2014 Stanford and ASU games

TommySQC

I keep reading how these games should have been wins. Now, I drink quite a bit before the games but never at any point in either game did I feel UW was going to win. Scores were close late and it was possible but not likely.

Arizona was a disaster.

HuskyJW

We could have won the Stanford game....they were begging us to steal that one.

My season prediction I had us (yes, us...my self esteem rises and falls with how the team does so it's us) beating Stanford and Arizona to get 10 wins. Damnit I was close

GrundleStiltzkin

Stanford and ASU were in theory winnable because of our defense. However, both games would have needed good quarterbacking/offensive play at the time and we were not anywhere near that in either game. That is a big stretch to call those games should-haves. The whole fake punt business in the Stanford game is a red herring.
We play Stanford now and I think we win rather easily.

LaZoris

Yep... Stayed close in both games. In no way "should have won" either of those. Stanford was trying like hell to give that game away. Still not sure if Williams at QB during the ASU game was the right call but that is who the staff wanted out there.

RoadDawg55

GrundleStiltzkin said:

Stanford and ASU were in theory winnable because of our defense. However, both games would have needed good quarterbacking/offensive play at the time and we were not anywhere near that in either game. That is a big stretch to call those games should-haves. The whole fake punt business in the Stanford game is a red herring.
We play Stanford now and I think we win rather easily.

Stanford destroyed UCLA in their last game. It would still be a struggle against that defense.

BallSacked

I thought with Miles UW could have beaten ASU.

UW was two TDs better than Arizona the day they played. Great scheme and physicality on both sides of the ball, but 6+ monumental fuckups turned a blowout to a loss at the buzzer.

GrundleStiltzkin

RoadDawg55 said:

GrundleStiltzkin said:

Stanford and ASU were in theory winnable because of our defense. However, both games would have needed good quarterbacking/offensive play at the time and we were not anywhere near that in either game. That is a big stretch to call those games should-haves. The whole fake punt business in the Stanford game is a red herring.
We play Stanford now and I think we win rather easily.

Stanford destroyed UCLA in their last game. It would still be a struggle against that defense.

Yeah but still.

RoadDawg55

There are certainly coaching decisions to be critical about in both the Stanford and ASU games. However, saying we "should" have won is stretching it.

Against Stanford, the game was tied 13-13 and we never scored another point. After the fake punt, Stanford went right down and scored. If we punted, they probably get a FG although it is fair to say the punt changed the momentum and sucked the life out of the crowd, etc. There is no way to really know, but we never had the lead in that game.

Against ASU, they marched down the field and scored after the FG drive. So even if UW scored a TD on that drive, ASU would have taken the lead on their TD drive. We watched the offense all day. I doubt UW could have driven for a FG with such little time left and a non existent passing game.

CFetters_Nacho_Lover

RoadDawg55 said:

There are certainly coaching decisions to be critical about in both the Stanford and ASU games. However, saying we "should" have won is stretching it.

Against Stanford, the game was tied 13-13 and we never scored another point. After the fake punt, Stanford went right down and scored. If we punted, they probably get a FG although it is fair to say the punt changed the momentum and sucked the life out of the crowd, etc. There is no way to really know, but we never had the lead in that game.

Against ASU, they marched down the field and scored after the FG drive. So even if UW scored a TD on that drive, ASU would have taken the lead on their TD drive. We watched the offense all day. I doubt UW could have driven for a FG with such little time left and a non existent passing game.

The fake punt call turned out poorly but I think it was a good call based on how much the offense struggled. I think when it failed, it sucked the life out of the defense and they gave up the TD because of it.

If it works, UW is in position to maybe kick a FG or even score a TD and then possibly win the game. If that happens, everyone's going skeet for Pete.

RoadDawg55

CFetters_Nacho_Lover said:

RoadDawg55 said:

There are certainly coaching decisions to be critical about in both the Stanford and ASU games. However, saying we "should" have won is stretching it.

Against Stanford, the game was tied 13-13 and we never scored another point. After the fake punt, Stanford went right down and scored. If we punted, they probably get a FG although it is fair to say the punt changed the momentum and sucked the life out of the crowd, etc. There is no way to really know, but we never had the lead in that game.

Against ASU, they marched down the field and scored after the FG drive. So even if UW scored a TD on that drive, ASU would have taken the lead on their TD drive. We watched the offense all day. I doubt UW could have driven for a FG with such little time left and a non existent passing game.

The fake punt call turned out poorly but I think it was a good call based on how much the offense struggled. I think when it failed, it sucked the life out of the defense and they gave up the TD because of it.

If it works, UW is in position to maybe kick a FG or even score a TD and then possibly win the game. If that happens, everyone's going skeet for Pete.

My problem with the fake was that it was so basic. Everyone notices Shaq at up back and Stanford was well aware of the possibility of a fake. You're not going to catch them off guard snapping the ball to your best player. They all notice Shaq is in the game and where he is located. It was 4th and 10 and we tried to snap it to Shaq and have him run up the middle. 4th and 2, it's different, but expecting that play to go for 10+ was stupid.

