Couple things...
Comments
-
Go back & watch the triple option out of pistol in the 3rd quarter. One of the few bright points.EsophagealFeces said:
PGOS has been honking that horn for days. I don't think it's a bad idea.haie said:
They may as well just start running the fucking option.RoadDawg55 said:
I agree about the offense. I have seen QB's like Miles win, but they aren't in offenses that rely on downfield passing and going through progressions. Once Stanford shut down the running game in the second half, it was all over. Colin Klein at Kansas State comes to mind. He couldn't throw for shit and wasn't a blazing fast runner, but he was efficient. I hope they tailor the offense more to Miles' strengths.AtomicDawg said:After watching the game I have a hard time thinking Stanford is that good. Sure they will win 8 or 9 games but they will lose their share of games in conference.
I think we are destined to win 3 or 4 conference games. Petersen gets paid a boat load of money to figure it out but so far he hasn't. It's like watching rick when he took over for Lambo. Rick scrapped everything and said what the fuck can we do when they were 0-2 ans they adapted their entire offense to the talent they had.
I really think we should run our qb a shitload of times because we sure as he'll can't throw vs a decent defense. But I leave that to Pete to figure out.
-
Sorry...hadn't been on the boards and I'll probably start a shitstorm by posting this but there is no way anyone can say we have the same amount of talent as when Sark started. There are holes, but we have 3 guys on defense that will go in the first 2 rounds of the draft next year, an OL (Charles) and some WRs that will play in the pros, and we don't have a walk-on safety or walk-on want-to-be rapper OG.
That said, there is no way this team is only winning 5 games like Sark's first year, or only 7 games next year like the rest of Sark's career. Its a big step up to go from 4-5 wins to 7-8 wins, and its another big step up to go to 9-10 wins, and its an even bigger jump for that final step up. We should hit the 9-10 win level this year and end up barely ranked and I haven't seen anything yet that convinces me otherwise.
Its apple and oranges...Sark provided with his tenure and what we see in our QB and OL depth that he wasn't the guy to make the last couple of jumps...I hope Peterman is. Roaddawg's numbers are good...we've seen this kind of performance before from Sark QBs, and the only difference is that we almost won this game instead of losing by 40.
-
Disagree -HoustonHusky said:Sorry...hadn't been on the boards and I'll probably start a shitstorm by posting this but there is no way anyone can say we have the same amount of talent as when Sark started. There are holes, but we have 3 guys on defense that will go in the first 2 rounds of the draft next year, an OL (Charles) and some WRs that will play in the pros, and we don't have a walk-on safety or walk-on want-to-be rapper OG.
That said, there is no way this team is only winning 5 games like Sark's first year, or only 7 games next year like the rest of Sark's career. Its a big step up to go from 4-5 wins to 7-8 wins, and its another big step up to go to 9-10 wins, and its an even bigger jump for that final step up. We should hit the 9-10 win level this year and end up barely ranked and I haven't seen anything yet that convinces me otherwise.
Its apple and oranges...Sark provided with his tenure and what we see in our QB and OL depth that he wasn't the guy to make the last couple of jumps...I hope Peterman is. Roaddawg's numbers are good...we've seen this kind of performance before from Sark QBs, and the only difference is that we almost won this game instead of losing by 40.
1. Go down the list of 2009 starters vs 2014 starters. You find a mixed bag. Overall 2009 has a bit of on edge on offense, 2014 has the edge on defense. Overall the difference isn't drastic.
2. Of course this team will win more than 2009 and 2010. Mostly because of a 13 game schedule and the front loaded dreckfest of teams. The first five games in 2009 were:
LSU
Idaho
USC
Stanford
Notre Dame
The 2009 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
The first 5 games of 2010 were:
BYU
Syracuse
Nebraska
USC
ASU
The 2010 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
2009 and 2010 would both be 4-1 with the 2014 schedule.
Point is, Sark didn't leave the cupboard really any more stocked than when he arrived.
We measured Sark by his conference record. We should use the same standard. 4-5 and 5-4. This team looks on par with that. The preseason scrimmage wins should not cloud the truth.
http://hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/13144/a-q-for-the-board
-
Bolded for OBK fucking stupidMikeDamone said:
Disagree -HoustonHusky said:Sorry...hadn't been on the boards and I'll probably start a shitstorm by posting this but there is no way anyone can say we have the same amount of talent as when Sark started. There are holes, but we have 3 guys on defense that will go in the first 2 rounds of the draft next year, an OL (Charles) and some WRs that will play in the pros, and we don't have a walk-on safety or walk-on want-to-be rapper OG.
