Kick Off Return - #3 Kick Off Coverage - #10 Net Punting - #2 Punt Return - #6
Not exactly great being the #10 Kick off coverage team, but the rest was respectable. How hard is it to find a guy that can kick the ball into the endzone?
2012 was a particularly crappy Special Teams performance, all around. 2010 Stats are currently not available on Pac-12 site.
Looks like a mixed bag.
Those rankings in aggregate break down to 5.25th out of 12th. That's above average I guess, but not what I would consider good. Certainly not great.
Just curious how you would rate the coaching of a team that had the following special teams rankings. Would it be awful, bad, good or great coaching? Just trying to get a feel for what you think is good, etc?
2012 Pac-12 Special Teams Rankings - Team A
Kick Off Return - #10 Kick off Coverage - #10 Net Punting - #9 Punt Return - #1
That's pretty bad. If it's Chip Kelly's special teams, I'll also point out that missed field goals cost him dearly in 2011 and 2012.
If you're really, really good in the other two phases, you can overcome bad special teams.
Regardless of which coach it is, you should mention his other seasons too so that we don't think you are cherrypicking data.
It's pretty explainable really - they didn't return many kicks, but they did kick off a million times, they didn't punt often, but they did return a bunch of punts. I'm assuming Loser is using total KO returns and total KO coverage, which is pretty meaningless when you are kicking off at least 5 times a game more than your opponents. It's possible the punting numbers are averaged, in which case the punting is bad, no excuses.
They are all averages. Who in the fuck would do rankings by total yards for Kick offs? Nice spin.
IMALOSER is the king of cherrypicking stats/using misleading stats to make whatever stupid point he can make.
Just like when talking about Sark's special teams he points the one year where Sark was decent.
With the Seahawks he points out one game out of 18 to make it seem like the Seahawks are devoted to running the ball.
You mean when I responded to a poster that asked when the last time the Huskies had good, not great special team play? Why the fuck would I post seasons that they sucked to answer the question? Are you really a fucktard or do you just play one on the interwebs?
The poster said the Seahawks were dedicated to running to set up the pass. I went back and looked at their last/most important game of the year and they had a 2/1 pass/run ratio in the first half. If you want to break down the first half of all the Seahawk games......have fun.
The Huskies special teams by your own words were a "mix bag" in 2011 not good. The other years they were terrible.
As for your Seahawks example they fell behind 20-0 so of course they are going to be throwing the ball a lot more than running the ball.
Last year the Seahawks were 27th in the league in passing yards per game while 3rd in the league in rushing yards. Of course you didn't point that out.
Of course you didn't point out that in the ATL game Seattle's first two plays of the game were running plays. Of course you don't point out Seattle threw 7 times and ran 5 times in the first quarter.
Of course you didn't point out the previous week in the playoffs the Seahawks threw the ball 26 times and ran the ball 37 fucking times.
As is the case you cherry pick a stat to make your point when you know your point is wrong.
Why no mention of the Seahawks 58-0 win where they ran the ball 42 times and threw only 22 times?
The Seahawks like we all pointed out were devoted to the run and only when they were down big early did they ditch the run. That was the right play as Wilson was lighting up their secondary while they were stuffing Lynch. That's called good coaching something Sark is incapable of.
They are all averages. Who in the fuck would do rankings by total yards for Kick offs? Nice spin.
Well I'll be, you used an honest statistic for once in your miserable life. Kudos.
Looks like the Ducks had poor special teams coaching last year. Not sure what that proves other than you can overcome poor ST if you kick serious ass in other phases of the game, but I'm sure you feel mighty swell.
Kick Off Return - #3 Kick Off Coverage - #10 Net Punting - #2 Punt Return - #6
Not exactly great being the #10 Kick off coverage team, but the rest was respectable. How hard is it to find a guy that can kick the ball into the endzone?
2012 was a particularly crappy Special Teams performance, all around. 2010 Stats are currently not available on Pac-12 site.
Looks like a mixed bag.
Those rankings in aggregate break down to 5.25th out of 12th. That's above average I guess, but not what I would consider good. Certainly not great.
Just curious how you would rate the coaching of a team that had the following special teams rankings. Would it be awful, bad, good or great coaching? Just trying to get a feel for what you think is good, etc?
2012 Pac-12 Special Teams Rankings - Team A
Kick Off Return - #10 Kick off Coverage - #10 Net Punting - #9 Punt Return - #1
That's pretty bad. If it's Chip Kelly's special teams, I'll also point out that missed field goals cost him dearly in 2011 and 2012.
If you're really, really good in the other two phases, you can overcome bad special teams.
Regardless of which coach it is, you should mention his other seasons too so that we don't think you are cherrypicking data.
It's pretty explainable really - they didn't return many kicks, but they did kick off a million times, they didn't punt often, but they did return a bunch of punts. I'm assuming Loser is using total KO returns and total KO coverage, which is pretty meaningless when you are kicking off at least 5 times a game more than your opponents. It's possible the punting numbers are averaged, in which case the punting is bad, no excuses.
They are all averages. Who in the fuck would do rankings by total yards for Kick offs? Nice spin.
IMALOSER is the king of cherrypicking stats/using misleading stats to make whatever stupid point he can make.
Just like when talking about Sark's special teams he points the one year where Sark was decent.
With the Seahawks he points out one game out of 18 to make it seem like the Seahawks are devoted to running the ball.
You mean when I responded to a poster that asked when the last time the Huskies had good, not great special team play? Why the fuck would I post seasons that they sucked to answer the question? Are you really a fucktard or do you just play one on the interwebs?
The poster said the Seahawks were dedicated to running to set up the pass. I went back and looked at their last/most important game of the year and they had a 2/1 pass/run ratio in the first half. If you want to break down the first half of all the Seahawk games......have fun.
