UW Players at NFL Combine

DonaldJones

Just checking out the NFL combine on the NFL network. UW Players looking very good. It looks like we are going to have 3 players drafted in the First round. Heck, we only had 2 first round players from the National Championship team back in 92.

So the question is did Washington underachieve with that type of talent in the 1st round? I think it was more the lack of talent across the board. Interested in hearing your opinions.

ThomasFremont

DonaldJones said:

Just checking out the NFL combine on the NFL network. UW Players looking very good. It looks like we are going to have 3 players drafted in the First round. Heck, we only had 2 first round players from the National Championship team back in 92.

So the question is did Washington underachieve with that type of talent in the 1st round? I think it was more the lack of talent across the board. Interested in hearing your opinions.

Two words: Cyler Miles.

None of those 1st rounders played QB.

chuck

You could say UW, including the defense, underachieved and wouldn't be wrong. It's not hard to list reasons why that happened though.

Poor talent across the board on offense. There wasn't a strong position group. Actually every position was between very weak and below average.

Just plain bad offense. Throw all the reasons/excuses together...players not getting it, bad scheme, bad play calling, etc. It was just bad.

Lack of offense gets to be tough on the defense.

Bad class balance on defense. An almost completely green secondary cost the defense a lot of yardage and points. Throw the 2012 or 2013 secondary out there with the 2014 front seven and it would have been a pretty damn good defense.

I think Kikaha is getting jobbed a bit going into the draft. It's nobody's fault. The knee concerns are being overblown but I get that he's in between positions due to being undersized for a DE and not an elite athlete as a stand up linebacker. He's going to be a productive player for someone though...a steal with a mid-late round pick.

doogsinparadise

ThomasFremont said:

DonaldJones said:

Just checking out the NFL combine on the NFL network. UW Players looking very good. It looks like we are going to have 3 players drafted in the First round. Heck, we only had 2 first round players from the National Championship team back in 92.

So the question is did Washington underachieve with that type of talent in the 1st round? I think it was more the lack of talent across the board. Interested in hearing your opinions.

Two words: Cyler Miles.

None of those 1st rounders played QB.

Or offensive line.

haie

If you look at the Stanford, Oregon, and UCLA games, although UW's good-great defensive line could plug up the run, those teams could bounce it outside and throw on the secondary to move the chains rather easily. Once Peters quit, they were even more susceptible. King and a young Jones (and even at times Buddha) were liabilities. Long sustained drives wore down the d-line and it was game over.

I specifically remember Oregon throwing screens/bouncing it outside with their receivers locking up our corners to get huge gains, especially on 2nd and 3rd down. Hundley flat out tore the secondary up. ASU could make the 3rd down pass when they needed to.

Overall UW had some great top-end talent, but not enough in the supporting cast. This is probably why Petersen keeps bringing up needing to build more depth.

Offense is an entirely different discussion. 2 1-dimensional backs and a quarterback who throws a shitty ball (no more than 30-40 yards no less) being asked to get it out quick to bubble screens. I think Smith/Petersen should take some heat in probably realizing their personnel couldn't run the system they wanted to, yet refusing to just go option/wildcat with the Swede. Our offense wouldn't have been nearly as embarrassing.

whatshouldicareabout

DonaldJones said:

Just checking out the NFL combine on the NFL network. UW Players looking very good. It looks like we are going to have 3 players drafted in the First round. Heck, we only had 2 first round players from the National Championship team back in 92.

So the question is did Washington underachieve with that type of talent in the 1st round? I think it was more the lack of talent across the board. Interested in hearing your opinions.

Washington did underachieve with that talent, primarily because the major issues were on the other side of the ball, with Miles and Smith to blame. Secondary issues are the lack of player development, the new scheme and new attitude, and running zone all year because of 5-6 new starters in the secondary.

If you plug in Keith Price, I think we have a much different season, even with Smith at OC.

bananasnblondes

UW had 3 amazing athletes on defense (4 if you include Peters). The drop off between those players and the rest of the team was huge.

Along with these great players you had huge issues at:
QB (enough has been said on this)
CB and Safety (starting true freshmen at 2 or 3 of 4 positions is not a recipe for winning)
RB (Cyler's faults were accentuated by the fact that there was no featured running back, just a group of guys who were bad/OK)

Aside from that you had a bunch of guys like Timu, DiAndre Campbell, Evan Hudson, and the entire offensive line who were upperclassmen with years of starting experience , but were never actually very good.

Meek

haie said:

If you look at the Stanford, Oregon, and UCLA games, although UW's good-great defensive line could plug up the run, those teams could bounce it outside and throw on the secondary to move the chains rather easily. Once Peters quit, they were even more susceptible. King and a young Jones (and even at times Buddha) were liabilities. Long sustained drives wore down the d-line and it was game over.

I specifically remember Oregon throwing screens/bouncing it outside with their receivers locking up our corners to get huge gains, especially on 2nd and 3rd down. Hundley flat out tore the secondary up. ASU could make the 3rd down pass when they needed to.