That said, there is no way this team is only winning 5 games like Sark's first year, or only 7 games next year like the rest of Sark's career. Its a big step up to go from 4-5 wins to 7-8 wins, and its another big step up to go to 9-10 wins, and its an even bigger jump for that final step up. We should hit the 9-10 win level this year and end up barely ranked and I haven't seen anything yet that convinces me otherwise.
Its apple and oranges...Sark provided with his tenure and what we see in our QB and OL depth that he wasn't the guy to make the last couple of jumps...I hope Peterman is. Roaddawg's numbers are good...we've seen this kind of performance before from Sark QBs, and the only difference is that we almost won this game instead of losing by 40.
1. Go down the list of 2009 starters vs 2014 starters. You find a mixed bag. Overall 2009 has a bit of on edge on offense, 2014 has the edge on defense. Overall the difference isn't drastic.
2. Of course this team will win more than 2009 and 2010. Mostly because of a 13 game schedule and the front loaded dreckfest of teams. The first five games in 2009 were:
LSU
Idaho
USC
Stanford
Notre Dame
The 2009 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
The first 5 games of 2010 were:
BYU
Syracuse
Nebraska
USC
ASU
The 2010 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
2009 and 2010 would both be 4-1 with the 2014 schedule.
Point is, Sark didn't leave the cupboard really any more stocked than when he arrived.
We measured Sark by his conference record. We should use the same standard. 4-5 and 5-4. This team looks on par with that. The preseason scrimmage wins should not cloud the truth.
http://hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/13144/a-q-for-the-board -
The thing is Stanford offense is sound but doesn't score that many points. Oir defense had an incredible game with a high number of key turnovers. The score is a bit misleading. What are we gonna do when we play better PAC 12 offenses? These teams score a TD on every other drive. How are we gonna answer that?
We are Stanford with Nunes. Every coach is gonna stack the box and dare Miles to beat them with his arm, which he can't do. LIPO but 4 or 5 conference wins sounds optimistic at this point to me. -
Why? Help me out, I'm slow.RaceBannon said:
Bolded for OBK fucking stupidMikeDamone said:
Disagree -HoustonHusky said:Sorry...hadn't been on the boards and I'll probably start a shitstorm by posting this but there is no way anyone can say we have the same amount of talent as when Sark started. There are holes, but we have 3 guys on defense that will go in the first 2 rounds of the draft next year, an OL (Charles) and some WRs that will play in the pros, and we don't have a walk-on safety or walk-on want-to-be rapper OG.
That said, there is no way this team is only winning 5 games like Sark's first year, or only 7 games next year like the rest of Sark's career. Its a big step up to go from 4-5 wins to 7-8 wins, and its another big step up to go to 9-10 wins, and its an even bigger jump for that final step up. We should hit the 9-10 win level this year and end up barely ranked and I haven't seen anything yet that convinces me otherwise.
Its apple and oranges...Sark provided with his tenure and what we see in our QB and OL depth that he wasn't the guy to make the last couple of jumps...I hope Peterman is. Roaddawg's numbers are good...we've seen this kind of performance before from Sark QBs, and the only difference is that we almost won this game instead of losing by 40.
1. Go down the list of 2009 starters vs 2014 starters. You find a mixed bag. Overall 2009 has a bit of on edge on offense, 2014 has the edge on defense. Overall the difference isn't drastic.
2. Of course this team will win more than 2009 and 2010. Mostly because of a 13 game schedule and the front loaded dreckfest of teams. The first five games in 2009 were:
LSU
Idaho
USC
Stanford
Notre Dame
The 2009 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
The first 5 games of 2010 were:
BYU
Syracuse
Nebraska
USC
ASU
The 2010 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
2009 and 2010 would both be 4-1 with the 2014 schedule.
Point is, Sark didn't leave the cupboard really any more stocked than when he arrived.
We measured Sark by his conference record. We should use the same standard. 4-5 and 5-4. This team looks on par with that. The preseason scrimmage wins should not cloud the truth.
http://hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/13144/a-q-for-the-board -
He claims we always play the current cupcake schedule
And they played Michigan Fucking State!!!1111!!! -
Ah...I see.RaceBannon said:He claims we always play the current cupcake schedule
And they played Michigan Fucking State!!!1111!!!