The Huskies special teams by your own words were a "mix bag" in 2011 not good. The other years they were terrible.
As for your Seahawks example they fell behind 20-0 so of course they are going to be throwing the ball a lot more than running the ball.
Last year the Seahawks were 27th in the league in passing yards per game while 3rd in the league in rushing yards. Of course you didn't point that out.
Of course you didn't point out that in the ATL game Seattle's first two plays of the game were running plays. Of course you don't point out Seattle threw 7 times and ran 5 times in the first quarter.
Of course you didn't point out the previous week in the playoffs the Seahawks threw the ball 26 times and ran the ball 37 fucking times.
As is the case you cherry pick a stat to make your point when you know your point is wrong.
Why no mention of the Seahawks 58-0 win where they ran the ball 42 times and threw only 22 times?
The Seahawks like we all pointed out were devoted to the run and only when they were down big early did they ditch the run. That was the right play as Wilson was lighting up their secondary while they were stuffing Lynch. That's called good coaching something Sark is incapable of.
So when the Seahawks win games they run more than they pass. When the Seahawks lose games they pass more than they run.
You think they win because they run more. You think they lose because they pass more.
In reality it's just like any team. When you are winning, you run the ball to control possession and the clock. When you are losing you have to throw the ball to catch up.
I love it when you fucktards rip on UW after winning a game. Your favorite, see we ran the ball and we won the game. Why don't we do that every week? No we were winning the game and were able to run the ball.
Kick Off Return - #3 Kick Off Coverage - #10 Net Punting - #2 Punt Return - #6
Not exactly great being the #10 Kick off coverage team, but the rest was respectable. How hard is it to find a guy that can kick the ball into the endzone?
2012 was a particularly crappy Special Teams performance, all around. 2010 Stats are currently not available on Pac-12 site.
Looks like a mixed bag.
Those rankings in aggregate break down to 5.25th out of 12th. That's above average I guess, but not what I would consider good. Certainly not great.
Just curious how you would rate the coaching of a team that had the following special teams rankings. Would it be awful, bad, good or great coaching? Just trying to get a feel for what you think is good, etc?
2012 Pac-12 Special Teams Rankings - Team A
Kick Off Return - #10 Kick off Coverage - #10 Net Punting - #9 Punt Return - #1
That's pretty bad. If it's Chip Kelly's special teams, I'll also point out that missed field goals cost him dearly in 2011 and 2012.
If you're really, really good in the other two phases, you can overcome bad special teams.
Regardless of which coach it is, you should mention his other seasons too so that we don't think you are cherrypicking data.
It's pretty explainable really - they didn't return many kicks, but they did kick off a million times, they didn't punt often, but they did return a bunch of punts. I'm assuming Loser is using total KO returns and total KO coverage, which is pretty meaningless when you are kicking off at least 5 times a game more than your opponents. It's possible the punting numbers are averaged, in which case the punting is bad, no excuses.
They are all averages. Who in the fuck would do rankings by total yards for Kick offs? Nice spin.
IMALOSER is the king of cherrypicking stats/using misleading stats to make whatever stupid point he can make.
Just like when talking about Sark's special teams he points the one year where Sark was decent.
With the Seahawks he points out one game out of 18 to make it seem like the Seahawks are devoted to running the ball.
You mean when I responded to a poster that asked when the last time the Huskies had good, not great special team play? Why the fuck would I post seasons that they sucked to answer the question? Are you really a fucktard or do you just play one on the interwebs?
The poster said the Seahawks were dedicated to running to set up the pass. I went back and looked at their last/most important game of the year and they had a 2/1 pass/run ratio in the first half. If you want to break down the first half of all the Seahawk games......have fun.
The Huskies special teams by your own words were a "mix bag" in 2011 not good. The other years they were terrible.
As for your Seahawks example they fell behind 20-0 so of course they are going to be throwing the ball a lot more than running the ball.
Last year the Seahawks were 27th in the league in passing yards per game while 3rd in the league in rushing yards. Of course you didn't point that out.
Of course you didn't point out that in the ATL game Seattle's first two plays of the game were running plays. Of course you don't point out Seattle threw 7 times and ran 5 times in the first quarter.
Of course you didn't point out the previous week in the playoffs the Seahawks threw the ball 26 times and ran the ball 37 fucking times.
As is the case you cherry pick a stat to make your point when you know your point is wrong.
Why no mention of the Seahawks 58-0 win where they ran the ball 42 times and threw only 22 times?
The Seahawks like we all pointed out were devoted to the run and only when they were down big early did they ditch the run. That was the right play as Wilson was lighting up their secondary while they were stuffing Lynch. That's called good coaching something Sark is incapable of.
So when the Seahawks win games they run more than they pass. When the Seahawks lose games they pass more than they run.
You think they win because they run more. You think they lose because they pass more.
In reality it's just like any team. When you are winning, you run the ball to control possession and the clock. When you are losing you have to throw the ball to catch up.
I love it when you fucktards rip on UW after winning a game. Your favorite, see we ran the ball and we won the game. Why don't we do that every week? No we were winning the game and were able to run the ball.
It's not fucking rocket surgery!!!!!
We actually watch the games which you apparently don't. So we see that UW is running successful vs AZ in 2012, Nebraska in 2010, ASU in 2010, BYU in 2010, Nebraska in 2011, Oregon State in 2011, Oregon in 2012 where Sark then completely ignores these trends and goes pass happy.
Then UW is blown out and fucktards like you go "Sark couldn't run the ball UW was so far behind" when at the time he chose to ditch the run UW was only down 7-10 points.
The Seahawks playoffs vs the Redskins which you still have ignored ever happen ran the ball 37 times and threw 26 times. They fell behind 14-0. That is a classic case where Sark would have panic and ditch the run. The Seahawks didn't and stuck with the run as it was successful.
