scholarships for baseball players or whatever.
As for perspective, if football's just a game then why get so worked up about it? Why invest that much of your personal worth in a game? But I think we all know that it has a much deeper impact on our lives than that, and so that's why you have to hold the line against mediocrity. Because as pathetic as freaking out about a game would be, it's a whole lot worse to freak out about a game that you fucking suck at. Besides that there's the massive amount of money invested in the program, and if you're going to suck it isn't ethical to not move that money somewhere else like full scholarships for baseball players or whatever.
CokeGreaterThanPepsi
New Fish
I agree with everyone on this thread to a degree. I am frustrated as fuck too about the past 15 years, I hate our offense and Petersen is responsible for that. I also believe that we can get better in a hurry next year. I don't think anyone in this thread is "wrong".... Unless puppy came over and said he'd be happy with 7 wins in 2016.