When comparing apples to apples, talent wise, Sark left Petersen in only a marginally better place then TW left him. Fuck that narrative that Sark was anything more than average..at anything. (expect flapping his pie hole) -
FareMikeDamone said:
Disagree -HoustonHusky said:Sorry...hadn't been on the boards and I'll probably start a shitstorm by posting this but there is no way anyone can say we have the same amount of talent as when Sark started. There are holes, but we have 3 guys on defense that will go in the first 2 rounds of the draft next year, an OL (Charles) and some WRs that will play in the pros, and we don't have a walk-on safety or walk-on want-to-be rapper OG.
That said, there is no way this team is only winning 5 games like Sark's first year, or only 7 games next year like the rest of Sark's career. Its a big step up to go from 4-5 wins to 7-8 wins, and its another big step up to go to 9-10 wins, and its an even bigger jump for that final step up. We should hit the 9-10 win level this year and end up barely ranked and I haven't seen anything yet that convinces me otherwise.
Its apple and oranges...Sark provided with his tenure and what we see in our QB and OL depth that he wasn't the guy to make the last couple of jumps...I hope Peterman is. Roaddawg's numbers are good...we've seen this kind of performance before from Sark QBs, and the only difference is that we almost won this game instead of losing by 40.
1. Go down the list of 2009 starters vs 2014 starters. You find a mixed bag. Overall 2009 has a bit of on edge on offense, 2014 has the edge on defense. Overall the difference isn't drastic.
2. Of course this team will win more than 2009 and 2010. Mostly because of a 13 game schedule and the front loaded dreckfest of teams. The first five games in 2009 were:
LSU
Idaho
USC
Stanford
Notre Dame
The 2009 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
The first 5 games of 2010 were:
BYU
Syracuse
Nebraska
USC
ASU
The 2010 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
2009 and 2010 would both be 4-1 with the 2014 schedule.
Point is, Sark didn't leave the cupboard really any more stocked than when he arrived.
We measured Sark by his conference record. We should use the same standard. 4-5 and 5-4. This team looks on par with that. The preseason scrimmage wins should not cloud the truth.
http://hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/13144/a-q-for-the-board -
I never claimed to be a journalist.RaccoonHarry said:
FareMikeDamone said:
Disagree -HoustonHusky said:Sorry...hadn't been on the boards and I'll probably start a shitstorm by posting this but there is no way anyone can say we have the same amount of talent as when Sark started. There are holes, but we have 3 guys on defense that will go in the first 2 rounds of the draft next year, an OL (Charles) and some WRs that will play in the pros, and we don't have a walk-on safety or walk-on want-to-be rapper OG.
That said, there is no way this team is only winning 5 games like Sark's first year, or only 7 games next year like the rest of Sark's career. Its a big step up to go from 4-5 wins to 7-8 wins, and its another big step up to go to 9-10 wins, and its an even bigger jump for that final step up. We should hit the 9-10 win level this year and end up barely ranked and I haven't seen anything yet that convinces me otherwise.
Its apple and oranges...Sark provided with his tenure and what we see in our QB and OL depth that he wasn't the guy to make the last couple of jumps...I hope Peterman is. Roaddawg's numbers are good...we've seen this kind of performance before from Sark QBs, and the only difference is that we almost won this game instead of losing by 40.
1. Go down the list of 2009 starters vs 2014 starters. You find a mixed bag. Overall 2009 has a bit of on edge on offense, 2014 has the edge on defense. Overall the difference isn't drastic.
2. Of course this team will win more than 2009 and 2010. Mostly because of a 13 game schedule and the front loaded dreckfest of teams. The first five games in 2009 were:
LSU
Idaho
USC
Stanford
Notre Dame
The 2009 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
The first 5 games of 2010 were:
BYU
Syracuse
Nebraska
USC
ASU
The 2010 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
2009 and 2010 would both be 4-1 with the 2014 schedule.
Point is, Sark didn't leave the cupboard really any more stocked than when he arrived.
We measured Sark by his conference record. We should use the same standard. 4-5 and 5-4. This team looks on par with that. The preseason scrimmage wins should not cloud the truth.
http://hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/13144/a-q-for-the-board
I suck at homophones.
