The talent on the worst offense in the conference is going to look shitty. That's a given. The question is how much of that is because of coaching? The talent is suspect, combine that with sub par coaching, and we are seeing the result.
The concerning thing is nobody on the offense looks improved from last year. Some guys have regressed. The OL looks the same as last year, possibly worse.
The OL was never viewed as a great pass blocking unit.
From a run blocking standpoint, the numbers are very good when Shaq is running behind the OL ... it's very average (or below) when Shaq isn't back there. How much of that is on the RBs versus the OL?
From an outside perspective, "We weren't as talented as we thought," is 2014's version of "But he took over Owen-12. . . ." excuses made for Sark from 2009 and 2010.
Just as the 0-12 Huskies squad was not nearly as talentless as its record suggested, this year's has more than enough talent to not be the worst offense in the league. The beavs are the true worst offense in the league from a talent only perspective.
Both revisionist viewpoints were/are wholly about excusing bad coaching jobs.
From an outside perspective, "We weren't as talented as we thought," is 2014's version of "But he took over Owen-12. . . ." excuses made for Sark from 2009 and 2010.
Just as the 0-12 Huskies squad was not nearly as talentless as its record suggested, this year's has more than enough talent to not be the worst offense in the league. The beavs are the true worst offense in the league from a talent only perspective.
Both revisionist viewpoints were/are wholly about excusing bad coaching jobs.
Most people were not judging Sark his first year. Beating USC and shit was promising. He closed his second year on hot streak and won the Holiday Bowl. He had a lot of support. There were plenty of cracks in his facade but it was in his third year when it was clear he couldn't coach.
Judging Peterman or comparing him to Sark at this point is fucking stupid.
Sark couldn't recruit. The O line does suck. Talent is spotty and unreliable and soft from years of losing.
Of course it would be great if Peterman cleaned it up in nine games. But he didn't.
Doesn't mean he will or won't it just means he gets his three years.
Most people were not judging Sark his first year. Beating USC and shit was promising. He closed his second year on hot streak and won the Holiday Bowl. He had a lot of support. There were plenty of cracks in his facade but it was in his third year when it was clear he couldn't coach.
Judging Peterman or comparing him to Sark at this point is fucking stupid.
Sark couldn't recruit. The O line does suck. Talent is spotty and unreliable and soft from years of losing.
Of course it would be great if Peterman cleaned it up in nine games. But he didn't.
Doesn't mean he will or won't it just means he gets his three years.
Basically where I am at after countless arguments in my mind. Poont of the article was that this was the first game where doubt crept in my mind. I still believe we will be fine in the long run but I freaked out a bit this week. Plus I am done with Jonathan Smith.
I'm done dooging it up for Petersen until I see results. I know some disagree with me, but I think many on this board are looking for reasons to convince themselves that Petersen is the guy. Blaming Sark is the same thing Sark supporters did with Ty. And Ty supporters did with Gilby and Rick. Petersen's resume is the reason why he was a great hire. Nothing more. It does not ensure success at UW.
I'm done dooging it up for Petersen until I see results. I know some disagree with me, but I think many on this board are looking for reasons to convince themselves that Petersen is the guy. Blaming Sark is the same thing Sark supporters did with Ty. And Ty supporters did with Gilby and Rick. Petersen's resume is the reason why he was a great hire. Nothing more. It does not ensure success at UW.
Why y Fucktards dooged it up for Petersen is beyond me. Have hi learned nothing on the last 15+ years?
The revisionist history to me screams of anchoring to prior thoughts and opinions ...
There's no doubt that we lost a lot after last season ...
We THOUGHT that there were suitable players waiting in the wings to take over for them.
It's easy to perform a backup over limited opportunity ... much harder to perform when the lights are shining on you and you have to perform on a consistent basis.
We knew Sankey was a huge loss. We expected that between Coleman and Washington one of them would step up as the "next man up" just like Sankey did when Polk left. Neither of them has stepped up to embrace the opportunity and instead the RBs that we have are proving that more than anything else that they are JAG with the possible exception of Cooper who I'm not sure is trusted in a full workload week in and week out.
While ASJ wasn't a huge factor in the passing game last year, his run blocking ability was a concern in replacing. Perkins being in and out of the lineup has hurt from a receiving standpoint. We still have not replaced the blocking that ASJ provided.
The WRs is an area where I think that there's some revision to the revision happening. A lot were concerned about Kasen coming back from injury and said that him coming back healthy was a key. I don't think anybody thought that Kasen would be what he has been this year - but a non elite Kasen was a concern. Mickens hasn't shown any real growth in his game other than being a scat WR. Campbell is JAG. Hall is a Mickens JAG. Ross is the big question mark as many wonder why we can't get him the ball more whereas others openly wonder if Ross does enough things well to help him get the ball. Just because he's fast doesn't mean you can just give him the ball in various spots and just say "here you go." A lot of people IMO are discounting the idea that Ross may not be a very good WR (see Hester, Devin).