HeretoBeatmyChest

The only game we should have won is Arizona. Thats the 10th win, presuming the bowl game is 9. Then we'd be 10-4 and people would be jizzing over Pete….10 wins, most wins since 2000, blah blah blah. Instead, because of a fumble people are bitching that we should have won more, that there were coaching mishaps, etc.

Tequilla

HeretoBeatmyChest said:

The only game we should have won is Arizona. Thats the 10th win, presuming the bowl game is 9. Then we'd be 10-4 and people would be jizzing over Pete….10 wins, most wins since 2000, blah blah blah. Instead, because of a fumble people are bitching that we should have won more, that there were coaching mishaps, etc.

We lost that game because of more than a fumble.

Sometimes you have to take a step back to take steps forward. In this case, I definitely think the program took some steps forward as a result.

We went on the road, played a Top 15 team (a team that ended up winning the PAC South), and pretty much dominated them up and down the field. It showed the guys the potential that they had. But there were a number of fuck ups to be sure. And those fuck ups are what can destroy that kind of performance. We ended up getting far more focused performances the following two weeks (and yes, I know that they were against Oregon State and the CUOGs).

This is the main reason why I'm excited for the bowl game and that we're playing an Okie Lite program instead of some MAC or FunBelt school. I don't necessarily care if we win or lose - I want to see the process. Do we look like we're focused? Do we eliminate sloppy mistakes? Does Cyler throw the ball out of bounds when a play isn't there? Do guys do the little things in plays to make a decent play a great play? Do we play hard each and every play?

The reality is that there has always been talent on this team. But the talent needed to be broken down and built back up to maximize its potential going forward. I think we're getting closer to seeing it. And while we lose some important players after this year, I don't think we'll necessarily take a step backwards as we should have more players taking steps forward than we're used to seeing.

Gladstone

^ dooooooog post

PostGameOrangeSlices

Gladstone said:

^ dooooooog post

Goes without saying

Tequilla

Gladstone said:

^ dooooooog post

How so?

I don't care whether we win Game #8 or Game #9. Of course I want us to win, but I'm more concerned at this point about growing into next year than a "we're playing in January so it's got to be special" bowl game. Won't change how I look at this season.

I care about what I see going forward:

I want to see Miles continue to grow so that we don't run the risk of asking Browning to play too early.

I want to see Washington continue to grow as a RB such that he's able to mix in consistent 3-5 yard gains with his ability to be a game breaker.

I want to see the continued development of the TE/H-Back with Perkins as the consistent threat while trying to find a way to mix in Daniels ability to be a matchup issue.

I want to see the continued growth of the young WRs in Pettis and Lenius as well as the development of guys like Kendyl Taylor.

I want to see more from Qualls and Mathis and how they react to playing against a decent team like Okie Lite instead of the dreck OL play that we saw from the Beavs and Cougs.

I want to see Travis Feeney put another strong game together such that he's going down the path of eliminating some of the inconsistencies in his game.

I want to see the continued development of John Ross at CB as well as the development of our true frosh in the secondary led by Budda and Jones.

I want to see us close out recruiting strong such that we're building the foundation of the program up, have the ability to redshirt and develop players, and not be stuck in situations like we were this year with an entire position group needing to be filled with true frosh or how next year's OL will be tied to the number of misses Sark historically had there.

The win is symptomatic of seeing the above. That's what will get me to be excited about the bowl game. Playing like shit and winning won't make me particularly excited heading into the offseason.

DeepSeaZ

HeretoBeatmyChest said:

The only game we should have won is Arizona. Thats the 10th win, presuming the bowl game is 9. Then we'd be 10-4 and people would be jizzing over Pete….10 wins, most wins since 2000, blah blah blah. Instead, because of a fumble people are bitching that we should have won more, that there were coaching mishaps, etc.

"Jizz for Pete" a new HHB slogan? Shirt?

Doogles

If Cyler can stick to the under on times he drops the football for no particular reason, we should be fine.

GrundleStiltzkin

DeepSeaZ said:

HeretoBeatmyChest said:

The only game we should have won is Arizona. Thats the 10th win, presuming the bowl game is 9. Then we'd be 10-4 and people would be jizzing over Pete….10 wins, most wins since 2000, blah blah blah. Instead, because of a fumble people are bitching that we should have won more, that there were coaching mishaps, etc.

"Jizz for Pete" a new HHB slogan? Custom keyboard cover?

TierbsHsotBoobs

GrundleStiltzkin said:

Stanford and ASU were in theory winnable because of our defense. However, both games would have needed good quarterbacking/offensive play at the time and we were not anywhere near that in either game. That is a big stretch to call those games should-haves. The whole fake punt business in the Stanford game is a red herring.
We play Stanford now and I think we win rather easily.

Mediocre quarterbacking would have been enough to win those games.

TierbsHsotBoobs

HeretoBeatmyChest said:

The only game we should have won is Arizona. Thats the 10th win, presuming the bowl game is 9. Then we'd be 10-4 and people would be jizzing over Pete….10 wins, most wins since 2000, blah blah blah. Instead, because of a fumble people are bitching that we should have won more, that there were coaching mishaps, etc.

He's right, you know.

5-4 > 5-4 > 5-4 > 5-4 > 5-4

RaceBannon

WeAreA5-4School