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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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").
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.