Kick Off Return - #3 Kick Off Coverage - #10 Net Punting - #2 Punt Return - #6
Not exactly great being the #10 Kick off coverage team, but the rest was respectable. How hard is it to find a guy that can kick the ball into the endzone?
2012 was a particularly crappy Special Teams performance, all around. 2010 Stats are currently not available on Pac-12 site.
Looks like a mixed bag.
Those rankings in aggregate break down to 5.25th out of 12th. That's above average I guess, but not what I would consider good. Certainly not great.
Just curious how you would rate the coaching of a team that had the following special teams rankings. Would it be awful, bad, good or great coaching? Just trying to get a feel for what you think is good, etc?
2012 Pac-12 Special Teams Rankings - Team A
Kick Off Return - #10 Kick off Coverage - #10 Net Punting - #9 Punt Return - #1
That's pretty bad. If it's Chip Kelly's special teams, I'll also point out that missed field goals cost him dearly in 2011 and 2012.
If you're really, really good in the other two phases, you can overcome bad special teams.
Regardless of which coach it is, you should mention his other seasons too so that we don't think you are cherrypicking data.
It's pretty explainable really - they didn't return many kicks, but they did kick off a million times, they didn't punt often, but they did return a bunch of punts. I'm assuming Loser is using total KO returns and total KO coverage, which is pretty meaningless when you are kicking off at least 5 times a game more than your opponents. It's possible the punting numbers are averaged, in which case the punting is bad, no excuses.
They are all averages. Who in the fuck would do rankings by total yards for Kick offs? Nice spin.
IMALOSER is the king of cherrypicking stats/using misleading stats to make whatever stupid point he can make.
Just like when talking about Sark's special teams he points the one year where Sark was decent.
With the Seahawks he points out one game out of 18 to make it seem like the Seahawks are devoted to running the ball.
You mean when I responded to a poster that asked when the last time the Huskies had good, not great special team play? Why the fuck would I post seasons that they sucked to answer the question? Are you really a fucktard or do you just play one on the interwebs?
The poster said the Seahawks were dedicated to running to set up the pass. I went back and looked at their last/most important game of the year and they had a 2/1 pass/run ratio in the first half. If you want to break down the first half of all the Seahawk games......have fun.
The Huskies special teams by your own words were a "mix bag" in 2011 not good. The other years they were terrible.
As for your Seahawks example they fell behind 20-0 so of course they are going to be throwing the ball a lot more than running the ball.
Last year the Seahawks were 27th in the league in passing yards per game while 3rd in the league in rushing yards. Of course you didn't point that out.
Of course you didn't point out that in the ATL game Seattle's first two plays of the game were running plays. Of course you don't point out Seattle threw 7 times and ran 5 times in the first quarter.
Of course you didn't point out the previous week in the playoffs the Seahawks threw the ball 26 times and ran the ball 37 fucking times.
As is the case you cherry pick a stat to make your point when you know your point is wrong.
Why no mention of the Seahawks 58-0 win where they ran the ball 42 times and threw only 22 times?
The Seahawks like we all pointed out were devoted to the run and only when they were down big early did they ditch the run. That was the right play as Wilson was lighting up their secondary while they were stuffing Lynch. That's called good coaching something Sark is incapable of.
So when the Seahawks win games they run more than they pass. When the Seahawks lose games they pass more than they run.
You think they win because they run more. You think they lose because they pass more.
In reality it's just like any team. When you are winning, you run the ball to control possession and the clock. When you are losing you have to throw the ball to catch up.
I love it when you fucktards rip on UW after winning a game. Your favorite, see we ran the ball and we won the game. Why don't we do that every week? No we were winning the game and were able to run the ball.
It's not fucking rocket surgery!!!!!
We actually watch the games which you apparently don't. So we see that UW is running successful vs AZ in 2012, Nebraska in 2010, ASU in 2010, BYU in 2010, Nebraska in 2011, Oregon State in 2011, Oregon in 2012 where Sark then completely ignores these trends and goes pass happy.
Then UW is blown out and fucktards like you go "Sark couldn't run the ball UW was so far behind" when at the time he chose to ditch the run UW was only down 7-10 points.
The Seahawks playoffs vs the Redskins which you still have ignored ever happen ran the ball 37 times and threw 26 times. They fell behind 14-0. That is a classic case where Sark would have panic and ditch the run. The Seahawks didn't and stuck with the run as it was successful.
If you actually would have followed that game you would have known.......
Seattle ran more Passing Plays in the first half then they did Running Plays. You would also know that they had more Passing Plays than Running Plays up until they took the lead in the 4th quarter. They then salted the game away running the ball.
You're not very good at this!!!!
You should just stick to the script and accuse me of sucking Sark's balls.
Kick Off Return - #3 Kick Off Coverage - #10 Net Punting - #2 Punt Return - #6
Not exactly great being the #10 Kick off coverage team, but the rest was respectable. How hard is it to find a guy that can kick the ball into the endzone?
2012 was a particularly crappy Special Teams performance, all around. 2010 Stats are currently not available on Pac-12 site.
Looks like a mixed bag.
Those rankings in aggregate break down to 5.25th out of 12th. That's above average I guess, but not what I would consider good. Certainly not great.
Just curious how you would rate the coaching of a team that had the following special teams rankings. Would it be awful, bad, good or great coaching? Just trying to get a feel for what you think is good, etc?
2012 Pac-12 Special Teams Rankings - Team A
Kick Off Return - #10 Kick off Coverage - #10 Net Punting - #9 Punt Return - #1
That's pretty bad. If it's Chip Kelly's special teams, I'll also point out that missed field goals cost him dearly in 2011 and 2012.