-
always about the homo's with you?
-
Maybe the homo phone is what idawg and Raced used for their podcasts.sarktastic said:always about the homo's with you?
#awkwardsexualtension.
-
also, didn't Sark have to play at a public field for 2 years? I couldn't imagine having to play a Pac-12 schedule 2 years in a row without playing in front of your own fans.
-
Don't buy the comparison on talent...you can't look back at the 2009 team after the fact when you don't have the data on the 2014 team. At the time the 2009 team had 2 3rd round picks (Butler and Teo) for that draft and 1 1st round (Lockner) and 1 3rd round (Mason) for the next year. This team has 3 defensive guys that will go in the first round or two this year, and least 2 offensive guys that should get in the lower rounds (Charles and Williams), and who knows yet who is going to evolve over the next year and a half. I don't think you can compare guys like Kearse who was a FA and found a spot to someone like Mickens or Ross when you don't know if they will a couple years down the road.MikeDamone said:
Disagree -HoustonHusky said:Sorry...hadn't been on the boards and I'll probably start a shitstorm by posting this but there is no way anyone can say we have the same amount of talent as when Sark started. There are holes, but we have 3 guys on defense that will go in the first 2 rounds of the draft next year, an OL (Charles) and some WRs that will play in the pros, and we don't have a walk-on safety or walk-on want-to-be rapper OG.
That said, there is no way this team is only winning 5 games like Sark's first year, or only 7 games next year like the rest of Sark's career. Its a big step up to go from 4-5 wins to 7-8 wins, and its another big step up to go to 9-10 wins, and its an even bigger jump for that final step up. We should hit the 9-10 win level this year and end up barely ranked and I haven't seen anything yet that convinces me otherwise.
Its apple and oranges...Sark provided with his tenure and what we see in our QB and OL depth that he wasn't the guy to make the last couple of jumps...I hope Peterman is. Roaddawg's numbers are good...we've seen this kind of performance before from Sark QBs, and the only difference is that we almost won this game instead of losing by 40.
1. Go down the list of 2009 starters vs 2014 starters. You find a mixed bag. Overall 2009 has a bit of on edge on offense, 2014 has the edge on defense. Overall the difference isn't drastic.
2. Of course this team will win more than 2009 and 2010. Mostly because of a 13 game schedule and the front loaded dreckfest of teams. The first five games in 2009 were:
LSU
Idaho
USC
Stanford
Notre Dame
The 2009 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
The first 5 games of 2010 were:
BYU
Syracuse
Nebraska
USC
ASU
The 2010 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
2009 and 2010 would both be 4-1 with the 2014 schedule.
Point is, Sark didn't leave the cupboard really any more stocked than when he arrived.
We measured Sark by his conference record. We should use the same standard. 4-5 and 5-4. This team looks on par with that. The preseason scrimmage wins should not cloud the truth.
http://hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/13144/a-q-for-the-board
As an example...sure Polk looks great now, but if you compare what he looked like at the time (not knowing what would happen next) after his first go-around with TW and the separated shoulder not sure if I wouldn't pick Coleman. Trufant ended up a 1st round pick but I can't tell you if Hale or Jones won't be 3 years from now. All I can compare is the projected draft to what the 2009 team had, and this one looks better.
And I agree with you on the conference schedule, but I also think we win 6 conference games this year so again I go back to my apples and oranges comparison. -
As I said when I started the topic, the fact that the talent level is close enough to even have a debate is astonishing.HoustonHusky said:
Don't buy the comparison on talent...you can't look back at the 2009 team after the fact when you don't have the data on the 2014 team. At the time the 2009 team had 2 3rd round picks (Butler and Teo) for that draft and 1 1st round (Lockner) and 1 3rd round (Mason) for the next year. This team has 3 defensive guys that will go in the first round or two this year, and least 2 offensive guys that should get in the lower rounds (Charles and Williams), and who knows yet who is going to evolve over the next year and a half. I don't think you can compare guys like Kearse who was a FA and found a spot to someone like Mickens or Ross when you don't know if they will a couple years down the road.MikeDamone said:
Disagree -HoustonHusky said:Sorry...hadn't been on the boards and I'll probably start a shitstorm by posting this but there is no way anyone can say we have the same amount of talent as when Sark started. There are holes, but we have 3 guys on defense that will go in the first 2 rounds of the draft next year, an OL (Charles) and some WRs that will play in the pros, and we don't have a walk-on safety or walk-on want-to-be rapper OG.
