Jake Locker TD run against Arizona

[DerekJohnson]

Locker was the ultimate cock tease

Didn't FINISH

He was a great talent but avg qb. Would have looked great for chip Kelly though.

The oft maligned Rick would have used him like Tui. Which would have been great

Seriously, we might have been in the running for a Rose Bowl berth in 2010

 

[RoadDawg55]

Locker was the ultimate cock tease

Didn't FINISH

He was a great talent but avg qb. Would have looked great for chip Kelly though.

The oft maligned Rick would have used him like Tui. Which would have been great

Seriously, we might have been in the running for a Rose Bowl berth in 2010

No. Mason Foster was the only good player on defense. We got destroyed often.

 

[RaceBannon]

Locker was the ultimate cock tease

Didn't FINISH

He was a great talent but avg qb. Would have looked great for chip Kelly though.

The oft maligned Rick would have used him like Tui. Which would have been great

Seriously, we might have been in the running for a Rose Bowl berth in 2010

No. Mason Foster was the only good player on defense. We got destroyed often.

Petersen was initially loved because he brought defense back to UW

If only he was as good at offense as his press clippings

Statue of liberty play at the Fiesta Bowl gif

 

[DerekJohnson]

Locker was the ultimate cock tease

Didn't FINISH

He was a great talent but avg qb. Would have looked great for chip Kelly though.

The oft maligned Rick would have used him like Tui. Which would have been great

Seriously, we might have been in the running for a Rose Bowl berth in 2010

No. Mason Foster was the only good player on defense. We got destroyed often.

How many times did we go three and out that year? A ton. And we finished 3rd in the conference as it was. Running the Tui offense might have netted 1-2 more wins, and thus put UW in the running heading into November. Only Oregon and Stanford had better conference records.

Now, does this mean I think we would have been a great team with an excellent shot at the RB? No. After all, Sark was our coach and Holt was our DC. I'm just saying the conference was so weak and we would have been better than trying to make Locker into something he wasn't, that we could have made it more interesting.

 

[chuck]

Locker was the ultimate cock tease

Didn't FINISH

He was a great talent but avg qb. Would have looked great for chip Kelly though.

The oft maligned Rick would have used him like Tui. Which would have been great

Seriously, we might have been in the running for a Rose Bowl berth in 2010

No. Mason Foster was the only good player on defense. We got destroyed often.

How many times did we go three and out that year? A ton. And we finished 3rd in the conference as it was. Running the Tui offense might have netted 1-2 more wins, and thus put UW in the running heading into November. Only Oregon and Stanford had better conference records.

Now, does this mean I think we would have been a great team with an excellent shot at the RB? No. After all, Sark was our coach and Holt was our DC. I'm just saying the conference was so weak and we would have been better than trying to make Locker into something he wasn't, that we could have made it more interesting.

I also think a better offense would have helped that defense a lot. There wasn't a ton of talent but they were playing with the Sark three and out handicap.

 

[WoolleyDoog]

2010 Oregon and Stanford were super legit to the point I have a hard time seeing a UW team of that era getting past them, but the rest of the conference was legit terrible.

Those Sark teams probably could have won the conference the past four years or at least been in serious contention. Pete and the program picked a terrible time to unnecessarily tank.

 

[RaceBannon]

Locker was the ultimate cock tease

Didn't FINISH

He was a great talent but avg qb. Would have looked great for chip Kelly though.

The oft maligned Rick would have used him like Tui. Which would have been great

Seriously, we might have been in the running for a Rose Bowl berth in 2010

No. Mason Foster was the only good player on defense. We got destroyed often.

How many times did we go three and out that year? A ton. And we finished 3rd in the conference as it was. Running the Tui offense might have netted 1-2 more wins, and thus put UW in the running heading into November. Only Oregon and Stanford had better conference records.

Now, does this mean I think we would have been a great team with an excellent shot at the RB? No. After all, Sark was our coach and Holt was our DC. I'm just saying the conference was so weak and we would have been better than trying to make Locker into something he wasn't, that we could have made it more interesting.

I also think a better offense would have helped that defense a lot. There wasn't a ton of talent but they were playing with the Sark three and out handicap.

Then we got the second half against Oregon three and outs and the settle for a field goal blues under Pete in 18 and 19

Finding a way to lose

 

[chuck]

Locker was the ultimate cock tease

Didn't FINISH

He was a great talent but avg qb. Would have looked great for chip Kelly though.

The oft maligned Rick would have used him like Tui. Which would have been great

Seriously, we might have been in the running for a Rose Bowl berth in 2010

No. Mason Foster was the only good player on defense. We got destroyed often.

How many times did we go three and out that year? A ton. And we finished 3rd in the conference as it was. Running the Tui offense might have netted 1-2 more wins, and thus put UW in the running heading into November. Only Oregon and Stanford had better conference records.

Now, does this mean I think we would have been a great team with an excellent shot at the RB? No. After all, Sark was our coach and Holt was our DC. I'm just saying the conference was so weak and we would have been better than trying to make Locker into something he wasn't, that we could have made it more interesting.

