If I wasn't so lazy it would fun to look up what we lost in 1999. We were 7-5. Went 11-1 Rick's 2nd year.
Not saying we'll go 11-1. Just that a 2nd year leap is not unheard of.
I expect a better product all around next year. Who ever is here. Recruits and development trump age these days. Oregon was quite young this year
Off the top of my head, Lester Towns at LB, Jermaine Smith at CB, Gerald Harris at WR, Chris Juergens retired. I guess Mo Shaw was a contributor at RB, but that wasn't really a big loss.
The 2000 team was experienced and had a lot of good players returning. It also had the best QB in the conference. WR was the only true weakness. That team had a lot of good seniors.
I disagree about age not being important. If you have a team with Alabama talent you can get away with being young. It's different at UW. Young skill players are fine. Young and inexperienced lines are problematic. Not to mention, the talent Sark brought in at OL has been worse than other positions.
You use Oregon as an example, but Oregon has a lot of older guys who have played a lot on teams that have won. Mariota, Grassu, Fisher, Stevens, Ekpre-Omlumu, Mathis, Hill. They had four returners back on the OL, but we all saw how shitty they were with Fisher out. UW will have a patchwork OL to begin with. One or two injuries and they are likely completely fucked.
The seniors next year at UW are pretty bad. Charles is supposedly a draft worthy guard (I've never been that impressed) and Feeney will maybe be drafted as a LB and special teams ace. The rest of them (Mickens, Perkins, Littleton, Tufunga) have slim chances at best.
If I wasn't so lazy it would fun to look up what we lost in 1999. We were 7-5. Went 11-1 Rick's 2nd year.
Not saying we'll go 11-1. Just that a 2nd year leap is not unheard of.
I expect a better product all around next year. Who ever is here. Recruits and development trump age these days. Oregon was quite young this year
Off the top of my head, Lester Towns at LB, Jermaine Smith at CB, Gerald Harris at WR, Chris Juergens retired. I guess Mo Shaw was a contributor at RB, but that wasn't really a big loss.
The 2000 team was experienced and had a lot of good players returning. It also had the best QB in the conference. WR was the only true weakness. That team had a lot of good seniors.
I disagree about age not being important. If you have a team with Alabama talent you can get away with being young. It's different at UW. Young skill players are fine. Young and inexperienced lines are problematic. Not to mention, the talent Sark brought in at OL has been worse than other positions.
You use Oregon as an example, but Oregon has a lot of older guys who have played a lot on teams that have won. Mariota, Grassu, Fisher, Stevens, Ekpre-Omlumu, Mathis, Hill. They had four returners back on the OL, but we all saw how shitty they were with Fisher out. UW will have a patchwork OL to begin with. One or two injuries and they are likely completely fucked.
The seniors next year at UW are pretty bad. Charles is supposedly a draft worthy guard (I've never been that impressed) and Feeney will maybe be drafted as a LB and special teams ace. The rest of them (Mickens, Perkins, Littleton, Tufunga) have slim chances at best.
Oregon crying about missing a lineman is so Oregon. Like nobody else ever lost linemen. UCLA list more but they don't make excuses for losing.
If Peterman can recruit and develop like I think he can we'll see it even next year.
I agree with most of your post and am not trying to be argumentitive. We have talent gaps.
I think we should do better in 2015 and will begin to see Peterman's program begin to flower. I agree that he was left with a shitty roster, but his recruiting can fix that.
Petersen is a proven championship coach who will be successful here. He's recruiting too well and is too good at developing talent for it not to happen. As my research showed, big time programs often find out in year 2 while for other schools its year 3-4. So Aubbie and Damone go fuck rather than making the same stupid time proclamations like a broken clock.
As for next year I might give my left nut right now for 6-3 in conference. @USC, @ASU, @Stanford, @OSU. Probably favored in 1. Home- Cal, Utah, UO, AZ, WSU. Maybe favored in 3. Probably 4-5 on paper. Petersen effect was -1 this year maybe its +1 next year and we are 5-4. Could lose to Boise. Thats 7-5.
The biggest questions are QB and OL. If Miles makes a huge leap and the OL is rebuilt somehow, then we could be better than expected and in really good shape for 2016.
The metrics will tell us a lot. We are 35 in SRS right now. If we are similar next year, we'd be in position to jump to top 20 in year 3 and compete nationally in year 4.
Comments
The 2000 team was experienced and had a lot of good players returning. It also had the best QB in the conference. WR was the only true weakness. That team had a lot of good seniors.
I disagree about age not being important. If you have a team with Alabama talent you can get away with being young. It's different at UW. Young skill players are fine. Young and inexperienced lines are problematic. Not to mention, the talent Sark brought in at OL has been worse than other positions.
You use Oregon as an example, but Oregon has a lot of older guys who have played a lot on teams that have won. Mariota, Grassu, Fisher, Stevens, Ekpre-Omlumu, Mathis, Hill. They had four returners back on the OL, but we all saw how shitty they were with Fisher out. UW will have a patchwork OL to begin with. One or two injuries and they are likely completely fucked.
The seniors next year at UW are pretty bad. Charles is supposedly a draft worthy guard (I've never been that impressed) and Feeney will maybe be drafted as a LB and special teams ace. The rest of them (Mickens, Perkins, Littleton, Tufunga) have slim chances at best.
If Peterman can recruit and develop like I think he can we'll see it even next year.
I agree with most of your post and am not trying to be argumentitive. We have talent gaps.
As for next year I might give my left nut right now for 6-3 in conference. @USC, @ASU, @Stanford, @OSU. Probably favored in 1. Home- Cal, Utah, UO, AZ, WSU. Maybe favored in 3. Probably 4-5 on paper. Petersen effect was -1 this year maybe its +1 next year and we are 5-4. Could lose to Boise. Thats 7-5.
The biggest questions are QB and OL. If Miles makes a huge leap and the OL is rebuilt somehow, then we could be better than expected and in really good shape for 2016.
The metrics will tell us a lot. We are 35 in SRS right now. If we are similar next year, we'd be in position to jump to top 20 in year 3 and compete nationally in year 4.