That said, there is no way this team is only winning 5 games like Sark's first year, or only 7 games next year like the rest of Sark's career. Its a big step up to go from 4-5 wins to 7-8 wins, and its another big step up to go to 9-10 wins, and its an even bigger jump for that final step up. We should hit the 9-10 win level this year and end up barely ranked and I haven't seen anything yet that convinces me otherwise.
Its apple and oranges...Sark provided with his tenure and what we see in our QB and OL depth that he wasn't the guy to make the last couple of jumps...I hope Peterman is. Roaddawg's numbers are good...we've seen this kind of performance before from Sark QBs, and the only difference is that we almost won this game instead of losing by 40.
1. Go down the list of 2009 starters vs 2014 starters. You find a mixed bag. Overall 2009 has a bit of on edge on offense, 2014 has the edge on defense. Overall the difference isn't drastic.
2. Of course this team will win more than 2009 and 2010. Mostly because of a 13 game schedule and the front loaded dreckfest of teams. The first five games in 2009 were:
LSU
Idaho
USC
Stanford
Notre Dame
The 2009 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
The first 5 games of 2010 were:
BYU
Syracuse
Nebraska
USC
ASU
The 2010 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
2009 and 2010 would both be 4-1 with the 2014 schedule.
Point is, Sark didn't leave the cupboard really any more stocked than when he arrived.
We measured Sark by his conference record. We should use the same standard. 4-5 and 5-4. This team looks on par with that. The preseason scrimmage wins should not cloud the truth.
http://hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/13144/a-q-for-the-board
As an example...sure Polk looks great now, but if you compare what he looked like at the time (not knowing what would happen next) after his first go-around with TW and the separated shoulder not sure if I wouldn't pick Coleman. Trufant ended up a 1st round pick but I can't tell you if Hale or Jones won't be 3 years from now. All I can compare is the projected draft to what the 2009 team had, and this one looks better.
And I agree with you on the conference schedule, but I also think we win 6 conference games this year so again I go back to my apples and oranges comparison.
The narrative that Sark inherited a bare cupboard, was a great recruiter, and left Petersen teed up with talent is 100% bullshit.
Just further evidence that Sark is the turd we said he was. -
Upvoted because I agree about the offense and great call on RIck/Lambo, but I do think Stanford wins 10, at least.AtomicDawg said:After watching the game I have a hard time thinking Stanford is that good. Sure they will win 8 or 9 games but they will lose their share of games in conference.
I think we are destined to win 3 or 4 conference games. Petersen gets paid a boat load of money to figure it out but so far he hasn't. It's like watching rick when he took over for Lambo. Rick scrapped everything and said what the fuck can we do when they were 0-2 ans they adapted their entire offense to the talent they had.
I really think we should run our qb a shitload of times because we sure as he'll can't throw vs a decent defense. But I leave that to Pete to figure out.
-
I'm just saying I don't think it is close. This team is more talented. Just like the Pac 12 teams are on average better than they were in 2009 (2nd place teams in 2009 were an average Arizona team, a Stanford team just rising with a RSFr Luck, and an average Oregon State team). And I still expect us to win more that 4 conference games which I don't think that 2009 team could do with the schedule this year.MikeDamone said:
As I said when I started the topic, the fact that the talent level is close enough to even have a debate is astonishing.HoustonHusky said:
Don't buy the comparison on talent...you can't look back at the 2009 team after the fact when you don't have the data on the 2014 team. At the time the 2009 team had 2 3rd round picks (Butler and Teo) for that draft and 1 1st round (Lockner) and 1 3rd round (Mason) for the next year. This team has 3 defensive guys that will go in the first round or two this year, and least 2 offensive guys that should get in the lower rounds (Charles and Williams), and who knows yet who is going to evolve over the next year and a half. I don't think you can compare guys like Kearse who was a FA and found a spot to someone like Mickens or Ross when you don't know if they will a couple years down the road.MikeDamone said:
Disagree -HoustonHusky said:Sorry...hadn't been on the boards and I'll probably start a shitstorm by posting this but there is no way anyone can say we have the same amount of talent as when Sark started. There are holes, but we have 3 guys on defense that will go in the first 2 rounds of the draft next year, an OL (Charles) and some WRs that will play in the pros, and we don't have a walk-on safety or walk-on want-to-be rapper OG.
