Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
LIFPO
Comments
-
And the dancing cuntwhore on the sidelines. Oh shit boner in sweatpants is coming and so is mother, must go now.topdawgnc said:
And Uncle Phil ...PurpleJ said:
Chip also had a stable of quality running backs and an OL.SevenEleven said:I will say this about Chip / Peterman.
We all laughed at Dennis Dixon as a joke of a QB who folded under pressure for 3 years and as soon as Chip arrived at Oregon he looked like the best player in college Football. Thankfully the knee was the MVP of that season.
Chip didn't need multiple years to turn shit QBs into gold. That these 3 look like such crap is troubling -
Chip Kelly was a phenomenal coach.Canard said:The explanation is easy.
Two and three game seasons for spud state and Kellen Moore being phenomal from day one. Lots of coaches look great with an NFL caliber QB, limited walking wounded, and extra weeks to prepare.
Part of my theorizing is that the weekly big boy grind exposes peenermans shortcomings in lots of areas. He's already showing poorly in roster management.
But got butt fucked by Les Miles, Tressel, Peterman, and couldn't beat Auburn ... with weeks to prepare.
I also wonder why Slingblade is somehow ready to be a big time coach. He was 0-0 before taking over the most well funded program in the PAC.
If Peterman was at Stanford, Oregon, or SC ... he would be fine. At Washington he is just fine on defense ... it is the offense he has to clean up.
I know it is hard for you to understand ... but 92-12 against competition who has equal resources is pretty fucking good.
You seem obsessed with Peterman ... me thinks you realize he was a better hire than your coach and you are spending a lot of trying to convince yourself you are wrong for your fear. -
1) If Chip had a coaching flaw in college, it was that he was too stubborn. He's since just gone with what is working rather than prove he can run the ball at all costs.topdawgnc said:
Chip Kelly was a phenomenal coach.Canard said:The explanation is easy.
Two and three game seasons for spud state and Kellen Moore being phenomal from day one. Lots of coaches look great with an NFL caliber QB, limited walking wounded, and extra weeks to prepare.
Part of my theorizing is that the weekly big boy grind exposes peenermans shortcomings in lots of areas. He's already showing poorly in roster management.
But got butt fucked by Les Miles, Tressel, Peterman, and couldn't beat Auburn ... with weeks to prepare.
I also wonder why Slingblade is somehow ready to be a big time coach. He was 0-0 before taking over the most well funded program in the PAC.
If Peterman was at Stanford, Oregon, or SC ... he would be fine. At Washington he is just fine on defense ... it is the offense he has to clean up.
I know it is hard for you to understand ... but 92-12 against competition who has equal resources is pretty fucking good.
You seem obsessed with Peterman ... me thinks you realize he was a better hire than your coach and you are spending a lot of trying to convince yourself you are wrong for your fear.
2) chip tapped Slingblade as a worthy replacement. Whether that pans out remains to be seen. We aren't the most well funded program in the Pac, btw.
3) peenerman inherited the UW defensive personnel. He's not a defensive architect or coach.
4) spud st. was more equal than equal compared to its wac/MWC peers. Especially as regards TV exposure.
5) I've been against peenerman since when morons in our fanbase were floating his name to replace Bellotti. Always viewed CCP as fraudulent. His last two truckster campaigns should be worrisome.
Lastly, this place is for entertainment. Being contrarian about peenerman is far more fun than is the standard fellating of him going on around here. -
1) Which is it, Chip coached to the talent he had ... or he was stubborn. Previous posts you talk about how Chip molCanard said:
1) If Chip had a coaching flaw in college, it was that he was too stubborn. He's since just gone with what is working rather than prove he can run the ball at all costs.topdawgnc said:
Chip Kelly was a phenomenal coach.Canard said:The explanation is easy.
Two and three game seasons for spud state and Kellen Moore being phenomal from day one. Lots of coaches look great with an NFL caliber QB, limited walking wounded, and extra weeks to prepare.
Part of my theorizing is that the weekly big boy grind exposes peenermans shortcomings in lots of areas. He's already showing poorly in roster management.
But got butt fucked by Les Miles, Tressel, Peterman, and couldn't beat Auburn ... with weeks to prepare.
I also wonder why Slingblade is somehow ready to be a big time coach. He was 0-0 before taking over the most well funded program in the PAC.
If Peterman was at Stanford, Oregon, or SC ... he would be fine. At Washington he is just fine on defense ... it is the offense he has to clean up.
I know it is hard for you to understand ... but 92-12 against competition who has equal resources is pretty fucking good.
You seem obsessed with Peterman ... me thinks you realize he was a better hire than your coach and you are spending a lot of trying to convince yourself you are wrong for your fear.
2) chip tapped Slingblade as a worthy replacement. Whether that pans out remains to be seen. We aren't the most well funded program in the Pac, btw.
3) peenerman inherited the UW defensive personnel. He's not a defensive architect or coach.
