Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Couple things...
Options
Comments
-
Not sure where (don't have time right now to track it down), but can't say I agree with your quick assessment.MikeDamone said:
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,
- 2014 DL is WAY better (sr. Kikaha > sr Teo, sr Shelton >> so Ta'amu, and I'd take Sr. Hudsons over fr Crichton and Jr Elisara any day of the week. Add to that the back-ups...)
- LBs are a wash
- I'd take the 2014 secondary over the 2009 secondary (sr Peters > true freshman Trufant, and the rest of the 2009 secondary was nondescript to put it kindly).
- On offense the 2014 OL is WAY better (Christine, Ossai??? 2015 OL scares me though...)
- no clue on RBs (hard to compare a RSFreshman Polk to a RSFreshman Coleman for reasons I said earlier...no clue how good Coleman will be, and I think Washington is probably a better RB than any of the others on the 2009 roster.
- I would take 2009 Jr. Lockner over any of the QBs we have now, but we have 4 young but highly recruited QBs on the roster (and a 5th that is a 6th string TE or something).
- WRs is tough but I'd call it a wash or favor the 2014 group. Not a single drafted receiver on the 2009 roster and I think at least Williams and probably Ross will get drafted out of our current 2 deeps, not to mention who knows what we have with the Freshman.
- TE...I'd say 2009 just because I think the current batch aren't balanced which I think hurts the running game on blocking more than some take note.
That said, the 2014 Pac12 is harder than the 2009 Pac10, and my expectations are greater than getting to 0.500 winning. Apples and Oranges to me and I don't consider it an indictment of Peterman or an endorsement of Sark. And hey, we are allowed to disagree.
-HH -
Christ, I forgot we had Crichton starting.......as a freshman.HoustonHusky said:
Not sure where (don't have time right now to track it down), but can't say I agree with your quick assessment.MikeDamone said:
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,
- 2014 DL is WAY better (sr. Kikaha > sr Teo, sr Shelton >> so Ta'amu, and I'd take Sr. Hudsons over fr Crichton and Jr Elisara any day of the week. Add to that the back-ups...)
- LBs are a wash
- I'd take the 2014 secondary over the 2009 secondary (sr Peters > true freshman Trufant, and the rest of the 2009 secondary was nondescript to put it kindly).
- On offense the 2014 OL is WAY better (Christine, Ossai??? 2015 OL scares me though...)
- no clue on RBs (hard to compare a RSFreshman Polk to a RSFreshman Coleman for reasons I said earlier...no clue how good Coleman will be, and I think Washington is probably a better RB than any of the others on the 2009 roster.
- I would take 2009 Jr. Lockner over any of the QBs we have now, but we have 4 young but highly recruited QBs on the roster (and a 5th that is a 6th string TE or something).
- WRs is tough but I'd call it a wash or favor the 2014 group. Not a single drafted receiver on the 2009 roster and I think at least Williams and probably Ross will get drafted out of our current 2 deeps, not to mention who knows what we have with the Freshman.
- TE...I'd say 2009 just because I think the current batch aren't balanced which I think hurts the running game on blocking more than some take note.
That said, the 2014 Pac12 is harder than the 2009 Pac10, and my expectations are greater than getting to 0.500 winning. Apples and Oranges to me and I don't consider it an indictment of Peterman or an endorsement of Sark. And hey, we are allowed to disagree.
-HH
That dude literally was the same player as a senior as he was as a fr -
We had a discussion on this here. Check the facts (or opinions). I don't think the talent overall is better. Some positions yes, others no.HoustonHusky said:
Not sure where (don't have time right now to track it down), but can't say I agree with your quick assessment.MikeDamone said:
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.
L
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,
- 2014 DL is WAY better (sr. Kikaha > sr Teo, sr Shelton >> so Ta'amu, and I'd take Sr. Hudsons over fr Crichton and Jr Elisara any day of the week. Add to that the back-ups...)
- LBs are a wash
- I'd take the 2014 secondary over the 2009 secondary (sr Peters > true freshman Trufant, and the rest of the 2009 secondary was nondescript to put it kindly).