That said, there is no way this team is only winning 5 games like Sark's first year, or only 7 games next year like the rest of Sark's career. Its a big step up to go from 4-5 wins to 7-8 wins, and its another big step up to go to 9-10 wins, and its an even bigger jump for that final step up. We should hit the 9-10 win level this year and end up barely ranked and I haven't seen anything yet that convinces me otherwise.
Its apple and oranges...Sark provided with his tenure and what we see in our QB and OL depth that he wasn't the guy to make the last couple of jumps...I hope Peterman is. Roaddawg's numbers are good...we've seen this kind of performance before from Sark QBs, and the only difference is that we almost won this game instead of losing by 40.
1. Go down the list of 2009 starters vs 2014 starters. You find a mixed bag. Overall 2009 has a bit of on edge on offense, 2014 has the edge on defense. Overall the difference isn't drastic.
2. Of course this team will win more than 2009 and 2010. Mostly because of a 13 game schedule and the front loaded dreckfest of teams. The first five games in 2009 were:
LSU
Idaho
USC
Stanford
Notre Dame
The 2009 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
The first 5 games of 2010 were:
BYU
Syracuse
Nebraska
USC
ASU
The 2010 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
2009 and 2010 would both be 4-1 with the 2014 schedule.
Point is, Sark didn't leave the cupboard really any more stocked than when he arrived.
We measured Sark by his conference record. We should use the same standard. 4-5 and 5-4. This team looks on par with that. The preseason scrimmage wins should not cloud the truth.
http://hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/13144/a-q-for-the-board
As an example...sure Polk looks great now, but if you compare what he looked like at the time (not knowing what would happen next) after his first go-around with TW and the separated shoulder not sure if I wouldn't pick Coleman. Trufant ended up a 1st round pick but I can't tell you if Hale or Jones won't be 3 years from now. All I can compare is the projected draft to what the 2009 team had, and this one looks better.
And I agree with you on the conference schedule, but I also think we win 6 conference games this year so again I go back to my apples and oranges comparison.
The narrative that Sark inherited a bare cupboard, was a great recruiter, and left Petersen teed up with talent is 100% bullshit.
Just further evidence that Sark is the turd we said he was.
I've always through Sark inherited roster with talent and a few big holes, he recruited pretty good, and left a roster with some really good talent a few smaller holes. Never thought he was the coaching genius some make him out to be, but don't think he's the turd of a coach some think either. -
It has been broken down position by position. Where do you disagree? 2014 D line is better. Linebacker are close, 2009 DBs better. 2014 O line is slightly better, TE is about the same (may 2009 slightly better). 2009 QBs and RBs were better. 2009 WRs were better.HoustonHusky said:
I'm just saying I don't think it is close. This team is more talented. Just like the Pac 12 teams are on average better than they were in 2009 (2nd place teams in 2009 were an average Arizona team, a Stanford team just rising with a RSFr Luck, and an average Oregon State team). And I still expect us to win more that 4 conference games which I don't think that 2009 team could do with the schedule this year.MikeDamone said:
As I said when I started the topic, the fact that the talent level is close enough to even have a debate is astonishing.HoustonHusky said:
Don't buy the comparison on talent...you can't look back at the 2009 team after the fact when you don't have the data on the 2014 team. At the time the 2009 team had 2 3rd round picks (Butler and Teo) for that draft and 1 1st round (Lockner) and 1 3rd round (Mason) for the next year. This team has 3 defensive guys that will go in the first round or two this year, and least 2 offensive guys that should get in the lower rounds (Charles and Williams), and who knows yet who is going to evolve over the next year and a half. I don't think you can compare guys like Kearse who was a FA and found a spot to someone like Mickens or Ross when you don't know if they will a couple years down the road.MikeDamone said:
Disagree -HoustonHusky said:Sorry...hadn't been on the boards and I'll probably start a shitstorm by posting this but there is no way anyone can say we have the same amount of talent as when Sark started. There are holes, but we have 3 guys on defense that will go in the first 2 rounds of the draft next year, an OL (Charles) and some WRs that will play in the pros, and we don't have a walk-on safety or walk-on want-to-be rapper OG.