If you're really, really good in the other two phases, you can overcome bad special teams.
Regardless of which coach it is, you should mention his other seasons too so that we don't think you are cherrypicking data.
It's pretty explainable really - they didn't return many kicks, but they did kick off a million times, they didn't punt often, but they did return a bunch of punts. I'm assuming Loser is using total KO returns and total KO coverage, which is pretty meaningless when you are kicking off at least 5 times a game more than your opponents. It's possible the punting numbers are averaged, in which case the punting is bad, no excuses.
They are all averages. Who in the fuck would do rankings by total yards for Kick offs? Nice spin.
IMALOSER is the king of cherrypicking stats/using misleading stats to make whatever stupid point he can make.
Just like when talking about Sark's special teams he points the one year where Sark was decent.
With the Seahawks he points out one game out of 18 to make it seem like the Seahawks are devoted to running the ball.
You mean when I responded to a poster that asked when the last time the Huskies had good, not great special team play? Why the fuck would I post seasons that they sucked to answer the question? Are you really a fucktard or do you just play one on the interwebs?
The poster said the Seahawks were dedicated to running to set up the pass. I went back and looked at their last/most important game of the year and they had a 2/1 pass/run ratio in the first half. If you want to break down the first half of all the Seahawk games......have fun.
The Huskies special teams by your own words were a "mix bag" in 2011 not good. The other years they were terrible.
As for your Seahawks example they fell behind 20-0 so of course they are going to be throwing the ball a lot more than running the ball.
Last year the Seahawks were 27th in the league in passing yards per game while 3rd in the league in rushing yards. Of course you didn't point that out.
Of course you didn't point out that in the ATL game Seattle's first two plays of the game were running plays. Of course you don't point out Seattle threw 7 times and ran 5 times in the first quarter.
Of course you didn't point out the previous week in the playoffs the Seahawks threw the ball 26 times and ran the ball 37 fucking times.
As is the case you cherry pick a stat to make your point when you know your point is wrong.
Why no mention of the Seahawks 58-0 win where they ran the ball 42 times and threw only 22 times?
The Seahawks like we all pointed out were devoted to the run and only when they were down big early did they ditch the run. That was the right play as Wilson was lighting up their secondary while they were stuffing Lynch. That's called good coaching something Sark is incapable of.
So when the Seahawks win games they run more than they pass. When the Seahawks lose games they pass more than they run.
You think they win because they run more. You think they lose because they pass more.
In reality it's just like any team. When you are winning, you run the ball to control possession and the clock. When you are losing you have to throw the ball to catch up.
I love it when you fucktards rip on UW after winning a game. Your favorite, see we ran the ball and we won the game. Why don't we do that every week? No we were winning the game and were able to run the ball.
It's not fucking rocket surgery!!!!!
We actually watch the games which you apparently don't. So we see that UW is running successful vs AZ in 2012, Nebraska in 2010, ASU in 2010, BYU in 2010, Nebraska in 2011, Oregon State in 2011, Oregon in 2012 where Sark then completely ignores these trends and goes pass happy.
Then UW is blown out and fucktards like you go "Sark couldn't run the ball UW was so far behind" when at the time he chose to ditch the run UW was only down 7-10 points.
The Seahawks playoffs vs the Redskins which you still have ignored ever happen ran the ball 37 times and threw 26 times. They fell behind 14-0. That is a classic case where Sark would have panic and ditch the run. The Seahawks didn't and stuck with the run as it was successful.
If you actually would have followed that game you would have known.......
Seattle ran more Passing Plays in the first half then they did Running Plays. You would also know that they had more Passing Plays than Running Plays up until they took the lead in the 4th quarter. They then salted the game away running the ball.
You're not very good at this!!!!
You should just stick to the script and accuse me of sucking Sark's balls.
I was also generous in counting most of Wilson's runs as "pass" plays although some of those were designed runs. Only the first quarter did Seattle pass more than run. They went three and out first series all on passing plays then went to the run.
Kick Off Return - #3 Kick Off Coverage - #10 Net Punting - #2 Punt Return - #6
Not exactly great being the #10 Kick off coverage team, but the rest was respectable. How hard is it to find a guy that can kick the ball into the endzone?
2012 was a particularly crappy Special Teams performance, all around. 2010 Stats are currently not available on Pac-12 site.
Looks like a mixed bag.
Those rankings in aggregate break down to 5.25th out of 12th. That's above average I guess, but not what I would consider good. Certainly not great.
Just curious how you would rate the coaching of a team that had the following special teams rankings. Would it be awful, bad, good or great coaching? Just trying to get a feel for what you think is good, etc?
2012 Pac-12 Special Teams Rankings - Team A
Kick Off Return - #10 Kick off Coverage - #10 Net Punting - #9 Punt Return - #1
That's pretty bad. If it's Chip Kelly's special teams, I'll also point out that missed field goals cost him dearly in 2011 and 2012.
If you're really, really good in the other two phases, you can overcome bad special teams.
Regardless of which coach it is, you should mention his other seasons too so that we don't think you are cherrypicking data.
It's pretty explainable really - they didn't return many kicks, but they did kick off a million times, they didn't punt often, but they did return a bunch of punts. I'm assuming Loser is using total KO returns and total KO coverage, which is pretty meaningless when you are kicking off at least 5 times a game more than your opponents. It's possible the punting numbers are averaged, in which case the punting is bad, no excuses.
They are all averages. Who in the fuck would do rankings by total yards for Kick offs? Nice spin.
IMALOSER is the king of cherrypicking stats/using misleading stats to make whatever stupid point he can make.
Just like when talking about Sark's special teams he points the one year where Sark was decent.
With the Seahawks he points out one game out of 18 to make it seem like the Seahawks are devoted to running the ball.