- On offense the 2014 OL is WAY better (Christine, Ossai??? 2015 OL scares me though...)
- no clue on RBs (hard to compare a RSFreshman Polk to a RSFreshman Coleman for reasons I said earlier...no clue how good Coleman will be, and I think Washington is probably a better RB than any of the others on the 2009 roster.
- I would take 2009 Jr. Lockner over any of the QBs we have now, but we have 4 young but highly recruited QBs on the roster (and a 5th that is a 6th string TE or something).
- WRs is tough but I'd call it a wash or favor the 2014 group. Not a single drafted receiver on the 2009 roster and I think at least Williams and probably Ross will get drafted out of our current 2 deeps, not to mention who knows what we have with the Freshman.
- TE...I'd say 2009 just because I think the current batch aren't balanced which I think hurts the running game on blocking more than some take note.
That said, the 2014 Pac12 is harder than the 2009 Pac10, and my expectations are greater than getting to 0.500 winning. Apples and Oranges to me and I don't consider it an indictment of Peterman or an endorsement of Sark. And hey, we are allowed to disagree.
-HH
Polk was head and shoulders above anyone on the current roster. Washington better than Polk? Jesus dude. Polk had the best freshman season in husky history. Over 1000 yards and honorable mention all pac10 and 2nd team freshman all American. And you don't know of Polk is better than Coleman and think washington is better than all of them? That alone puts every point of your analysis in question.
hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/13144/a-q-for-the-board -
but still..........MikeDamone said:
We had a discussion on this here. Check the facts (or opinions). I don't think the talent overall is better. Some positions yes, others no.HoustonHusky said:
Not sure where (don't have time right now to track it down), but can't say I agree with your quick assessment.MikeDamone said:
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.
L
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,
- 2014 DL is WAY better (sr. Kikaha > sr Teo, sr Shelton >> so Ta'amu, and I'd take Sr. Hudsons over fr Crichton and Jr Elisara any day of the week. Add to that the back-ups...)
- LBs are a wash
- I'd take the 2014 secondary over the 2009 secondary (sr Peters > true freshman Trufant, and the rest of the 2009 secondary was nondescript to put it kindly).
- On offense the 2014 OL is WAY better (Christine, Ossai??? 2015 OL scares me though...)
- no clue on RBs (hard to compare a RSFreshman Polk to a RSFreshman Coleman for reasons I said earlier...no clue how good Coleman will be, and I think Washington is probably a better RB than any of the others on the 2009 roster.
- I would take 2009 Jr. Lockner over any of the QBs we have now, but we have 4 young but highly recruited QBs on the roster (and a 5th that is a 6th string TE or something).
- WRs is tough but I'd call it a wash or favor the 2014 group. Not a single drafted receiver on the 2009 roster and I think at least Williams and probably Ross will get drafted out of our current 2 deeps, not to mention who knows what we have with the Freshman.
- TE...I'd say 2009 just because I think the current batch aren't balanced which I think hurts the running game on blocking more than some take note.
That said, the 2014 Pac12 is harder than the 2009 Pac10, and my expectations are greater than getting to 0.500 winning. Apples and Oranges to me and I don't consider it an indictment of Peterman or an endorsement of Sark. And hey, we are allowed to disagree.
-HH
Polk was head and shoulders above anyone on the current roster. Washington better than Polk? Jesus dude. Polk had the best freshman season in husky history. Over 1000 yards and honorable mention all pac10 and 2nd team freshman all American. And you don't know of Polk is better than Coleman and think washington is better than all of them? That alone puts every point of your analysis in question.
hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/13144/a-q-for-the-board -
I said I don't know if Polk is better...data after 4 years says he probably is, but I didn't think Sankey would be better than Polk and he was. My point is you can't use that 4 years of data on one when you have nothing on the other.MikeDamone said:
We had a discussion on this here. Check the facts (or opinions). I don't think the talent overall is better. Some positions yes, others no.HoustonHusky said:
Not sure where (don't have time right now to track it down), but can't say I agree with your quick assessment.MikeDamone said:
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.