That said, there is no way this team is only winning 5 games like Sark's first year, or only 7 games next year like the rest of Sark's career. Its a big step up to go from 4-5 wins to 7-8 wins, and its another big step up to go to 9-10 wins, and its an even bigger jump for that final step up. We should hit the 9-10 win level this year and end up barely ranked and I haven't seen anything yet that convinces me otherwise.
Its apple and oranges...Sark provided with his tenure and what we see in our QB and OL depth that he wasn't the guy to make the last couple of jumps...I hope Peterman is. Roaddawg's numbers are good...we've seen this kind of performance before from Sark QBs, and the only difference is that we almost won this game instead of losing by 40.
1. Go down the list of 2009 starters vs 2014 starters. You find a mixed bag. Overall 2009 has a bit of on edge on offense, 2014 has the edge on defense. Overall the difference isn't drastic.
2. Of course this team will win more than 2009 and 2010. Mostly because of a 13 game schedule and the front loaded dreckfest of teams. The first five games in 2009 were:
LSU
Idaho
USC
Stanford
Notre Dame
The 2009 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
The first 5 games of 2010 were:
BYU
Syracuse
Nebraska
USC
ASU
The 2010 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
2009 and 2010 would both be 4-1 with the 2014 schedule.
Point is, Sark didn't leave the cupboard really any more stocked than when he arrived.
We measured Sark by his conference record. We should use the same standard. 4-5 and 5-4. This team looks on par with that. The preseason scrimmage wins should not cloud the truth.
http://hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/13144/a-q-for-the-board
As an example...sure Polk looks great now, but if you compare what he looked like at the time (not knowing what would happen next) after his first go-around with TW and the separated shoulder not sure if I wouldn't pick Coleman. Trufant ended up a 1st round pick but I can't tell you if Hale or Jones won't be 3 years from now. All I can compare is the projected draft to what the 2009 team had, and this one looks better.
And I agree with you on the conference schedule, but I also think we win 6 conference games this year so again I go back to my apples and oranges comparison.
The narrative that Sark inherited a bare cupboard, was a great recruiter, and left Petersen teed up with talent is 100% bullshit.
Just further evidence that Sark is the turd we said he was.
I've always through Sark inherited roster with talent and a few big holes, he recruited pretty good, and left a roster with some really good talent a few smaller holes. Never thought he was the coaching genius some make him out to be, but don't think he's the turd of a coach some think either.
And if the talent is so much better now, that is an indictment of Petersen so far, -
You're worse than supercanuck.Tequilla said:
What do you know, dumbfuck once again brings nothing of value to the table.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
at Utah and at Cal could also be dicey games.MikeDamone said:
Arizona or WSU could flip. Neither are in the bag, by far. Both on the road. YikesPostGameOrangeSlices said:We're finishing 4-5 in conference
dats a fact jack
losses to UCLA, Oregon, Zona, and CUOG
I think we have a better chance of beating UCLA than we do of going .500 on the road in conference
You really would be better off to lurk around for a bit, keep your mouth shut, and let the grown ups have the real discussions.
-
People were giving me shit for it, but it seems like they're starting to come around.EsophagealFeces said:
PGOS has been honking that horn for days. I don't think it's a bad idea.haie said:
They may as well just start running the fucking option.RoadDawg55 said:
I agree about the offense. I have seen QB's like Miles win, but they aren't in offenses that rely on downfield passing and going through progressions. Once Stanford shut down the running game in the second half, it was all over. Colin Klein at Kansas State comes to mind. He couldn't throw for shit and wasn't a blazing fast runner, but he was efficient. I hope they tailor the offense more to Miles' strengths.AtomicDawg said:After watching the game I have a hard time thinking Stanford is that good. Sure they will win 8 or 9 games but they will lose their share of games in conference.
I think we are destined to win 3 or 4 conference games. Petersen gets paid a boat load of money to figure it out but so far he hasn't. It's like watching rick when he took over for Lambo. Rick scrapped everything and said what the fuck can we do when they were 0-2 ans they adapted their entire offense to the talent they had.
I really think we should run our qb a shitload of times because we sure as he'll can't throw vs a decent defense. But I leave that to Pete to figure out.
Running the trip option doesn't mean you can't ever pass. Plus, we have lots of receivers (Mickens, Taylor, Ross, Williams) who are shifty, quick in space, and would make good compliments to Miles/Lundstrom + Washington/Coleman in the backfield.
