Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
A fair assessment of the state of Husky Football
NorthLakeDub
Member Posts: 47
What's up you fat cunted wife loving, pussy ass, sad sacks of your own circle jerk seamen loads ?!?!?!
Since I don't have the time, energy, ambition, intelligence, or writing prowess to give you the "evidence" of why I believe Husky Football is on the rise, I thought I would post the link to this article that basically sums up how I feel about our program. I'm sure many of you have already seen it. I think it is a fair assessment of the Husky Football program from an outsiders perspective. It clearly explains both the strengths and the weaknesses of our team. Here it is.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/6/28/4463864/washington-huskies-2013-football-schedule-roster-preview
Since I don't have the time, energy, ambition, intelligence, or writing prowess to give you the "evidence" of why I believe Husky Football is on the rise, I thought I would post the link to this article that basically sums up how I feel about our program. I'm sure many of you have already seen it. I think it is a fair assessment of the Husky Football program from an outsiders perspective. It clearly explains both the strengths and the weaknesses of our team. Here it is.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/6/28/4463864/washington-huskies-2013-football-schedule-roster-preview
Comments
Yes. I believe in REAL football game results, not mythical ones.
If anything, that article just goes to show that Sark's teams are underperforming relative to the talent level the teams have. CFBMatrix has already been telling me that for years though.
Any average coach could win 6 or 7 games at UW EVEN after the 0-12 season. Let's not get too carried away over sarky.
I don't know how beating Boise means its a 9-10 win season. Still have UO, and Stan, ASU, UCLA and OSU all on the road. If you blow one game (say Cal or Arizona), you have to win 2 of the other 5 just to get to 8.
Nevertheless, I agree with the OP, its a quite reasonable article from an outsider.
Dawgman has become a fucking disgrace thanks to Kim. He's been completely wrong about everything since 2004. He's become a complete fucking embarrassment. He's ostracized so many posters that the place has become a carbon copy of what cougfan used to be. People over there are bitching and moaning more about this Oregon thing than Sark's pathetic blowouts and snatching 7-6 from the jaws of 9-4.
The only reason a few people are left is because there are still a few poasters around who want to talk about husky football. But they are leaving one by one and heading over here. Its evidence that Kim's fuckbaggery and douchetardedness have now vastly exceeded that of Race and his minions.
Wise up.
HTH
Here is an instructive statistical analysis:
In terms of F/+ rankings, the Huskies ranked 78th in 2005, 60th in 2006, 50th in 2007, 63rd in 2009, 70th in 2010, 67th in 2011, and 56th in 2012. Average ranking in those seven seasons: 63.4. Granted, this ignores a year in which they were, in Matt Hinton's words, "really awful" (that would be the 2008 season that saw them go 0-12, rank 117th, and get Ty Willingham fired), but that one outlier aside, there has been almost no trend, just slightly different grades of average football.
I don't think the author was being overly biased in favor of Sark. His shortcomings as a coach are clearly laid out, along with his accomplishments. And when the author says we are young, he is talking about the 19 returning starters who the majority of were freshmen or sophomores last season.
So the question is whether or not you think these young guys can build upon their experience after being battle tested early in their college careers, and step up and play at a championship level, with consistency, in order to finish the close games and dominate the ones that we should be dominating. Can Sark grow with this team into a smarter, battle tested coach that can finally lift our program to the level that we all expect?
1) F+ isn't explained at all. How can I read that graph that has percentage on the y axis when its not clear what the fuck percentage even is? Percent change from the previous year, the graph doesnt match up to the F+ numbers listed below at all. Maybe I am just dense but the entire first point is lost because it shows a graph with percentages on the y axis but talks about real values in the sentences that dont match up to the graph. There is also no evidence to show that Washington is "average", the author just claims it as truth but failed to explain or show why. Maybe the graph was supposed to show why UW has be "average"? Also average should be defined. Average for who? Average for UW? Average for pac12? Average based on wins against NCAA? What are we averaging? This first point is flawed enough to stop reading but ill continue on for arguments sake.
2) A yes, the youth "argument". If you are going to ignore the fact that it is Sarks fault we are young again for the 5th year in a row in his tenor at least have the intelligence to prove we are young compared to the teams we are facing. If you are going to claim we are too young then show were are significantly younger or our starters have less experience than the rest of the pac12, opponents, or NCAA. As an aside, the offensive line being young isn't an excuse and isn't going to change. Sarks inability to consistently recruit offensive lineman forces them to play when they aren't ready out of high school which causes them to get injured or stunt their growth which means the next class has to play before they are ready. This is exactly why the bull shit bumper (or buffer) crop line is so fucktarded. The offensive line has to have solid depth so players dont have to play before they are ready. Missing a class (let alone 2) is devastating to even, quality, depth. In the end its Sarks fault we are young, A-Fucking-gain. He doesnt get credit for overcoming a problem he created.
3) "The Huskies were a frequently good team done in by a handful of outright disasters". Reading further, we have come to the full doog part of the article. In top doog fashion the writer has started to remove data or information simply because it does look as good. Why do fucktard doogs insist on selectively removing the "bad games" without justifying why? This fucktard seriously just went and said, if I remove the 3 worst games UW had according to adjusted score UW looks a lot better. News Flash fuckhead if you remove the three worst games any team lost last year many teams would be undefeated... The fucktarded doog logic is mindblowing and the "statistics" are fucking horrible.
4) "style emphasized weakness"? what the fuck does this shit even mean. Last time I checked, it was the coach's job to fully utilize the players he has. Maybe he is arguing that Sark underutilized the players he had because he is a shitty coach and we have the talent to win more games? Reading further the real point is that you cant blame Sark for shitty play, blame the players for not being able to play in a shitty system that doesnt utilize them.
5) More blaming of Price, one of HHB iron laws coming full circle... The longer a player stays at UW the more and more hated he becomes. Its Sark supposed to be some kind of QB and playcalling Guru... Nope, blame the QB that we know has the ability to play great.
6) This is the same argument as stated in #2
7) "considering the youth" fuckoff about the youth thing. Also no adjusted defense numbers shown for 2012 when he brought up 2011... Wilcox has shown improvement from Holt, just like Sark has shown improvement from Willingham. Big Fucking Deal. This season will be much more telling on the future of Wilcox. Anyone anointing or condemning Wilcox this early in the game is a fucktard. Wilcox did show some progress last year, aside from giving up 41 to LSU, 52 to Oregon, 52 to Arizona, and 32 to WSU. Meh, only 30% of the games were defensive horrors..............
8) Star recruits... this is nothing but speculation if those numbers aren't compared to at least the rest of the pac12. This entire paragraph is borderline off season championship talk
9) Here this fucktard names a bunch of pretty good players that still play for UW and then claims we have to wait for 2014 to be special
10) This isnt an assessment on the current state of UW football. This is a "what if" we beat BSU and just wait till next season (2014) to be special. "BSU is important"? No shit its important, just like every fucking game.
This "article" fucking sucks and didnt make one solid point with regards to this coming season, Sark, or UW football.
TL;DR from the article: You cant expect UW to be anything other than "average" because we are young, our QB is mentally handicapped, We have 3 horrible games a year, our coach runs a system that doesnt utilize our players, our QB sucks, we are young again, more youth, star recruits are awesome, we have a bunch of really good players that wont be really good until 2014, what if we win all the games we should
TL:DR from me: Fuck off doog, this isn't a fair assessment, this is a bullshit full doogtard assessment, filled with excuses, blaming players, and fucktarded "statistics".