Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Petersen Article by Ted Miller And Some Thoughts
RoadDawg55
Member Posts: 30,123
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/85738/no-longer-new-guy-petersen-can-focus-on-establishing-culture
Surprisingly good article by Ted. He brings up a good point about UW being the first time Petersen took over from scratch. I know everyone here likes to point out how incredibly successful Petersen was at Boise (which is true), but every Boise coach since Nutt has had success and parleyed that success into a bigger job. None had quite the success Petersen did, but the fact is that they were all successful. Harsin is adding to the list with a Fiesta Bowl win in year one. They have a long standing culture that began before Petersen got there. Petersen took over a program that had won four straight conference titles and took them to a new height. It's entirely different than taking over a mediocre Pac 12 program and trying to bring it back to excellence. It's why I believe it's stupid to completely discount 92-12, but it's also far from a guarantee of success.
A concerning quote from the article: “We needed to hammer in the details of the new concepts more," Smith said. "We probably should have done less, just learning from last year. We had too much volume to be really detailed at what we did.”
First off, just seeing Jonathon Smith's name pisses me off. If the article attached his mortician looking photo, I might have smashed my computer screen. This was painfully obvious (at least to me) last year. Cyler looked less comfortable against WSU and Oklahoma State than he did in his second start vs Illinois. He looked confused in every game and so did Lindquist and Williams when they had their chance. I would be naïve to say it didn't concern me. Why does the offense need to be so complicated? Some of the best offenses in college football are remarkably simple.
I'm cautiously intrigued by Carta Samuels and especially Browning. I really like Petersen, but something really stinks about this offense. Reading this article brought back some of the shitty feelings from last season. It has to get better.
Surprisingly good article by Ted. He brings up a good point about UW being the first time Petersen took over from scratch. I know everyone here likes to point out how incredibly successful Petersen was at Boise (which is true), but every Boise coach since Nutt has had success and parleyed that success into a bigger job. None had quite the success Petersen did, but the fact is that they were all successful. Harsin is adding to the list with a Fiesta Bowl win in year one. They have a long standing culture that began before Petersen got there. Petersen took over a program that had won four straight conference titles and took them to a new height. It's entirely different than taking over a mediocre Pac 12 program and trying to bring it back to excellence. It's why I believe it's stupid to completely discount 92-12, but it's also far from a guarantee of success.
A concerning quote from the article: “We needed to hammer in the details of the new concepts more," Smith said. "We probably should have done less, just learning from last year. We had too much volume to be really detailed at what we did.”
First off, just seeing Jonathon Smith's name pisses me off. If the article attached his mortician looking photo, I might have smashed my computer screen. This was painfully obvious (at least to me) last year. Cyler looked less comfortable against WSU and Oklahoma State than he did in his second start vs Illinois. He looked confused in every game and so did Lindquist and Williams when they had their chance. I would be naïve to say it didn't concern me. Why does the offense need to be so complicated? Some of the best offenses in college football are remarkably simple.
I'm cautiously intrigued by Carta Samuels and especially Browning. I really like Petersen, but something really stinks about this offense. Reading this article brought back some of the shitty feelings from last season. It has to get better.
Comments
My biggest fear is we put too much of the onus on the generally fucktarded looking nature of Cyler and the little babushka is going to lather, rinse, repeat with whomever steps in.
It's on Pete no matter which way it goes.
95% of people just follow the trends to fit in. It's part of the human condition.
Look at Pete Carroll and Schiedner. They go counter culture, they want to road grade you with a power back, and punish you with defense. The foundation of good football. They rely on their evaluations and emphasizing the right culture. Look at the success, the rest of NFL still feel like they need to throw for 4500 yards and get by with a shitty defense. They never waver from "always compete." They will ship your ass out if you don't compete.
J smith ran a shitty offense that look confusing for everyone. It's operating out of fear. So much money and pressure to win guys look to cut corners.
It was brutally frustrating to watch such an awful offense. No identity, utter confusion for most of the time.
That by J Smith's quote made it clear he was not ready for the job. That was a mistake by Peterson, let's hope he has corrected it because it was a total dumpster fire with 30ft flames.
I agree with lil jimmy, I want this team to be like Stanford and run the ball a ton and beat the team into submission, I think we can get there at some point and details will matter a ton if we do want to get to that level of play. Good teams pay attention and refine the smallest details, it's what separates them from teams that don't.
I probably didn't make much sense here, long day in the salt mines and I haven't had a coke yet.
He has never been in the past. His best offenses at Boise, from what I recall, were complex multiple formations (spread, pro, power) with intricate motions and shifts pre-snap that outschemed and out executed better athletes and annihilated lesser ones. Thats what I figured 'detailed' meant and that's what I figured he was going to build towards at UW.
His offenses at BSU were actually closer to Oregon State under Riley (in terms of scheme and multiple formation looks) than anything Stanford has done reccently.
Stanford just runs straight at you all the time and will run the same play over and over at times (which often costs Shaw in big games).
All that being said, I wouldn't mind if Smith sold his couch.
On craigslist, or consignment?
It's sad to see how far uw has fallen
I'm with Pepsi, I have absolutely no problem with having expectations of players to execute. Add that to the list of things that have changed in this culture change. Shouldn't be much of a talking point going into 2015.
And for anybody that thinks that Petersen's identity is that of a pass happy offensive coach, I'm sure he'd LOVE for you to keep believing that (from his time at Boise):
2006: 551 rushes, 306 passes
2007: 518 rushes, 460 passes
2008: 449 rushes, 438 passes
2009: 508 rushes, 458 passes
2010: 485 rushes, 424 passes
2011: 492 rushes, 477 passes
2012: 478 rushes, 394 passes
2013: 563 rushes, 466 passes
If anything, what the above shows you is that IF he's got a QB that he can trust a lot (see the Kellen Moore years), he'll trend closer to 50/50 because he knows that the QB will execute and make enough good decisions to hit short passes, etc. that can be the equivalent of running plays. But in the years where he doesn't trust his QBs as much, the ratio goes far higher in the direction of running plays. It actually goes a long way into Petersen's mindset because if there's one thing offensively that after one year at Washington can be said with a high degree of certainty it is that Petersen HATES turnovers on offense.
Jesus, in junior high PE I didn't tell chubby Jenny to run a sluggo route. I looked into her disinterested swollen eyes and told her to just stand next to the right of the center and look up.
While it would be hard to find many people that hate the spread more than I do, the fact that it is an ever increasing element of high school football (particularly in some of the stronger recruiting areas) combined with players being developed in a way that is tailored somewhat to running the spread and the NFL increasing more and more 3 WR sets as part of their standard offensive packages should result in elements of the spread more likely to be here to stay instead of just the flavor of the month.
IMO, Petersen has added too much to the offense. He took his old offense from four years ago and tried to blend it with the new flavor of the month (no huddle/spread). Now he has a befuddled mess that is the slowest no huddle offense I've ever watched.
I remember reading an article about Tedford and how in his first few years at Cal, he had a relatively thin playbook. The offense had simple concepts and was easy to learn. By the end of the his time at Cal, his playbook was thicker than anyone's because he had added everything he liked that he saw other teams doing into the playbook. Of course, Tedford went from Kyle Boller and Aaron Rodgers to Alan Bridgeford and Zach Maynard so he also had QB issues like Petersen does now.