Overall UW had some great top-end talent, but not enough in the supporting cast. This is probably why Petersen keeps bringing up needing to build more depth.

Offense is an entirely different discussion. 2 1-dimensional backs and a quarterback who throws a shitty ball (no more than 30-40 yards no less) being asked to get it out quick to bubble screens. I think Smith/Petersen should take some heat in probably realizing their personnel couldn't run the system they wanted to, yet refusing to just go option/wildcat with the Swede. Our offense wouldn't have been nearly as embarrassing.

my guess is that Petersen's deal with Uber AD Woody was something along the lines of "Look, I'm going to build the program I want and won't fuck around installing multiple systems to adjust to your current players... year 1 may not be awesome and that's the deal. Say yes or get back on that fucking private jet to Seattle."

Tequilla

Goes to show that great players don't win championships ... great teams do.

Very little offensive talent.

Defense got pretty good by the end of the year, but the lack of experience in the secondary caused problems early in the year.

I think what you saw this year was directly tied to how Seven's top end of his classes looked great but the lack of depth and player development created so-so results.

haie

Meek said:

haie said:

If you look at the Stanford, Oregon, and UCLA games, although UW's good-great defensive line could plug up the run, those teams could bounce it outside and throw on the secondary to move the chains rather easily. Once Peters quit, they were even more susceptible. King and a young Jones (and even at times Buddha) were liabilities. Long sustained drives wore down the d-line and it was game over.

I specifically remember Oregon throwing screens/bouncing it outside with their receivers locking up our corners to get huge gains, especially on 2nd and 3rd down. Hundley flat out tore the secondary up. ASU could make the 3rd down pass when they needed to.

Overall UW had some great top-end talent, but not enough in the supporting cast. This is probably why Petersen keeps bringing up needing to build more depth.

Offense is an entirely different discussion. 2 1-dimensional backs and a quarterback who throws a shitty ball (no more than 30-40 yards no less) being asked to get it out quick to bubble screens. I think Smith/Petersen should take some heat in probably realizing their personnel couldn't run the system they wanted to, yet refusing to just go option/wildcat with the Swede. Our offense wouldn't have been nearly as embarrassing.

my guess is that Petersen's deal with Uber AD Woody was something along the lines of "Look, I'm going to build the program I want and won't fuck around installing multiple systems to adjust to your current players... year 1 may not be awesome and that's the deal. Say yes or get back on that fucking private jet to Seattle."

Well said.

RoadDawg55

Many will disagree, but I think the 1st rounders outside of Peters are overrated. Shelton is good, and even though his effort improved, he didn't bring it every game. Sometimes he was incredible (early season, Arizona, WSU). Sometimes he was meh (Oregon, UCLA). Almost every sack was against Hawaii and Eastern.

Shaq is a ball hawk, but has average instincts and misses a lot of tackles. Mason Foster was a great LB. Shaq was not. That said, he was a very good RB and that was arguably his best position.

Peters is a future Pro Bowler but he clashed with the coaching staff. That was too bad, but Petersen had to draw the line.

Kikaha was a stud and IMO the MVP of the defense. We saw how the defense performed without him in the UCLA game. I agree with Chuck that he is an intriguing 2nd-4th round pick.

I think Petersen should have won a few more games, but the transition wasn't smooth. We can make excuses, but 8-6 with that schedule sucks no matter who is coaching. On one hand, QB play was terrible and the rest of the offense wasn't much better. OTOH, the offense was the worst in the Pac 12 and the coaches deserve blame and criticism for that.

TTJ

RoadDawg55 said:

Many will disagree, but I think the 1st rounders outside of Peters are overrated. Shelton is good, and even though his effort improved, he didn't bring it every game. Sometimes he was incredible (early season, Arizona, WSU). Sometimes he was meh (Oregon, UCLA). Almost every sack was against Hawaii and Eastern.

Shaq is a ball hawk, but has average instincts and misses a lot of tackles. Mason Foster was a great LB. Shaq was not. That said, he was a very good RB and that was arguably his best position.

Peters is a future Pro Bowler but he clashed with the coaching staff. That was too bad, but Petersen had to draw the line.

Kikaha was a stud and IMO the MVP of the defense. We saw how the defense performed without him in the UCLA game. I agree with Chuck that he is an intriguing 2nd-4th round pick.

I think Petersen should have won a few more games, but the transition wasn't smooth. We can make excuses, but 8-6 with that schedule sucks no matter who is coaching. On one hand, QB play was terrible and the rest of the offense wasn't much better. OTOH, the offense was the worst in the Pac 12 and the coaches deserve blame and criticism for that.

Agree re Shaq and Peters. But IMO, you're overvaluing Kikaha. And way, way undervaluing Shelton, who is the best player to come through UW in 20 years.

chuck

Partially agree with both TTJ and Roaddawg. I think RD is underrating Shelton and TTJ is underrating Kikaha.