I also think a better offense would have helped that defense a lot. There wasn't a ton of talent but they were playing with the Sark three and out handicap.

Then we got the second half against Oregon three and outs and the settle for a field goal blues under Pete in 18 and 19

Finding a way to lose

They just needed to replace Smith.

Oh wait...

 

[dtd]

Locker was the ultimate cock tease

Didn't FINISH

He was a great talent but avg qb. Would have looked great for chip Kelly though.

The oft maligned Rick would have used him like Tui. Which would have been great

Seriously, we might have been in the running for a Rose Bowl berth in 2010

 

[dtd]

Locker was the ultimate cock tease

Didn't FINISH

He was a great talent but avg qb. Would have looked great for chip Kelly though.

The oft maligned Rick would have used him like Tui. Which would have been great

Seriously, we might have been in the running for a Rose Bowl berth in 2010

No. Mason Foster was the only good player on defense. We got destroyed often.

Petersen was initially loved because he brought defense back to UW

If only he was as good at offense as his press clippings

Statue of liberty play at the Fiesta Bowl gif

I will never understand why he wasn't a grand slam. I thought it was all over for us?.

 

[dtd]

Locker was the ultimate cock tease

Didn't FINISH

He was a great talent but avg qb. Would have looked great for chip Kelly though.

The oft maligned Rick would have used him like Tui. Which would have been great

Seriously, we might have been in the running for a Rose Bowl berth in 2010

No. Mason Foster was the only good player on defense. We got destroyed often.

How many times did we go three and out that year? A ton. And we finished 3rd in the conference as it was. Running the Tui offense might have netted 1-2 more wins, and thus put UW in the running heading into November. Only Oregon and Stanford had better conference records.

Now, does this mean I think we would have been a great team with an excellent shot at the RB? No. After all, Sark was our coach and Holt was our DC. I'm just saying the conference was so weak and we would have been better than trying to make Locker into something he wasn't, that we could have made it more interesting.

I also think a better offense would have helped that defense a lot. There wasn't a ton of talent but they were playing with the Sark three and out handicap.

Then we got the second half against Oregon three and outs and the settle for a field goal blues under Pete in 18 and 19

Finding a way to lose

I can't believe crystalballz beet Peet twice.

Ohhh, Peyton Henry, now I remember. Fuck kickers.

 

[MikeDamone]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9a_MHlO3xo

Ossai at LT

 

[whatshouldicareabout]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9a_MHlO3xo

Ossai at LT

View attachment 51578

YVBE.

We have finally have an image that says Wood. Ossai.

 

[Fire_Marshall_Bill]

Was there ever a game where you went "Without Browning we lose that game".?

Yes. Many. So many that this is a silly statement. Off the top of my head, they beat Cal if our boy Hainer doesn't step in. Browning was the perfect quarterback to ball-protect and hold on to a boring win instead of a what-the-fuck loss.

If there's one way in which I part ways with the collective wisdom of this bored (TDS/BDS/TTTT aside), it's the prioritizing of looking the part and big-dick/gunslinging over actual wins and losses and on-field effectiveness on a college football field. Thinking BBK was a liability, or thinking he was until his senior year, is very on-brand for Hardcore Husky and yet completely wrong. Having a guy who could cover as much field as he did and make EVERY tackle in his gap allowed the rest of the defense to take fewer risks, and this more than made up for a couple embarrassing incidents per game of him getting "dragged." Sure, you'd like to have a 250 lb. monster who's just as fast and smart, but my daughter wants a pony, too.

It's the same with Browning. The dude was a winner, but he wasn't a 6'5" Adonis, didn't risk the ball for the sake of a big play, didn't tuck it and run for 50 yards, and expressed disappointment when his kicker misses a chip shot on a day when nothing's going right, so he fucking sucks. The most important things a quarterback can do are get the offense into the right play and throw an accurate ball, and he's the best at that at UW since I've been old enough to remember. He took some embarrassing sacks like just about any other quarterback, put a lid on the offense with his arm strength, and largely avoided the middle of the field to protect the ball. Not perfect, but consider the alternative: Over his starting career, the Huskies lose at least a half dozen more games with anyone else on the roster starting. Easily.

So, yeah, if Trevor Lawrence or Joe Burrow are sitting on the bench, there's not a single game that I felt they'd lose without Jake Browning. With Cyler Myles, Troy Williams, Jeff Lindquist, and a young Jake Haener? Plenty. Myles Gaskin is rightfully a Hardcore Husky hero, and Gaskin apparently LOVED this guy. He very often called the right shots to put Gaskin in a position to succeed. There are things going on on the field that you don't see from the stands or your couch.

I get what you're saying. We're a little too hard on ol Cobra Jack Browning too much sometimes. He had some tricks in the ol back like being a little more mobile than people thought/remember and he had a few games where he correctly wasn't throwing the ball around when they could win the game on the ground.

I don't know about that Cal game though. He threw an int where he was just trying to throw the ball way but was such a shithead it got intercepted and it was the second time he did that that season.

Browning was a good quarterback. He wasn't a finisher or a difference maker, or frankly a good leader.