Then there's the QB position where Miles has underwhelmed considerably versus what was expected. The loss of Spring Practice hurt for sure. The argument about tailoring an offense around what Miles does well I just shake my head at. The offense is super vanilla. That tells me that there's not a lot of trust in Miles to do much of anything well. They've tried to find ways to help Miles be successful and they show up from time to time. But there's nothing about playing the QB position that Miles does at a PAC average level on a consistent basis. And the sad thing is that he's the best QB on the roster. Not sure how you can really change the offense in a manner that really highlights more of Miles' strengths other than quite possibly asking him to run the ball more - which is an opportunity for disaster waiting IMO. And even if you could find an offense that Miles could run, it's such a different offense from what is trying to be installed that you run the risk of having to reteach an entire new offense in the offseason. Is it worth the extra 1-2 wins in the short term that would result from compromising your identity and what it is that you are trying to do long-term in the program? It's a tough question.
The bottom line is that normally some things happen better than you think while others underperform. Normally in the end they wash for the most part. Every once in a while everything goes better than expected and sometimes they all go worse than expected. This year, everything that we looked at before the season on offense has gone worse than expected. Few players have shown any growth year to year. Few have stepped up during the season (returning players). It just kind of is what it is and tells you that going forward the guys that were inherited on the roster on the offensive side of the ball aren't going to be strong parts of the solution on offense.
Do a find and replace for "we" with "I", then you might have a valid point.
Most disappointing to me (besides the QB situation) is the OL (which affects the QB situation) and injuries at spots were we have little depth. Riva is probably our best OL and has been out for about 95% of the season and Charles was a casualty in the Oregon game. Strausser has a great reputation and his 2015 haul is very good so I have hope there. It just sucks that we have to start a RS-Frosh at RT who really needed another year to develop and a guy in place of Charles who didn't have any other offers (Tufunga).
It also sucks that Sloppy Steve left a dreckfest of a secondary that was then compounded by a broken ankle to Jermaine Kelly (basically our #3 corner after Sidney Muthfuckin Jones seized the spot opposite Peters), then Trevor Walker tore his ACL, and then #1 corner Peters gets kicked off the team.
Injuries at RB don't help matters but going into the year, I would've said we could least afford injuries on the OL and probably would've said the secondary after that.
If U-Dub was as JC friendly like nearly every other school in the Pac-12, Petersen could more easily fill holes that way but the options close when we don't take PE credits. I'd love to get a JC OL, JC WR, a JC NT, a JC "Buck", a JC corner, and a JC SS but I doubt we'll get more than one or maaaaybe 2 JC guys to improve depth / talent in a hurry.
Most people were not judging Sark his first year. Beating USC and shit was promising. He closed his second year on hot streak and won the Holiday Bowl. He had a lot of support. There were plenty of cracks in his facade but it was in his third year when it was clear he couldn't coach.
Judging Peterman or comparing him to Sark at this point is fucking stupid.
Sark couldn't recruit. The O line does suck. Talent is spotty and unreliable and soft from years of losing.
Of course it would be great if Peterman cleaned it up in nine games. But he didn't.
Doesn't mean he will or won't it just means he gets his three years.
Comments
The concerning thing is nobody on the offense looks improved from last year. Some guys have regressed. The OL looks the same as last year, possibly worse.
From a run blocking standpoint, the numbers are very good when Shaq is running behind the OL ... it's very average (or below) when Shaq isn't back there. How much of that is on the RBs versus the OL?
Just as the 0-12 Huskies squad was not nearly as talentless as its record suggested, this year's has more than enough talent to not be the worst offense in the league. The beavs are the true worst offense in the league from a talent only perspective.
Both revisionist viewpoints were/are wholly about excusing bad coaching jobs.
Judging Peterman or comparing him to Sark at this point is fucking stupid.
Sark couldn't recruit. The O line does suck. Talent is spotty and unreliable and soft from years of losing.
Of course it would be great if Peterman cleaned it up in nine games. But he didn't.
Doesn't mean he will or won't it just means he gets his three years.
Most disappointing to me (besides the QB situation) is the OL (which affects the QB situation) and injuries at spots were we have little depth. Riva is probably our best OL and has been out for about 95% of the season and Charles was a casualty in the Oregon game. Strausser has a great reputation and his 2015 haul is very good so I have hope there. It just sucks that we have to start a RS-Frosh at RT who really needed another year to develop and a guy in place of Charles who didn't have any other offers (Tufunga).
It also sucks that Sloppy Steve left a dreckfest of a secondary that was then compounded by a broken ankle to Jermaine Kelly (basically our #3 corner after Sidney Muthfuckin Jones seized the spot opposite Peters), then Trevor Walker tore his ACL, and then #1 corner Peters gets kicked off the team.
Injuries at RB don't help matters but going into the year, I would've said we could least afford injuries on the OL and probably would've said the secondary after that.
If U-Dub was as JC friendly like nearly every other school in the Pac-12, Petersen could more easily fill holes that way but the options close when we don't take PE credits. I'd love to get a JC OL, JC WR, a JC NT, a JC "Buck", a JC corner, and a JC SS but I doubt we'll get more than one or maaaaybe 2 JC guys to improve depth / talent in a hurry.