L
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,
- 2014 DL is WAY better (sr. Kikaha > sr Teo, sr Shelton >> so Ta'amu, and I'd take Sr. Hudsons over fr Crichton and Jr Elisara any day of the week. Add to that the back-ups...)
- LBs are a wash
- I'd take the 2014 secondary over the 2009 secondary (sr Peters > true freshman Trufant, and the rest of the 2009 secondary was nondescript to put it kindly).
- On offense the 2014 OL is WAY better (Christine, Ossai??? 2015 OL scares me though...)
- no clue on RBs (hard to compare a RSFreshman Polk to a RSFreshman Coleman for reasons I said earlier...no clue how good Coleman will be, and I think Washington is probably a better RB than any of the others on the 2009 roster.
- I would take 2009 Jr. Lockner over any of the QBs we have now, but we have 4 young but highly recruited QBs on the roster (and a 5th that is a 6th string TE or something).
- WRs is tough but I'd call it a wash or favor the 2014 group. Not a single drafted receiver on the 2009 roster and I think at least Williams and probably Ross will get drafted out of our current 2 deeps, not to mention who knows what we have with the Freshman.
- TE...I'd say 2009 just because I think the current batch aren't balanced which I think hurts the running game on blocking more than some take note.
That said, the 2014 Pac12 is harder than the 2009 Pac10, and my expectations are greater than getting to 0.500 winning. Apples and Oranges to me and I don't consider it an indictment of Peterman or an endorsement of Sark. And hey, we are allowed to disagree.
-HH
Polk was head and shoulders above anyone on the current roster. Washington better than Polk? Jesus dude. Polk had the best freshman season in husky history. Over 1000 yards and honorable mention all pac10 and 2nd team freshman all American. And you don't know of Polk is better than Coleman and think washington is better than all of them? That alone puts every point of your analysis in question.
hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/13144/a-q-for-the-board
Polk's first 4 games (4th game @ Stanford) in 2009 (he was a RSFr)
21-90-4.3
19-80-4.2
25-71-2.8
19-75-3.9
Coleman's first 5 games (5th game home to Stanford) in 2014 (he is a RSFr)
17-78-4.6
17-118-6.9
18-46-2.6
13-44-3.4
14-58-4.1
Polk ran more because they had absolutely nothing behind him and Coleman's game against Illinois kinda blew, but its not a drastic difference. Polk ended the season with some monster games as he figured things out. Who knows if Coleman will?
My point on Dwayne Washington which I apparently didn't make well is that with the data I have now (RSSoph Dwayne Washington + RS? Deonte Cooper) >> (So Johri Fogerson + Fr Demitrius Bronson + So Willie Griffin). And I finally got to read your link...its interesting, but think it misses the mark because it doesn't take into account age/time in the program. Sr Shelton >> So Ta'amu, etc. etc...
Like I said before, we'll have to agree to disagree...no biggie. I'm amazed we kept that game as close as we did with as bad as our offense was. I'd hope Peterman can figure that out over time...its his background.
-
I'm talking about who inherited what in their first season 2009 vs. 2014.HoustonHusky said:
I said I don't know if Polk is better...data after 4 years says he probably is, but I didn't think Sankey would be better than Polk and he was. My point is you can't use that 4 years of data on one when you have nothing on the other.MikeDamone said:
We had a discussion on this here. Check the facts (or opinions). I don't think the talent overall is better. Some positions yes, others no.HoustonHusky said:
Not sure where (don't have time right now to track it down), but can't say I agree with your quick assessment.MikeDamone said:
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.
L
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,
- 2014 DL is WAY better (sr. Kikaha > sr Teo, sr Shelton >> so Ta'amu, and I'd take Sr. Hudsons over fr Crichton and Jr Elisara any day of the week. Add to that the back-ups...)
- LBs are a wash
- I'd take the 2014 secondary over the 2009 secondary (sr Peters > true freshman Trufant, and the rest of the 2009 secondary was nondescript to put it kindly).
- On offense the 2014 OL is WAY better (Christine, Ossai??? 2015 OL scares me though...)
- no clue on RBs (hard to compare a RSFreshman Polk to a RSFreshman Coleman for reasons I said earlier...no clue how good Coleman will be, and I think Washington is probably a better RB than any of the others on the 2009 roster.
- I would take 2009 Jr. Lockner over any of the QBs we have now, but we have 4 young but highly recruited QBs on the roster (and a 5th that is a 6th string TE or something).
- WRs is tough but I'd call it a wash or favor the 2014 group. Not a single drafted receiver on the 2009 roster and I think at least Williams and probably Ross will get drafted out of our current 2 deeps, not to mention who knows what we have with the Freshman.
- TE...I'd say 2009 just because I think the current batch aren't balanced which I think hurts the running game on blocking more than some take note.
That said, the 2014 Pac12 is harder than the 2009 Pac10, and my expectations are greater than getting to 0.500 winning. Apples and Oranges to me and I don't consider it an indictment of Peterman or an endorsement of Sark. And hey, we are allowed to disagree.
-HH
Polk was head and shoulders above anyone on the current roster. Washington better than Polk? Jesus dude. Polk had the best freshman season in husky history. Over 1000 yards and honorable mention all pac10 and 2nd team freshman all American. And you don't know of Polk is better than Coleman and think washington is better than all of them? That alone puts every point of your analysis in question.
hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/13144/a-q-for-the-board
Polk's first 4 games (4th game @ Stanford) in 2009 (he was a RSFr)
21-90-4.3
19-80-4.2
25-71-2.8
19-75-3.9
Coleman's first 5 games (5th game home to Stanford) in 2014 (he is a RSFr)
17-78-4.6
17-118-6.9
18-46-2.6
13-44-3.4
14-58-4.1
Polk ran more because they had absolutely nothing behind him and Coleman's game against Illinois kinda blew, but its not a drastic difference. Polk ended the season with some monster games as he figured things out. Who knows if Coleman will?
My point on Dwayne Washington which I apparently didn't make well is that with the data I have now (RSSoph Dwayne Washington + RS? Deonte Cooper) >> (So Johri Fogerson + Fr Demitrius Bronson + So Willie Griffin). And I finally got to read your link...its interesting, but think it misses the mark because it doesn't take into account age/time in the program. Sr Shelton >> So Ta'amu, etc. etc...
Like I said before, we'll have to agree to disagree...no biggie. I'm amazed we kept that game as close as we did with as bad as our offense was. I'd hope Peterman can figure that out over time...its his background.
You seriously don't know if Polk in 2009 is any better than any running back on the current team ever will be?
And why selectively stop at 4 games for Polk and 5 games for the others. You conveniently leave out Polk's 143 yard performance vs. Notre Dame. Just because they have a common opponent in Stanford is meaningless. If you're going to do that, then you have to factor in Polk played against LSU and USC in the four games you are comparing,
Sark had more to work with on the offensive side than Petersen does. If you don't believe that..more power to ya.. -
WTF? 2009 Stanford and 2014 Stanford are not common opponents. It would be like comparing 2009 UCLA in Rick Neuheisel's 2nd year vs. this years team.HoustonHusky said:
I said I don't know if Polk is better...data after 4 years says he probably is, but I didn't think Sankey would be better than Polk and he was. My point is you can't use that 4 years of data on one when you have nothing on the other.MikeDamone said:
We had a discussion on this here. Check the facts (or opinions). I don't think the talent overall is better. Some positions yes, others no.HoustonHusky said:
Not sure where (don't have time right now to track it down), but can't say I agree with your quick assessment.MikeDamone said:
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.
L
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,
- 2014 DL is WAY better (sr. Kikaha > sr Teo, sr Shelton >> so Ta'amu, and I'd take Sr. Hudsons over fr Crichton and Jr Elisara any day of the week. Add to that the back-ups...)
- LBs are a wash
- I'd take the 2014 secondary over the 2009 secondary (sr Peters > true freshman Trufant, and the rest of the 2009 secondary was nondescript to put it kindly).
- On offense the 2014 OL is WAY better (Christine, Ossai??? 2015 OL scares me though...)
- no clue on RBs (hard to compare a RSFreshman Polk to a RSFreshman Coleman for reasons I said earlier...no clue how good Coleman will be, and I think Washington is probably a better RB than any of the others on the 2009 roster.
- I would take 2009 Jr. Lockner over any of the QBs we have now, but we have 4 young but highly recruited QBs on the roster (and a 5th that is a 6th string TE or something).
- WRs is tough but I'd call it a wash or favor the 2014 group. Not a single drafted receiver on the 2009 roster and I think at least Williams and probably Ross will get drafted out of our current 2 deeps, not to mention who knows what we have with the Freshman.
- TE...I'd say 2009 just because I think the current batch aren't balanced which I think hurts the running game on blocking more than some take note.
That said, the 2014 Pac12 is harder than the 2009 Pac10, and my expectations are greater than getting to 0.500 winning. Apples and Oranges to me and I don't consider it an indictment of Peterman or an endorsement of Sark. And hey, we are allowed to disagree.
-HH
Polk was head and shoulders above anyone on the current roster. Washington better than Polk? Jesus dude. Polk had the best freshman season in husky history. Over 1000 yards and honorable mention all pac10 and 2nd team freshman all American. And you don't know of Polk is better than Coleman and think washington is better than all of them? That alone puts every point of your analysis in question.
hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/13144/a-q-for-the-board
Polk's first 4 games (4th game @ Stanford) in 2009 (he was a RSFr)
21-90-4.3
19-80-4.2
25-71-2.8
19-75-3.9
Coleman's first 5 games (5th game home to Stanford) in 2014 (he is a RSFr)
17-78-4.6
17-118-6.9
18-46-2.6
13-44-3.4
14-58-4.1
Polk ran more because they had absolutely nothing behind him and Coleman's game against Illinois kinda blew, but its not a drastic difference. Polk ended the season with some monster games as he figured things out. Who knows if Coleman will?
My point on Dwayne Washington which I apparently didn't make well is that with the data I have now (RSSoph Dwayne Washington + RS? Deonte Cooper) >> (So Johri Fogerson + Fr Demitrius Bronson + So Willie Griffin). And I finally got to read your link...its interesting, but think it misses the mark because it doesn't take into account age/time in the program. Sr Shelton >> So Ta'amu, etc. etc...
Like I said before, we'll have to agree to disagree...no biggie. I'm amazed we kept that game as close as we did with as bad as our offense was. I'd hope Peterman can figure that out over time...its his background. -
Fuck...sure, I'll include his 134 against ND...can I include his next 2 games as well (34 against Arizona and 51 against Arizona St.)? Heck, can I include his 2 games in 2008 numbers where he averaged 1.7 yards/carry and looked lost as could be? And no, I said absolutely nowhere that 2009 Stanford = 2014 Stanford...what the fuck are people smoking? Its an arbitrary cutoff a few games into each of their careers.
None of it changes my point...you are comparing Chris Polk, the guy who had 2 1/2 years of unbelievable production against a RSFreshman who we have no data on and saying Polk has to be better based on the data of his last two years and last couple of games of his 2nd year. I'm saying I don't know, and I'm comparing the equivalent data (4-6 games into their RSFreshman season...you pick the cutoff game...it doesn't matter) and showing their ain't much difference in their stats for those games. Blind with ONLY that data there is no way anyone can honestly say the answer is definitive.
Add to that Dwayne Washington, who is still a hell of a lot better than the dreckfest that was Fogerson, Griffin, or Bronsen. And any of our OL including Atoe or Shelton are a hell of a lot better than Christine or Ossai (feel free to use that in propping up Polk...might be legit, but also says that the 2014 OL >> 2009 OL). And Williams, Ross, and maybe Mickens will get drafted which puts them ahead of anybody on the 2009 crew. The QB is an albatross right now, but I don't think you can say on average the 2009 team is the same talent level as the 2014 team. It sure as hell doesn't match up on D, and it doesn't match up in the overall numbers on the O. That said, I don't think anyone has the same expectations on the team either which is why I think its a false comparison...apples and oranges.
You aren't changing my opinion, I'm not changing your...why again are we beating a dead horse?