Completely agree on Shaq. He's a good football player but no first round talent. He's not good enough at any one position. He doesn't have the measurables to be a safetym the toughness to be a great linebacker, nor is he quick enough to be a running back.

dnc

TTJ said:

RoadDawg55 said:

Many will disagree, but I think the 1st rounders outside of Peters are overrated. Shelton is good, and even though his effort improved, he didn't bring it every game. Sometimes he was incredible (early season, Arizona, WSU). Sometimes he was meh (Oregon, UCLA). Almost every sack was against Hawaii and Eastern.

Shaq is a ball hawk, but has average instincts and misses a lot of tackles. Mason Foster was a great LB. Shaq was not. That said, he was a very good RB and that was arguably his best position.

Peters is a future Pro Bowler but he clashed with the coaching staff. That was too bad, but Petersen had to draw the line.

Kikaha was a stud and IMO the MVP of the defense. We saw how the defense performed without him in the UCLA game. I agree with Chuck that he is an intriguing 2nd-4th round pick.

I think Petersen should have won a few more games, but the transition wasn't smooth. We can make excuses, but 8-6 with that schedule sucks no matter who is coaching. On one hand, QB play was terrible and the rest of the offense wasn't much better. OTOH, the offense was the worst in the Pac 12 and the coaches deserve blame and criticism for that.

Agree re Shaq and Peters. But IMO, you're overvaluing Kikaha. And way, way undervaluing Shelton, who is the best player to come through UW in 20 years.

THIS

SteveInShelton

Damone said it a while back - Washington's defense had some great individuals but it wasn't a very good team defense. You are only as good as your weakest link on defense, and UW had a lot of weak links.

DerekJohnson

SteveInShelton said:

Damone said it a while back - Washington's defense had some great individuals but it wasn't a very good team defense. You are only as good as your weakest link on defense, and UW had a lot of weak links.

The Seahawks were a case study of that in the Super Bowl when Lane went down and Simon was in the game.

RoadDawg55

SteveInShelton said:

Damone said it a while back - Washington's defense had some great individuals but it wasn't a very good team defense. You are only as good as your weakest link on defense, and UW had a lot of weak links.

I agree with that, but the defense played well enough to win 10+. Stanford, ASU, and Arizona (turnovers) were all lost by the offense.

CokeGreaterThanPepsi

RoadDawg55 said:

SteveInShelton said:

Damone said it a while back - Washington's defense had some great individuals but it wasn't a very good team defense. You are only as good as your weakest link on defense, and UW had a lot of weak links.

I agree with that, but the defense played well enough to win 10+. Stanford, ASU, and Arizona (turnovers) were all lost by the offense.

Good poont. It is weird to think about how close UW was in those three games (although the ASU game was weird with that weather). Just frustrating to think of how close UW was to getting those wins (although, the offense was so dreadful in the Furd and ASU games that it is hard to say we were "close").

haie

CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:

RoadDawg55 said:

SteveInShelton said:

Damone said it a while back - Washington's defense had some great individuals but it wasn't a very good team defense. You are only as good as your weakest link on defense, and UW had a lot of weak links.

I agree with that, but the defense played well enough to win 10+. Stanford, ASU, and Arizona (turnovers) were all lost by the offense.

Good poont. It is weird to think about how close UW was in those three games (although the ASU game was weird with that weather). Just frustrating to think of how close UW was to getting those wins (although, the offense was so dreadful in the Furd and ASU games that it is hard to say we were "close").

I really thought we should have beaten ASU in addition to Arizona. When you are gashing the (poop) out of them like Shaq was, you should be getting 7's en route to wearing their defense down, who is blitzing almost every play. Graham was losing it on the sideline, I think he knew what was coming too if they couldn't get some momentum-swinging play with Strong. The defense should have picked off Kelly at the end there and then marched down the field and finished it.

Stanford is another game where I wonder what could have been if we'd taken some shots with Ross and ran Shaq at rb more. I know they needed his defensive td but just an abysmal effort by the offense. And we were at home. They were winning on the line, but it shouldn't have come down to risk giving them the ball back at the 50.

Dennis_DeYoung

On the defense, we had 4 All-Americans and 4 kids who were WSU level players. Then some young kids.

creepycoug

bananasnblondes said:

UW had 3 amazing athletes on defense (4 if you include Peters). The drop off between those players and the rest of the team was huge.

...

Aside from that you had a bunch of guys like ... Evan Hudson ... who were upperclassmen with years of starting experience , but were never actually very good.

Truer words have not been written here in more than 1/2 hour. Kid has about the slowest first step I've seen on a Pac-level defensive line.

Compare/contrast with Danny Shelton who, compared to Hudson, was short and fat. Just another illustration that you can't work your way to speed and quickness. It's there or it's not, with or without hunks of fat hanging off your ass and with or without hard work.

I know for a fact that Hudson was a weight room legend and, as a former walk on, did everything the coaches told him to do and did it twice for good measure.

Great HS athlete. Marginal D1. Period. Might have been better off working on his curve ball or off-speed pitch to go with the fast ball.