Petersen, The Christ

[RaceBannon]

Race doesn't want to hear anything that deviates from his narrative.

I don't think that's true. It's definitely not true for me. I'm 100% on the side of it being the wrong call. Had it worked I would have shaken my head and breathed a sigh of relief, then I would have watched the same Husky offense get stoned on the other side of the 50 and held my breath again as they attempted a long field goal.

The only way UW wins that game is if they punt that one deep and get a turnover in the red zone.
Or Shaq takes that fake to the house or close to it. Bad gamble, but it actually had a better chance of success than the Husky offense doing anything from anyplace on the field. Playing the trade punt game and failing to force turnover deep or defensive TD would have taken us to overtime at best, where I wouldn't have liked our chances.

My disagreement in this thread is with the statement that the defense was shutting Stanford down, because it wasn't, and with the statement that the fake punt cost UW the game, because it didn't. The offensive ineptitude and inability to stop Stanford's offense after the fake cost the game. The block in the back by Campbell cost UW the game. A lot of things cost UW the game.

Of course it isn't true. I already said it was the wrong call.

Some folks struggle with nuance. UW wasn't shutting Stanford down. Simple fact.

Without using your hindsight, what did you see from their offense that leads you to believe this?

Was it the 13 points they scored in the first 55 minutes of the game or the three TOs?

364 yards and 22 first downs isn't shutting a team down, HTH

That seemed obvious but perhaps it did need to be spelled out for the slow

 

[SpoonieLuv]

Let he who has never called for a fake punt cast the first stone

Well, I guess that's about all of us

I faked a punt one time.

Whiskey dick.

 

[ThomasFremont]

Race doesn't want to hear anything that deviates from his narrative.

I don't think that's true. It's definitely not true for me. I'm 100% on the side of it being the wrong call. Had it worked I would have shaken my head and breathed a sigh of relief, then I would have watched the same Husky offense get stoned on the other side of the 50 and held my breath again as they attempted a long field goal.

The only way UW wins that game is if they punt that one deep and get a turnover in the red zone.
Or Shaq takes that fake to the house or close to it. Bad gamble, but it actually had a better chance of success than the Husky offense doing anything from anyplace on the field. Playing the trade punt game and failing to force turnover deep or defensive TD would have taken us to overtime at best, where I wouldn't have liked our chances.

My disagreement in this thread is with the statement that the defense was shutting Stanford down, because it wasn't, and with the statement that the fake punt cost UW the game, because it didn't. The offensive ineptitude and inability to stop Stanford's offense after the fake cost the game. The block in the back by Campbell cost UW the game. A lot of things cost UW the game.

Of course it isn't true. I already said it was the wrong call.

Some folks struggle with nuance. UW wasn't shutting Stanford down. Simple fact.

Without using your hindsight, what did you see from their offense that leads you to believe this?

Was it the 13 points they scored in the first 55 minutes of the game or the three TOs?

364 yards and 22 first downs isn't shutting a team down, HTH

#ScoreboardBaby

 

[greenblood]

Race doesn't want to hear anything that deviates from his narrative.

I don't think that's true. It's definitely not true for me. I'm 100% on the side of it being the wrong call. Had it worked I would have shaken my head and breathed a sigh of relief, then I would have watched the same Husky offense get stoned on the other side of the 50 and held my breath again as they attempted a long field goal.

The only way UW wins that game is if they punt that one deep and get a turnover in the red zone.
Or Shaq takes that fake to the house or close to it. Bad gamble, but it actually had a better chance of success than the Husky offense doing anything from anyplace on the field. Playing the trade punt game and failing to force turnover deep or defensive TD would have taken us to overtime at best, where I wouldn't have liked our chances.

My disagreement in this thread is with the statement that the defense was shutting Stanford down, because it wasn't, and with the statement that the fake punt cost UW the game, because it didn't. The offensive ineptitude and inability to stop Stanford's offense after the fake cost the game. The block in the back by Campbell cost UW the game. A lot of things cost UW the game.

Of course it isn't true. I already said it was the wrong call.

Some folks struggle with nuance. UW wasn't shutting Stanford down. Simple fact.

Without using your hindsight, what did you see from their offense that leads you to believe this?

Was it the 13 points they scored in the first 55 minutes of the game or the three TOs?

364 yards and 22 first downs isn't shutting a team down, HTH

#ScoreboardBaby

That's what the Quooks said when we gave up 439 yards and 24 first downs to Wyoming. Nothing beat the Quooking after the Stanford game last year, trying to prove that our defense wasn't that bad since we only gave up 26 points. Let's ignore the fact they crammed the ball down our throats.

It's not the 20-13 loss, it's the way you loss. Stanford dominated that entire game. They out-gained you more than 2-1. That was the most lopsided 1 touchdown game I've scene since the Ducks went to the Farm last season.