You mean when I responded to a poster that asked when the last time the Huskies had good, not great special team play? Why the fuck would I post seasons that they sucked to answer the question? Are you really a fucktard or do you just play one on the interwebs?
The poster said the Seahawks were dedicated to running to set up the pass. I went back and looked at their last/most important game of the year and they had a 2/1 pass/run ratio in the first half. If you want to break down the first half of all the Seahawk games......have fun.
The Huskies special teams by your own words were a "mix bag" in 2011 not good. The other years they were terrible.
As for your Seahawks example they fell behind 20-0 so of course they are going to be throwing the ball a lot more than running the ball.
Last year the Seahawks were 27th in the league in passing yards per game while 3rd in the league in rushing yards. Of course you didn't point that out.
Of course you didn't point out that in the ATL game Seattle's first two plays of the game were running plays. Of course you don't point out Seattle threw 7 times and ran 5 times in the first quarter.
Of course you didn't point out the previous week in the playoffs the Seahawks threw the ball 26 times and ran the ball 37 fucking times.
As is the case you cherry pick a stat to make your point when you know your point is wrong.
Why no mention of the Seahawks 58-0 win where they ran the ball 42 times and threw only 22 times?
The Seahawks like we all pointed out were devoted to the run and only when they were down big early did they ditch the run. That was the right play as Wilson was lighting up their secondary while they were stuffing Lynch. That's called good coaching something Sark is incapable of.
So when the Seahawks win games they run more than they pass. When the Seahawks lose games they pass more than they run.
You think they win because they run more. You think they lose because they pass more.
In reality it's just like any team. When you are winning, you run the ball to control possession and the clock. When you are losing you have to throw the ball to catch up.
I love it when you fucktards rip on UW after winning a game. Your favorite, see we ran the ball and we won the game. Why don't we do that every week? No we were winning the game and were able to run the ball.
It's not fucking rocket surgery!!!!!
We actually watch the games which you apparently don't. So we see that UW is running successful vs AZ in 2012, Nebraska in 2010, ASU in 2010, BYU in 2010, Nebraska in 2011, Oregon State in 2011, Oregon in 2012 where Sark then completely ignores these trends and goes pass happy.
Then UW is blown out and fucktards like you go "Sark couldn't run the ball UW was so far behind" when at the time he chose to ditch the run UW was only down 7-10 points.
The Seahawks playoffs vs the Redskins which you still have ignored ever happen ran the ball 37 times and threw 26 times. They fell behind 14-0. That is a classic case where Sark would have panic and ditch the run. The Seahawks didn't and stuck with the run as it was successful.
If you actually would have followed that game you would have known.......
Seattle ran more Passing Plays in the first half then they did Running Plays. You would also know that they had more Passing Plays than Running Plays up until they took the lead in the 4th quarter. They then salted the game away running the ball.
You're not very good at this!!!!
You should just stick to the script and accuse me of sucking Sark's balls.
I'm getting lots of reports of troll activity in the region.
Kick Off Return - #3 Kick Off Coverage - #10 Net Punting - #2 Punt Return - #6
Not exactly great being the #10 Kick off coverage team, but the rest was respectable. How hard is it to find a guy that can kick the ball into the endzone?
2012 was a particularly crappy Special Teams performance, all around. 2010 Stats are currently not available on Pac-12 site.
Looks like a mixed bag.
Those rankings in aggregate break down to 5.25th out of 12th. That's above average I guess, but not what I would consider good. Certainly not great.
Just curious how you would rate the coaching of a team that had the following special teams rankings. Would it be awful, bad, good or great coaching? Just trying to get a feel for what you think is good, etc?
2012 Pac-12 Special Teams Rankings - Team A
Kick Off Return - #10 Kick off Coverage - #10 Net Punting - #9 Punt Return - #1
That's pretty bad. If it's Chip Kelly's special teams, I'll also point out that missed field goals cost him dearly in 2011 and 2012.
If you're really, really good in the other two phases, you can overcome bad special teams.
Regardless of which coach it is, you should mention his other seasons too so that we don't think you are cherrypicking data.
It's pretty explainable really - they didn't return many kicks, but they did kick off a million times, they didn't punt often, but they did return a bunch of punts. I'm assuming Loser is using total KO returns and total KO coverage, which is pretty meaningless when you are kicking off at least 5 times a game more than your opponents. It's possible the punting numbers are averaged, in which case the punting is bad, no excuses.
They are all averages. Who in the fuck would do rankings by total yards for Kick offs? Nice spin.
IMALOSER is the king of cherrypicking stats/using misleading stats to make whatever stupid point he can make.
Just like when talking about Sark's special teams he points the one year where Sark was decent.
With the Seahawks he points out one game out of 18 to make it seem like the Seahawks are devoted to running the ball.
You mean when I responded to a poster that asked when the last time the Huskies had good, not great special team play? Why the fuck would I post seasons that they sucked to answer the question? Are you really a fucktard or do you just play one on the interwebs?
The poster said the Seahawks were dedicated to running to set up the pass. I went back and looked at their last/most important game of the year and they had a 2/1 pass/run ratio in the first half. If you want to break down the first half of all the Seahawk games......have fun.
The Huskies special teams by your own words were a "mix bag" in 2011 not good. The other years they were terrible.
As for your Seahawks example they fell behind 20-0 so of course they are going to be throwing the ball a lot more than running the ball.
Last year the Seahawks were 27th in the league in passing yards per game while 3rd in the league in rushing yards. Of course you didn't point that out.
Of course you didn't point out that in the ATL game Seattle's first two plays of the game were running plays. Of course you don't point out Seattle threw 7 times and ran 5 times in the first quarter.
Of course you didn't point out the previous week in the playoffs the Seahawks threw the ball 26 times and ran the ball 37 fucking times.