4) spud st. was more equal than equal compared to its wac/MWC peers. Especially as regards TV exposure.
5) I've been against peenerman since when morons in our fanbase were floating his name to replace Bellotti. Always viewed CCP as fraudulent. His last two truckster campaigns should be worrisome.
Lastly, this place is for entertainment. Being contrarian about peenerman is far more fun than is the standard fellating of him going on around here.
2) Oh ... because Chip "tapped" him he is ready for the big leagues ... more so than a guy who went 92-12 ... gotcha.
3) Slingblade inherited his entire team. He may have been on the staff, but none of us are stupid.
4) That lead to 92-12! WOW! Television makes better coaches!
5) Whaaat? Bellotti was pushed out to make room for Chip ... let's not fool ourselves.
Lastly ... what ever stains your sweatpants.
-
RaceBannon said:
I'm not arguing that Petersen is better than Chip. Chip is awesome.
But none of you knew that when Bellotti brought him from nowhere.
And Bellotti built a hell of a lot better program than Sark to follow.
Invalid comparison. Kelly had just as big of a hand in what Kelly inheritted as Bellotti did. Before Kelly showed up, Bellotti was Sark. -
I didn't realize Sark won a BCS equivalent game ...salemcoog said:RaceBannon said:I'm not arguing that Petersen is better than Chip. Chip is awesome.
But none of you knew that when Bellotti brought him from nowhere.
And Bellotti built a hell of a lot better program than Sark to follow.
Invalid comparison. Kelly had just as big of a hand in what Kelly inheritted as Bellotti did. Before Kelly showed up, Bellotti was Sark. -
If we're bashing the Holiday Bowel victory over a checked out Husker team or a moral victory in the Alamo bowel against RGIII.... what the fuck am I here for?topdawgnc said:
I didn't realize Sark won a BCS equivalent game ...salemcoog said:RaceBannon said:I'm not arguing that Petersen is better than Chip. Chip is awesome.
But none of you knew that when Bellotti brought him from nowhere.
And Bellotti built a hell of a lot better program than Sark to follow.
Invalid comparison. Kelly had just as big of a hand in what Kelly inheritted as Bellotti did. Before Kelly showed up, Bellotti was Sark. -
Fucking hell. At least land your blows in the same fucking area code as where the shots came from.topdawgnc said:
1) Which is it, Chip coached to the talent he had ... or he was stubborn. Previous posts you talk about how Chip molCanard said:
1) If Chip had a coaching flaw in college, it was that he was too stubborn. He's since just gone with what is working rather than prove he can run the ball at all costs.topdawgnc said:
Chip Kelly was a phenomenal coach.Canard said:The explanation is easy.
Two and three game seasons for spud state and Kellen Moore being phenomal from day one. Lots of coaches look great with an NFL caliber QB, limited walking wounded, and extra weeks to prepare.
Part of my theorizing is that the weekly big boy grind exposes peenermans shortcomings in lots of areas. He's already showing poorly in roster management.
But got butt fucked by Les Miles, Tressel, Peterman, and couldn't beat Auburn ... with weeks to prepare.
I also wonder why Slingblade is somehow ready to be a big time coach. He was 0-0 before taking over the most well funded program in the PAC.
If Peterman was at Stanford, Oregon, or SC ... he would be fine. At Washington he is just fine on defense ... it is the offense he has to clean up.
I know it is hard for you to understand ... but 92-12 against competition who has equal resources is pretty fucking good.
You seem obsessed with Peterman ... me thinks you realize he was a better hire than your coach and you are spending a lot of trying to convince yourself you are wrong for your fear.
2) chip tapped Slingblade as a worthy replacement. Whether that pans out remains to be seen. We aren't the most well funded program in the Pac, btw.
3) peenerman inherited the UW defensive personnel. He's not a defensive architect or coach.
4) spud st. was more equal than equal compared to its wac/MWC peers. Especially as regards TV exposure.
5) I've been against peenerman since when morons in our fanbase were floating his name to replace Bellotti. Always viewed CCP as fraudulent. His last two truckster campaigns should be worrisome.
Lastly, this place is for entertainment. Being contrarian about peenerman is far more fun than is the standard fellating of him going on around here.
2) Oh ... because Chip "tapped" him he is ready for the big leagues ... more so than a guy who went 92-12 ... gotcha.
3) Slingblade inherited his entire team. He may have been on the staff, but none of us are stupid.
4) That lead to 92-12! WOW! Television makes better coaches!
5) Whaaat? Bellotti was pushed out to make room for Chip ... let's not fool ourselves.
Lastly ... what ever stains your sweatpants.
1) play design and play calling are different beasts. Can be a mad scientist in one and foolish at times in the other. Chip regularly admitted to his own FS play calling moments.
2) I'll take chip's talent evaluation at face value until it is demonstrably wrong. Anointment was the same way he essentially got to be HC without a HC track record. I'd give the guy who discovered Mariota, installed a better conceived passing game, and has since added some pistol concepts to make the offense more varied and harder to prepare for, a fair shot to prove himself a HC failure.