 

[RoadDawg55]

Race doesn't want to hear anything that deviates from his narrative.

I don't think that's true. It's definitely not true for me. I'm 100% on the side of it being the wrong call. Had it worked I would have shaken my head and breathed a sigh of relief, then I would have watched the same Husky offense get stoned on the other side of the 50 and held my breath again as they attempted a long field goal.

The only way UW wins that game is if they punt that one deep and get a turnover in the red zone.
Or Shaq takes that fake to the house or close to it. Bad gamble, but it actually had a better chance of success than the Husky offense doing anything from anyplace on the field. Playing the trade punt game and failing to force turnover deep or defensive TD would have taken us to overtime at best, where I wouldn't have liked our chances.

My disagreement in this thread is with the statement that the defense was shutting Stanford down, because it wasn't, and with the statement that the fake punt cost UW the game, because it didn't. The offensive ineptitude and inability to stop Stanford's offense after the fake cost the game. The block in the back by Campbell cost UW the game. A lot of things cost UW the game.

Of course it isn't true. I already said it was the wrong call.

Some folks struggle with nuance. UW wasn't shutting Stanford down. Simple fact.

Without using your hindsight, what did you see from their offense that leads you to believe this?

Was it the 13 points they scored in the first 55 minutes of the game or the three TOs?

364 yards and 22 first downs isn't shutting a team down, HTH

#ScoreboardBaby

That's what the Quooks said when we gave up 439 yards and 24 first downs to Wyoming. Nothing beat the Quooking after the Stanford game last year, trying to prove that our defense wasn't that bad since we only gave up 26 points. Let's ignore the fact they crammed the ball down our throats.

It's not the 20-13 loss, it's the way you loss. Stanford dominated that entire game. They out-gained you more than 2-1. That was the most lopsided 1 touchdown game I've scene since the Ducks went to the Farm last season.

Disagree. They are a better team, but it was close the entire game and there was nothing lopsided about it. It was a tie game at halftime and after 3 quarters. It wasn't 20-0 after three. Stanford needed some breaks to win the game, just like we needed some breaks (turnovers) to stay in it. I understand the thinking that we were lucky to be in the game based on the yardage, but Timu dropped a pick 6 and Ross' TD was called back on a block and the back that would not have mattered. He would have scored if Campbell didn't touch him.

 

[chuck]

Race doesn't want to hear anything that deviates from his narrative.

I don't think that's true. It's definitely not true for me. I'm 100% on the side of it being the wrong call. Had it worked I would have shaken my head and breathed a sigh of relief, then I would have watched the same Husky offense get stoned on the other side of the 50 and held my breath again as they attempted a long field goal.

The only way UW wins that game is if they punt that one deep and get a turnover in the red zone.
Or Shaq takes that fake to the house or close to it. Bad gamble, but it actually had a better chance of success than the Husky offense doing anything from anyplace on the field. Playing the trade punt game and failing to force turnover deep or defensive TD would have taken us to overtime at best, where I wouldn't have liked our chances.

My disagreement in this thread is with the statement that the defense was shutting Stanford down, because it wasn't, and with the statement that the fake punt cost UW the game, because it didn't. The offensive ineptitude and inability to stop Stanford's offense after the fake cost the game. The block in the back by Campbell cost UW the game. A lot of things cost UW the game.

Of course it isn't true. I already said it was the wrong call.

Some folks struggle with nuance. UW wasn't shutting Stanford down. Simple fact.

Without using your hindsight, what did you see from their offense that leads you to believe this?

Was it the 13 points they scored in the first 55 minutes of the game or the three TOs?

364 yards and 22 first downs isn't shutting a team down, HTH

#ScoreboardBaby

That's what the Quooks said when we gave up 439 yards and 24 first downs to Wyoming. Nothing beat the Quooking after the Stanford game last year, trying to prove that our defense wasn't that bad since we only gave up 26 points. Let's ignore the fact they crammed the ball down our throats.

It's not the 20-13 loss, it's the way you loss. Stanford dominated that entire game. They out-gained you more than 2-1. That was the most lopsided 1 touchdown game I've scene since the Ducks went to the Farm last season.

Disagree. They are a better team, but it was close the entire game and there was nothing lopsided about it. It was a tie game at halftime and after 3 quarters. It wasn't 20-0 after three. Stanford needed some breaks to win the game, just like we needed some breaks (turnovers) to stay in it. I understand the thinking that we were lucky to be in the game based on the yardage, but Timu dropped a pick 6 and Ross' TD was called back on a block and the back that would not have mattered. He would have scored if Campbell didn't touch him.

We needed one big break to win it. Playing conservative and counting on the defense was one gamble (the better one especially in hindsight) and hopefully create one. Faking a punt with the ball in your best player's hands was another way. I would have chosen option one. Petersen would have won universal praise for choosing option two if it had worked.