As is the case you cherry pick a stat to make your point when you know your point is wrong.
Why no mention of the Seahawks 58-0 win where they ran the ball 42 times and threw only 22 times?
The Seahawks like we all pointed out were devoted to the run and only when they were down big early did they ditch the run. That was the right play as Wilson was lighting up their secondary while they were stuffing Lynch. That's called good coaching something Sark is incapable of.
So when the Seahawks win games they run more than they pass. When the Seahawks lose games they pass more than they run.
You think they win because they run more. You think they lose because they pass more.
In reality it's just like any team. When you are winning, you run the ball to control possession and the clock. When you are losing you have to throw the ball to catch up.
I love it when you fucktards rip on UW after winning a game. Your favorite, see we ran the ball and we won the game. Why don't we do that every week? No we were winning the game and were able to run the ball.
It's not fucking rocket surgery!!!!!
We actually watch the games which you apparently don't. So we see that UW is running successful vs AZ in 2012, Nebraska in 2010, ASU in 2010, BYU in 2010, Nebraska in 2011, Oregon State in 2011, Oregon in 2012 where Sark then completely ignores these trends and goes pass happy.
Then UW is blown out and fucktards like you go "Sark couldn't run the ball UW was so far behind" when at the time he chose to ditch the run UW was only down 7-10 points.
The Seahawks playoffs vs the Redskins which you still have ignored ever happen ran the ball 37 times and threw 26 times. They fell behind 14-0. That is a classic case where Sark would have panic and ditch the run. The Seahawks didn't and stuck with the run as it was successful.
If you actually would have followed that game you would have known.......
Seattle ran more Passing Plays in the first half then they did Running Plays. You would also know that they had more Passing Plays than Running Plays up until they took the lead in the 4th quarter. They then salted the game away running the ball.
You're not very good at this!!!!
You should just stick to the script and accuse me of sucking Sark's balls.
I was also generous in counting most of Wilson's runs as "pass" plays although some of those were designed runs. Only the first quarter did Seattle pass more than run. They went three and out first series all on passing plays then went to the run.
So using your numbers.
They went three and out all on passing plays and then went to the run game. 15 runs and 13 passes. Yeah, they went to the run. I was told earlier they were a pound the run first team. That looks like a balanced team that came out throwing the ball to set up the run. Then again......I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.....like you.
Now let's actually take a look at your numbers. You have the Seahawks down for 35 rushing plays. They had 37 rushes in the game. So you counted one of Wilson's 8 rushes as a passing play. You do remember that one of the rushes, Lynch fumble recovery was actually a pass play the Wilson was sacked on. If I ever get called out for skewing statistics again, I will link your post.
Bottom line is you are complaining about UW being a 50/50 rush pass team. You want them to be a run dominated team. To try to add to your argument you use the Seahawks, who in their two playoff games were a 50/50 team. Not, the pound the rock team you want to make them out to be.
They opened the Redskins game with 3 passes and a punt. You would have wanted Sark fired, but call Carroll a genius.
Kick Off Return - #3 Kick Off Coverage - #10 Net Punting - #2 Punt Return - #6
Not exactly great being the #10 Kick off coverage team, but the rest was respectable. How hard is it to find a guy that can kick the ball into the endzone?
2012 was a particularly crappy Special Teams performance, all around. 2010 Stats are currently not available on Pac-12 site.
Looks like a mixed bag.
Those rankings in aggregate break down to 5.25th out of 12th. That's above average I guess, but not what I would consider good. Certainly not great.
Just curious how you would rate the coaching of a team that had the following special teams rankings. Would it be awful, bad, good or great coaching? Just trying to get a feel for what you think is good, etc?
2012 Pac-12 Special Teams Rankings - Team A
Kick Off Return - #10 Kick off Coverage - #10 Net Punting - #9 Punt Return - #1
That's pretty bad. If it's Chip Kelly's special teams, I'll also point out that missed field goals cost him dearly in 2011 and 2012.
If you're really, really good in the other two phases, you can overcome bad special teams.
Regardless of which coach it is, you should mention his other seasons too so that we don't think you are cherrypicking data.
It's pretty explainable really - they didn't return many kicks, but they did kick off a million times, they didn't punt often, but they did return a bunch of punts. I'm assuming Loser is using total KO returns and total KO coverage, which is pretty meaningless when you are kicking off at least 5 times a game more than your opponents. It's possible the punting numbers are averaged, in which case the punting is bad, no excuses.
They are all averages. Who in the fuck would do rankings by total yards for Kick offs? Nice spin.
IMALOSER is the king of cherrypicking stats/using misleading stats to make whatever stupid point he can make.
Just like when talking about Sark's special teams he points the one year where Sark was decent.
With the Seahawks he points out one game out of 18 to make it seem like the Seahawks are devoted to running the ball.
You mean when I responded to a poster that asked when the last time the Huskies had good, not great special team play? Why the fuck would I post seasons that they sucked to answer the question? Are you really a fucktard or do you just play one on the interwebs?
The poster said the Seahawks were dedicated to running to set up the pass. I went back and looked at their last/most important game of the year and they had a 2/1 pass/run ratio in the first half. If you want to break down the first half of all the Seahawk games......have fun.
The Huskies special teams by your own words were a "mix bag" in 2011 not good. The other years they were terrible.
As for your Seahawks example they fell behind 20-0 so of course they are going to be throwing the ball a lot more than running the ball.
Last year the Seahawks were 27th in the league in passing yards per game while 3rd in the league in rushing yards. Of course you didn't point that out.
Of course you didn't point out that in the ATL game Seattle's first two plays of the game were running plays. Of course you don't point out Seattle threw 7 times and ran 5 times in the first quarter.