3) your aside about Hellboy has nothing to do with peenerman having no defensive coaching relevance. You give him defensive credit he doesn't deserve and shield him from the criticism on offense he rightfully earns.
4) TV lead to more exposure which was pointed out to recruits, and helps tremendously in landing them. BSU was the Alabama of the WAC. Lots of good coaching, and lots of shithouse opponents scheduled. Can't get that marshmallow soft schedule save for three games a year in most pac seasons.
5) in 2002-2004, when Ludwig was the o coordinator and it looked like Tedford was the real magician, there was talk in our fan base of making a run at rising star peenerman. Stupid back then, stupid in 2006, stupid when Chip left, stupid if Hellmann's doesn't work out. He was too inexperienced in the early 2000s and we haven't fucked around with dinosaur ball since 2004.
-
DisagreeCanard said:
Fucking hell. At least land your blows in the same fucking area code as where the shots came from.topdawgnc said:
1) Which is it, Chip coached to the talent he had ... or he was stubborn. Previous posts you talk about how Chip molCanard said:
1) If Chip had a coaching flaw in college, it was that he was too stubborn. He's since just gone with what is working rather than prove he can run the ball at all costs.topdawgnc said:
Chip Kelly was a phenomenal coach.Canard said:The explanation is easy.
Two and three game seasons for spud state and Kellen Moore being phenomal from day one. Lots of coaches look great with an NFL caliber QB, limited walking wounded, and extra weeks to prepare.
Part of my theorizing is that the weekly big boy grind exposes peenermans shortcomings in lots of areas. He's already showing poorly in roster management.
But got butt fucked by Les Miles, Tressel, Peterman, and couldn't beat Auburn ... with weeks to prepare.
I also wonder why Slingblade is somehow ready to be a big time coach. He was 0-0 before taking over the most well funded program in the PAC.
If Peterman was at Stanford, Oregon, or SC ... he would be fine. At Washington he is just fine on defense ... it is the offense he has to clean up.
I know it is hard for you to understand ... but 92-12 against competition who has equal resources is pretty fucking good.
You seem obsessed with Peterman ... me thinks you realize he was a better hire than your coach and you are spending a lot of trying to convince yourself you are wrong for your fear.
2) chip tapped Slingblade as a worthy replacement. Whether that pans out remains to be seen. We aren't the most well funded program in the Pac, btw.
3) peenerman inherited the UW defensive personnel. He's not a defensive architect or coach.
4) spud st. was more equal than equal compared to its wac/MWC peers. Especially as regards TV exposure.
5) I've been against peenerman since when morons in our fanbase were floating his name to replace Bellotti. Always viewed CCP as fraudulent. His last two truckster campaigns should be worrisome.
Lastly, this place is for entertainment. Being contrarian about peenerman is far more fun than is the standard fellating of him going on around here.
2) Oh ... because Chip "tapped" him he is ready for the big leagues ... more so than a guy who went 92-12 ... gotcha.
3) Slingblade inherited his entire team. He may have been on the staff, but none of us are stupid.
4) That lead to 92-12! WOW! Television makes better coaches!
5) Whaaat? Bellotti was pushed out to make room for Chip ... let's not fool ourselves.
Lastly ... what ever stains your sweatpants.
1) play design and play calling are different beasts. Can be a mad scientist in one and foolish at times in the other. Chip regularly admitted to his own FS play calling moments.
2) I'll take chip's talent evaluation at face value until it is demonstrably wrong. Anointment was the same way he essentially got to be HC without a HC track record. I'd give the guy who discovered Mariota, installed a better conceived passing game, and has since added some pistol concepts to make the offense more varied and harder to prepare for, a fair shot to prove himself a HC failure.
3) your aside about Hellboy has nothing to do with peenerman having no defensive coaching relevance. You give him defensive credit he doesn't deserve and shield him from the criticism on offense he rightfully earns.
4) TV lead to more exposure which was pointed out to recruits, and helps tremendously in landing them. BSU was the Alabama of the WAC. Lots of good coaching, and lots of shithouse opponents scheduled. Can't get that marshmallow soft schedule save for three games a year in most pac seasons.
5) in 2002-2004, when Ludwig was the o coordinator and it looked like Tedford was the real magician, there was talk in our fan base of making a run at rising star peenerman. Stupid back then, stupid in 2006, stupid when Chip left, stupid if Hellmann's doesn't work out. He was too inexperienced in the early 2000s and we haven't fucked around with dinosaur ball since 2004. -
Help me out here, @RoadDawg55, I'm not following why you are saying people are accepting a last place offense?
I think a vast majority of people out here agree with you that there is zero reason for UW to have the worst offense in the conference, even with a lack of talent. You should be able to scheme around to at least not be in the 9-12 range, especially in modern day college football.
I'm not trying to troll you, because I agree that last is unacceptable, just want to see why you keep saying people are accepting it?