 

[doogsinparadise]

Race doesn't want to hear anything that deviates from his narrative.

I don't think that's true. It's definitely not true for me. I'm 100% on the side of it being the wrong call. Had it worked I would have shaken my head and breathed a sigh of relief, then I would have watched the same Husky offense get stoned on the other side of the 50 and held my breath again as they attempted a long field goal.

The only way UW wins that game is if they punt that one deep and get a turnover in the red zone.
Or Shaq takes that fake to the house or close to it. Bad gamble, but it actually had a better chance of success than the Husky offense doing anything from anyplace on the field. Playing the trade punt game and failing to force turnover deep or defensive TD would have taken us to overtime at best, where I wouldn't have liked our chances.

My disagreement in this thread is with the statement that the defense was shutting Stanford down, because it wasn't, and with the statement that the fake punt cost UW the game, because it didn't. The offensive ineptitude and inability to stop Stanford's offense after the fake cost the game. The block in the back by Campbell cost UW the game. A lot of things cost UW the game.

Of course it isn't true. I already said it was the wrong call.

Some folks struggle with nuance. UW wasn't shutting Stanford down. Simple fact.

Without using your hindsight, what did you see from their offense that leads you to believe this?

Was it the 13 points they scored in the first 55 minutes of the game or the three TOs?

364 yards and 22 first downs isn't shutting a team down, HTH

#ScoreboardBaby

That's what the Quooks said when we gave up 439 yards and 24 first downs to Wyoming. Nothing beat the Quooking after the Stanford game last year, trying to prove that our defense wasn't that bad since we only gave up 26 points. Let's ignore the fact they crammed the ball down our throats.

It's not the 20-13 loss, it's the way you loss. Stanford dominated that entire game. They out-gained you more than 2-1. That was the most lopsided 1 touchdown game I've scene since the Ducks went to the Farm last season.

Disagree. They are a better team, but it was close the entire game and there was nothing lopsided about it. It was a tie game at halftime and after 3 quarters. It wasn't 20-0 after three. Stanford needed some breaks to win the game, just like we needed some breaks (turnovers) to stay in it. I understand the thinking that we were lucky to be in the game based on the yardage, but Timu dropped a pick 6 and Ross' TD was called back on a block and the back that would not have mattered. He would have scored if Campbell didn't touch him.

We needed one big break to win it. Playing conservative and counting on the defense was one gamble (the better one especially in hindsight) and hopefully create one. Faking a punt with the ball in your best player's hands was another way. I would have chosen option one. Petersen would have won universal praise for choosing option two if it had worked.

Does my aunt have a cock? Didn't think so.

 

[haie]

Race doesn't want to hear anything that deviates from his narrative.

I don't think that's true. It's definitely not true for me. I'm 100% on the side of it being the wrong call. Had it worked I would have shaken my head and breathed a sigh of relief, then I would have watched the same Husky offense get stoned on the other side of the 50 and held my breath again as they attempted a long field goal.

The only way UW wins that game is if they punt that one deep and get a turnover in the red zone.
Or Shaq takes that fake to the house or close to it. Bad gamble, but it actually had a better chance of success than the Husky offense doing anything from anyplace on the field. Playing the trade punt game and failing to force turnover deep or defensive TD would have taken us to overtime at best, where I wouldn't have liked our chances.

My disagreement in this thread is with the statement that the defense was shutting Stanford down, because it wasn't, and with the statement that the fake punt cost UW the game, because it didn't. The offensive ineptitude and inability to stop Stanford's offense after the fake cost the game. The block in the back by Campbell cost UW the game. A lot of things cost UW the game.

Of course it isn't true. I already said it was the wrong call.

Some folks struggle with nuance. UW wasn't shutting Stanford down. Simple fact.

Without using your hindsight, what did you see from their offense that leads you to believe this?

Was it the 13 points they scored in the first 55 minutes of the game or the three TOs?

364 yards and 22 first downs isn't shutting a team down, HTH

#ScoreboardBaby

That's what the Quooks said when we gave up 439 yards and 24 first downs to Wyoming. Nothing beat the Quooking after the Stanford game last year, trying to prove that our defense wasn't that bad since we only gave up 26 points. Let's ignore the fact they crammed the ball down our throats.

It's not the 20-13 loss, it's the way you loss. Stanford dominated that entire game. They out-gained you more than 2-1. That was the most lopsided 1 touchdown game I've scene since the Ducks went to the Farm last season.

I would normally agree with that but Peters, Shaq, and Shelton had the turnovers to keep that game close. We're a bend and then pray-we-get-a-to-b4-you-score type of defense. Learn the fucking difference.

 

[Homebrew_Dawg]

Let he who has never called for a fake punt cast the first stone

Well, I guess that's about all of us

I faked a punt one time.

Whiskey dick.

I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[PostGameOrangeSlices]

 

[PurpleReign]