Of course you didn't point out the previous week in the playoffs the Seahawks threw the ball 26 times and ran the ball 37 fucking times.
As is the case you cherry pick a stat to make your point when you know your point is wrong.
Why no mention of the Seahawks 58-0 win where they ran the ball 42 times and threw only 22 times?
The Seahawks like we all pointed out were devoted to the run and only when they were down big early did they ditch the run. That was the right play as Wilson was lighting up their secondary while they were stuffing Lynch. That's called good coaching something Sark is incapable of.
So when the Seahawks win games they run more than they pass. When the Seahawks lose games they pass more than they run.
You think they win because they run more. You think they lose because they pass more.
In reality it's just like any team. When you are winning, you run the ball to control possession and the clock. When you are losing you have to throw the ball to catch up.
I love it when you fucktards rip on UW after winning a game. Your favorite, see we ran the ball and we won the game. Why don't we do that every week? No we were winning the game and were able to run the ball.
It's not fucking rocket surgery!!!!!
We actually watch the games which you apparently don't. So we see that UW is running successful vs AZ in 2012, Nebraska in 2010, ASU in 2010, BYU in 2010, Nebraska in 2011, Oregon State in 2011, Oregon in 2012 where Sark then completely ignores these trends and goes pass happy.
Then UW is blown out and fucktards like you go "Sark couldn't run the ball UW was so far behind" when at the time he chose to ditch the run UW was only down 7-10 points.
The Seahawks playoffs vs the Redskins which you still have ignored ever happen ran the ball 37 times and threw 26 times. They fell behind 14-0. That is a classic case where Sark would have panic and ditch the run. The Seahawks didn't and stuck with the run as it was successful.
If you actually would have followed that game you would have known.......
Seattle ran more Passing Plays in the first half then they did Running Plays. You would also know that they had more Passing Plays than Running Plays up until they took the lead in the 4th quarter. They then salted the game away running the ball.
You're not very good at this!!!!
You should just stick to the script and accuse me of sucking Sark's balls.
I was also generous in counting most of Wilson's runs as "pass" plays although some of those were designed runs. Only the first quarter did Seattle pass more than run. They went three and out first series all on passing plays then went to the run.
So using your numbers.
They went three and out all on passing plays and then went to the run game. 15 runs and 13 passes. Yeah, they went to the run. I was told earlier they were a pound the run first team. That looks like a balanced team that came out throwing the ball to set up the run. Then again......I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.....like you.
Now let's actually take a look at your numbers. You have the Seahawks down for 35 rushing plays. They had 37 rushes in the game. So you counted one of Wilson's 8 rushes as a passing play. You do remember that one of the rushes, Lynch fumble recovery was actually a pass play the Wilson was sacked on. If I ever get called out for skewing statistics again, I will link your post.
Bottom line is you are complaining about UW being a 50/50 rush pass team. You want them to be a run dominated team. To try to add to your argument you use the Seahawks, who in their two playoff games were a 50/50 team. Not, the pound the rock team you want to make them out to be.
They opened the Redskins game with 3 passes and a punt. You would have wanted Sark fired, but call Carroll a genius.
Sticking to the script.
You actually had a good post going until the bolded part above.
Pete Carroll is pretty damn good, but the Harbaugh brothers are the geniuses in the NFL.
Sark should be fired not for his playcalling samples, but for being a mediocre coach in four years on the job. Washington can do better.
Rushing plays: 6th Rushing yards: 8th Yards per carry: 8th
The Seahawks rushing attack rates better across the board in the 32 member NFL than the Huskies rushing attack does in the 12 member Pac12.
'Nuff said, case closed, class dismissed, end of discussion.
Not so fast......Bro!!!!
QB Rushing Attempts Sea- 98 NE - 23 Hou - 21 KC -27 NYJ - 54 Minn - 60 Den - 23 Chi - 41
Use RB rushing attempts and they are close to being out of the top ten.
Seattle threw the ball 402 times. Seattle handed the ball to RB's 430 times. Not exactly as smashmouth as some want to make it out to be.
The play calling is very similar between Seattle and UW. Seattle definitely is better at running the ball than UW, but that's not because of the plays being called. Might just have something to do with OL talent.
What do the top 10 rushing attempt teams in the NFL all have in common?
Rushing plays: 6th Rushing yards: 8th Yards per carry: 8th
The Seahawks rushing attack rates better across the board in the 32 member NFL than the Huskies rushing attack does in the 12 member Pac12.
'Nuff said, case closed, class dismissed, end of discussion.
Not so fast......Bro!!!!
QB Rushing Attempts Sea- 98 NE - 23 Hou - 21 KC -27 NYJ - 54 Minn - 60 Den - 23 Chi - 41
Use RB rushing attempts and they are close to being out of the top ten.
Seattle threw the ball 402 times. Seattle handed the ball to RB's 430 times. Not exactly as smashmouth as some want to make it out to be.
The play calling is very similar between Seattle and UW. Seattle definitely is better at running the ball than UW, but that's not because of the plays being called. Might just have something to do with OL talent.
What do the top 10 rushing attempt teams in the NFL all have in common?
Wait for it...........................
They didn't win the Super Bowl!!!!!!
Good point. It's too bad the Seahawks never use designed QB rushes or the read option. Those 98 QB runs should just be added to the passing total. What a pansy finesse team Carroll has put together.
Rushing plays: 6th Rushing yards: 8th Yards per carry: 8th
The Seahawks rushing attack rates better across the board in the 32 member NFL than the Huskies rushing attack does in the 12 member Pac12.
'Nuff said, case closed, class dismissed, end of discussion.
Not so fast......Bro!!!!
QB Rushing Attempts Sea- 98 NE - 23 Hou - 21 KC -27 NYJ - 54 Minn - 60 Den - 23 Chi - 41
Use RB rushing attempts and they are close to being out of the top ten.
Seattle threw the ball 402 times. Seattle handed the ball to RB's 430 times. Not exactly as smashmouth as some want to make it out to be.
The play calling is very similar between Seattle and UW. Seattle definitely is better at running the ball than UW, but that's not because of the plays being called. Might just have something to do with OL talent.
What do the top 10 rushing attempt teams in the NFL all have in common?
Wait for it...........................
They didn't win the Super Bowl!!!!!!
Good point. It's too bad the Seahawks never use designed QB rushes or the read option. Those 98 QB runs should just be added to the passing total. What a pansy finesse team Carroll has put together.
The eye test shows that the Seahawks are a smash mouth team while the Huskies are soft. The Seahawks have an attacking defense and they run the ball down people's throats.
The Huskies........well I don't know what they do well and neither does Sark why he's always changing everything up.
Comments
As for your Seahawks example they fell behind 20-0 so of course they are going to be throwing the ball a lot more than running the ball.
Last year the Seahawks were 27th in the league in passing yards per game while 3rd in the league in rushing yards. Of course you didn't point that out.
Of course you didn't point out that in the ATL game Seattle's first two plays of the game were running plays. Of course you don't point out Seattle threw 7 times and ran 5 times in the first quarter.
Of course you didn't point out the previous week in the playoffs the Seahawks threw the ball 26 times and ran the ball 37 fucking times.
As is the case you cherry pick a stat to make your point when you know your point is wrong.
Why no mention of the Seahawks 58-0 win where they ran the ball 42 times and threw only 22 times?
The Seahawks like we all pointed out were devoted to the run and only when they were down big early did they ditch the run. That was the right play as Wilson was lighting up their secondary while they were stuffing Lynch. That's called good coaching something Sark is incapable of.
Looks like the Ducks had poor special teams coaching last year. Not sure what that proves other than you can overcome poor ST if you kick serious ass in other phases of the game, but I'm sure you feel mighty swell.
You think they win because they run more. You think they lose because they pass more.
In reality it's just like any team. When you are winning, you run the ball to control possession and the clock. When you are losing you have to throw the ball to catch up.
I love it when you fucktards rip on UW after winning a game. Your favorite, see we ran the ball and we won the game. Why don't we do that every week? No we were winning the game and were able to run the ball.
It's not fucking rocket surgery!!!!!
Then UW is blown out and fucktards like you go "Sark couldn't run the ball UW was so far behind" when at the time he chose to ditch the run UW was only down 7-10 points.
The Seahawks playoffs vs the Redskins which you still have ignored ever happen ran the ball 37 times and threw 26 times. They fell behind 14-0. That is a classic case where Sark would have panic and ditch the run. The Seahawks didn't and stuck with the run as it was successful.
Seattle ran more Passing Plays in the first half then they did Running Plays. You would also know that they had more Passing Plays than Running Plays up until they took the lead in the 4th quarter. They then salted the game away running the ball.
You're not very good at this!!!!
You should just stick to the script and accuse me of sucking Sark's balls.
2nd quarter: 13 runs, 11 passes
3rd quarter: 8 runs, 7 passes
4th quarter: 12 runs, 9 passes
I was also generous in counting most of Wilson's runs as "pass" plays although some of those were designed runs. Only the first quarter did Seattle pass more than run. They went three and out first series all on passing plays then went to the run.
They went three and out all on passing plays and then went to the run game. 15 runs and 13 passes. Yeah, they went to the run. I was told earlier they were a pound the run first team. That looks like a balanced team that came out throwing the ball to set up the run. Then again......I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.....like you.
Now let's actually take a look at your numbers. You have the Seahawks down for 35 rushing plays. They had 37 rushes in the game. So you counted one of Wilson's 8 rushes as a passing play. You do remember that one of the rushes, Lynch fumble recovery was actually a pass play the Wilson was sacked on. If I ever get called out for skewing statistics again, I will link your post.
Bottom line is you are complaining about UW being a 50/50 rush pass team. You want them to be a run dominated team. To try to add to your argument you use the Seahawks, who in their two playoff games were a 50/50 team. Not, the pound the rock team you want to make them out to be.
They opened the Redskins game with 3 passes and a punt. You would have wanted Sark fired, but call Carroll a genius.
Sticking to the script.
Pete Carroll is pretty damn good, but the Harbaugh brothers are the geniuses in the NFL.
Sark should be fired not for his playcalling samples, but for being a mediocre coach in four years on the job. Washington can do better.
Seahawks rank in NFL
Rushing plays: 1st (13 more than anyone else, 103 more than the team in 16th place)
Rushing yards: 3rd
Yards per carry: 5th
UW's rushing statistics (Pac 12 ranks)
Rushing plays: 6th
Rushing yards: 8th
Yards per carry: 8th
The Seahawks rushing attack rates better across the board in the 32 member NFL than the Huskies rushing attack does in the 12 member Pac12.
'Nuff said, case closed, class dismissed, end of discussion.
QB Rushing Attempts
Sea- 98
NE - 23
Hou - 21
KC -27
NYJ - 54
Minn - 60
Den - 23
Chi - 41
Use RB rushing attempts and they are close to being out of the top ten.
Seattle threw the ball 402 times. Seattle handed the ball to RB's 430 times. Not exactly as smashmouth as some want to make it out to be.
The play calling is very similar between Seattle and UW. Seattle definitely is better at running the ball than UW, but that's not because of the plays being called. Might just have something to do with OL talent.
What do the top 10 rushing attempt teams in the NFL all have in common?
Wait for it...........................
They didn't win the Super Bowl!!!!!!
The Huskies........well I don't know what they do well and neither does Sark why he's always changing everything up.