SIMPLE QUESTION
- Thread starter mobey
- Start date
doogsinparadise
New Fish
They just lost to Wazzu at home, what the fuck else would you call them?
MikeDamone
Well-known poster
If UW can win the tap ins and one or two of the UO, UCLA, and Arizona teams, I think that would be an extraordinary coaching job by Petersen and would bode well for the future. He has a lot of work to do. Based on the the first 5 games, I don't think WSU is a tap in.
greenblood
New Fish
This 10 win stuff is garbage. I would be extremely happy with the play of the defense so far, and the offensive struggles can be explained by Petersen implementing a brand new system. The two major flaws so far just need time to correct.
Cyler needs to get more game experience before he can step up in big games. Mariota played like crap his freshman year against Stanford as well. The only way Cyler is going to improve is to be given time for Peterson to unteach what Sark taught him, and then get him doing things the right way.
Your running backs are below average, lets face the facts. Not going to fix that this year, but give Peterson a year to recruit some talent at that position.
However, I really like his focus on the lines with regard to recruiting so far. Petersen at least looks competent, which I couldn't say with your last two hires. Peterson might not work out, but I would have a lot more hope. Also, the wait till next year line might of some credence given your current coaches track record. Until he proves me wrong, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. However, instead of wins and losses this year, I would focus more on the actual football product being displayed. Is it better? or is it not? That is really all that is important in year one. I'm still LIPO on the product though until we get a few more games into the Pac 12 schedule.
Cyler needs to get more game experience before he can step up in big games. Mariota played like crap his freshman year against Stanford as well. The only way Cyler is going to improve is to be given time for Peterson to unteach what Sark taught him, and then get him doing things the right way.
Your running backs are below average, lets face the facts. Not going to fix that this year, but give Peterson a year to recruit some talent at that position.
However, I really like his focus on the lines with regard to recruiting so far. Petersen at least looks competent, which I couldn't say with your last two hires. Peterson might not work out, but I would have a lot more hope. Also, the wait till next year line might of some credence given your current coaches track record. Until he proves me wrong, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. However, instead of wins and losses this year, I would focus more on the actual football product being displayed. Is it better? or is it not? That is really all that is important in year one. I'm still LIPO on the product though until we get a few more games into the Pac 12 schedule.
Last edited:
Disciple_2_Hole
New Fish
Huh?
puppylove_sugarsteel
Asshole Emeritus
Are we better today than when Sark took over for Willingham? No and that's Sark's fault. Peter is doing the best he can.
MikeDamone
Well-known poster
One could argue that Petersen has a tougher job replacing Sark than Sark did replacing willingham.
I finally watched the Cal and Wazzu games yesterday. Even with Coleman and Washington we should run right the fuck through them. Halladay starts a game throwing a pick 6, Cal getting down by 2 scores to Colorado at home, on top of both teams having shit defenses. Those fucktards make us look like the most efficient team in the pac.
At some point you have to beat the teams ahead of you like Stanford and Oregon. We've been good enough t o beat 7-12 fairly consistently for a few yrs. Time to get over the hump.
PurpleReign
New Fish
For me personally, the difference is I actually have faith in Petersen. Sark was always a keep your fingers crossed and pray he pulls something out of his ass situation.
mobey
New Fish
First, if it's like golf, let me keep score and we'll win 14.
But we barely beat Hawaii and we barely beat Eastern at home.
You may say we should have started out better, and that may or may not be valid.
But to say the game we watched Saturday was an improvement over those two games isn't changing the rules, it is simply a fact.
MikeDamone
Well-known poster
huh?
Sounds like you're saying progress can't be measured by the scoreboard - for the 15th year..
Last edited:
mobey
New Fish
Here's what's confusing by some of your posts.
Most of us think Sark was a lousy recruiter, not because he couldn't get good talent, but because his classes showed no balance and he got a stiffy for "skill" positions at a detriment to what really matters.
And most of us thought Sark didn't teach fundamentals or at least his teams were not fundamentally sound - and that includes mentally tough.
Now Peterman takes over that group and suddenly by game 5 our lines should be great and we should be putting up 30 on the #1 defense in the country.
It's like wiping before you poop, it doesn't make sense.
Most of us think Sark was a lousy recruiter, not because he couldn't get good talent, but because his classes showed no balance and he got a stiffy for "skill" positions at a detriment to what really matters.
And most of us thought Sark didn't teach fundamentals or at least his teams were not fundamentally sound - and that includes mentally tough.
Now Peterman takes over that group and suddenly by game 5 our lines should be great and we should be putting up 30 on the #1 defense in the country.
It's like wiping before you poop, it doesn't make sense.
Last edited:
MikeDamone
Well-known poster
I didn't say anything to the affect that UW should beat Stanford by 30. Go back through the threads over the past 9 months. See what this boards expectations were for this year. PLSS suggested this could be an 8 or 9 win team and was boo'd off the board.
I'm just amused that so many of the things that we relentlessly mocked doogs for saying are now being repeated by HHBs.
Last edited:
