SIMPLE QUESTION

PostGameOrangeSlices

UW is way better.

Losing to Furd by 7 >>>>>>>>>> beating Hawaii by 1

HFNY

WTF. Losing to a Pelini coached Nebraska team is entirely different than losing to a better coached team (Stanford) that happens to be the two-time defending Pac-12 champ.

And WTF II because if we still win 10 regular season games (admittedly, looking less likely), that means we'd win 6 conference games for the first time since 2001. So yes, this 10 win bullshit matters. Of course, if Petersen wins 9 games that means he'd match the best Sloppy Steve did in his 5 years at UW.

MikeDamone said:

Some here remind me a lot of the doogs in 2011 when UW was 5-1 with a loss to Nebraska. The writing was on the wall, but some wanted to just be happy with 5-1 and claim that Nebraska was unbeatable no matter what so it was OK. But there was a pattern, the HHB's saw it and were mocked for pointing it out. UW beat the weakest pac-12 teams and was rolled by the upper tier teams.

Same thing is happening now, except some here are clinging to nothing but hope in the face of very telling statistics.

And stop with the 10 win bullshit. That proves nothing with the shitty preseason and a 13 game schedule. HHs measure success or failure in conference. We can't change the rules for Petersen.

It's sort of like golf...

haie

We're not a great team, but we didn't get rolled up by Stanford. Sark would get flat out embarrassed by any team with a pulse. I still think Stanford is great, because their defense is elite with top-level talent where it counts. A TD return called back, Timu doesn't return a surefire pick to the house, etc. We made some big plays and left some big plays on the field because of penalties/dumbassery. I hold that and the 4th down calls against the coaching staff for this game; I expect those to be cleaned up by Cal.

RoadDawg55

MikeDamone said:

Some here remind me a lot of the doogs in 2011 when UW was 5-1 with a loss to Nebraska. The writing was on the wall, but some wanted to just be happy with 5-1 and claim that Nebraska was unbeatable no matter what so it was OK. But there was a pattern, the HHB's saw it and were mocked for pointing it out. UW beat the weakest pac-12 teams and was rolled by the upper tier teams.

Same thing is happening now, except some here are clinging to nothing but hope in the face of very telling statistics.

And stop with the 10 win bullshit. That proves nothing with the shitty preseason and a 13 game schedule. HHs measure success or failure in conference. We can't change the rules for Petersen.

It's sort of like golf...

Disagree. This year and 2011 really aren't that similar. We aren't a dominate team. Did you think we were going to be? I get it, losing sucks and we want UW to be a top team. Part of the reason for hope is the coach. In 2011, the defense was porous and there was no hope that it could get fixed. Holt sucked and Sark had no fucking clue about how to fix a defense. Petersen on the other hand, almost always fielded great offenses at Boise. I don't think we will have a great offense, but that is the worst we will play all year. Stanford was very likely the best defense we will play all year and it probably isn't close.

The rules haven't changed. It was always 10+ wins and the schedule played a part in that prediction. 6-3 in conference is still possible and is the benchmark for praise. 5-4 would be meh. The only game that is a near certain loss is Oregon. ASU and UCLA at home will be tough games. Arizona and WSU are tough road games. Go 3-1 in these games and that's 10-3 (6-3).

MikeDamone

HFNY said:

WTF. Losing to a Pelini coached Nebraska team is entirely different than losing to a better coached team (Stanford) that happens to be the two-time defending Pac-12 champ. have lost 14 starters from last year and lost this year to sloppy Steve at home.

And WTF II because if we still win 10 regular season games (admittedly, looking less likely), that means we'd win 6 conference games for the first time since 2001. So yes, this 10 win bullshit matters. Of course, if Petersen wins 9 games that means he'd match the best Sloppy Steve did in his 5 years at UW.

MikeDamone said:

Some here remind me a lot of the doogs in 2011 when UW was 5-1 with a loss to Nebraska. The writing was on the wall, but some wanted to just be happy with 5-1 and claim that Nebraska was unbeatable no matter what so it was OK. But there was a pattern, the HHB's saw it and were mocked for pointing it out. UW beat the weakest pac-12 teams and was rolled by the upper tier teams.

Same thing is happening now, except some here are clinging to nothing but hope in the face of very telling statistics.

And stop with the 10 win bullshit. That proves nothing with the shitty preseason and a 13 game schedule. HHs measure success or failure in conference. We can't change the rules for Petersen.

It's sort of like golf...

Uh Huh... and if they run the table, that would be great.

You should post that here http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=147

Keep on doogin'

HFNY

Good points and I'm not sure about the offense. Thankfully they have a bye week to work on things and get guys healthy (Riva, KW, maybe Ross is still a little banged up).

UCLA's is pretty good but not remotely close to Stanford so Stanford will definitely be the best D we'll play this year. After 5 games into the season, only Oregon and Oregon State are in the top 50 so far (41st and 43rd):

ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/28

RoadDawg55 said:

A legitimate question is if the offense is too complex for Miles? We are not running the exact same offense, but Boise State had a complex offensive system with Kellen Moore.

It hasn't been all bad though. If we keep winning the turnover margin at the rate we have, we will win 10+ games. I do think the team is getting better. The defense certainly has improved and I'm sold the offense has really regressed. We'll see how it performs the next two or three games, before making a definitive statement. Stanford might be the best defense we played all year and it will be interesting to see how other teams in the conference perform against their defense. Or it won't be interesting. Who the fuck knows?

MikeDamone

haie said:

We're not a great team, but we didn't get rolled up by Stanford. Sark would get flat out embarrassed by any team with a pulse. I still think Stanford is great, because their defense is elite with top-level talent where it counts. A TD return called back, Timu doesn't return a surefire pick to the house, etc. We made some big plays and left some big plays on the field because of penalties/dumbassery. I hold that and the 4th down calls against the coaching staff for this game; I expect those to be cleaned up by Cal.

UW didn't get rolled by Stanford last year either.

HTH

greenblood

MikeDamone said:

haie said:

We're not a great team, but we didn't get rolled up by Stanford. Sark would get flat out embarrassed by any team with a pulse. I still think Stanford is great, because their defense is elite with top-level talent where it counts. A TD return called back, Timu doesn't return a surefire pick to the house, etc. We made some big plays and left some big plays on the field because of penalties/dumbassery. I hold that and the 4th down calls against the coaching staff for this game; I expect those to be cleaned up by Cal.

UW didn't get rolled by Stanford the last year 2 years either.

HTH

RaceBannon

We won't know until we play Oregon, UCLA, and the serious Arizona schools. Those teams have the offense we couldn't stop the last five years.

We have to make the tap ins against Cal, Colorado, Utah and WSU. The season hinges on the top four games. We will know if we are better

Swaye

I don't think Utah is a tap in.

More like a 3 footer with some slope.