Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

New Husky Fan Podcast Episode

http://traffic.libsyn.com/huskyfanpodcast/June8.2015HuskyFanPodcast.mp3

We talk about Gladstone's question and Pete's future over the next few years if he struggles. While we don't believe W/L will improve this year we each note one or two things that would indicate the chance for a leap in year 3. We also note the coaches that made huge leaps in year 3 or 4. We also weigh playing Browning as a true freshman.

In addition we rip on baseball, the Mariners, 710, cover the NBA Finals and Roadie cites a WSJ article.

Shoutouts to Derek, PuppySteel, Race, RavennaDawg, Gladstone, Tequilla
«13

Comments

  • claychaclaycha Member Posts: 662
    edited June 2015
    Morning wood AND a Husky Podcast!?

    Today is going to be special!!
    Sounding good fellas.

    Send my $10 to Derek Johnson!
  • SpoonieLuvSpoonieLuv Member Posts: 5,457
    edited June 2015
    Holy shit did I just win $10?

    image
  • BallSackedBallSacked Member Posts: 3,279
    Road dog can read?
  • CokeGreaterThanPepsiCokeGreaterThanPepsi Member Posts: 7,646
    I WANT MY 10 BUCKS
  • GladstoneGladstone Member Posts: 16,419
    edited June 2015
    Whoa, my first ever FREE PUB!!!!!11111one

    And I won't calm myself damn you, I'm tired of sucking for 15 fucking years. RD's comment about Pete not being on the hot seat at 2-3 wins was amusing.

    Otherwise, great listen as always and everyone had really interesting things to say. Jimmy sounded like he was on his deathbed though lol
  • TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,931
    Had to listen to get to the free pub ...

    To clarify the whole .600 winning percentage with 100 games left comment by channeling my inner John Nash, basically what was needed to get there was being slightly better than .500 in games started by non-Felix starters and then winning at a .750+ level with Felix starting. With the quality of the pitching staff, that wasn't a huge stretch. Apparently with the quality of the offense, expecting anything other than TSIO is entirely FS.
  • GladstoneGladstone Member Posts: 16,419
    I'll have to go back and listen again but I thought you said he wouldn't be on the hot seat at that point. He definitely would be 100% on the hot seat if we win 2-3 games this year. No question.

    If I misheard and you were talking about firing him then yeah I agree.
  • TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,931
    Only way Pete gets on the hot seat is if he loses boosters, attendance, money, etc. Hard to imagine that he'll be hurt by lack of performance given the staunch support that Romar gets when there is overwhelming reasons to end that experiment.

    While it's very possible that Petersen will get a ton of shit if the QB position and Smith are disasters this season, those are easy fixes by firing Smith and then turning everything over to Browning afterwards.

    There's more talent on this team than I think people are willing to talk about because of the black cloud on the offense/QB.

    One thing that I do think is worth talking about from the podcast is this notion that Petersen is taking on the Stanford model and the idea that the Stanford model is successful with or without a QB. Since Luck left for the NFL, Stanford has been an above average team in the conference with what is a very average PAC QB. Make no mistake that in today's world of college football where 30+ points per game are more of a norm than an exception, that having quality QB play is paramount. If you have a all-conference (or better) caliber of QB, you have a chance to win your conference for sure. I can't think of many situations in the last 5 years or so where there has been a high caliber team that didn't have at least above average QB play. You can be an above average team with average QB play if the rest of your team is an upper end of the conference team and you can be a contender with above average QB play if you have an elite supporting cast. Until the UW gets back to having the kind of quality QB play that is needed to compete at a high level (and really, this has been as much of the root cause of the problem since the early 2000s as anything else), the program will continue to be relatively mediocre.
  • DooglesDoogles Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 12,602 Founders Club
    Tequilla said:

    Only way Pete gets on the hot seat is if he loses boosters, attendance, money, etc. Hard to imagine that he'll be hurt by lack of performance given the staunch support that Romar gets when there is overwhelming reasons to end that experiment.

    While it's very possible that Petersen will get a ton of shit if the QB position and Smith are disasters this season, those are easy fixes by firing Smith and then turning everything over to Browning afterwards.

    There's more talent on this team than I think people are willing to talk about because of the black cloud on the offense/QB.

    One thing that I do think is worth talking about from the podcast is this notion that Petersen is taking on the Stanford model and the idea that the Stanford model is successful with or without a QB. Since Luck left for the NFL, Stanford has been an above average team in the conference with what is a very average PAC QB. Make no mistake that in today's world of college football where 30+ points per game are more of a norm than an exception, that having quality QB play is paramount. If you have a all-conference (or better) caliber of QB, you have a chance to win your conference for sure. I can't think of many situations in the last 5 years or so where there has been a high caliber team that didn't have at least above average QB play. You can be an above average team with average QB play if the rest of your team is an upper end of the conference team and you can be a contender with above average QB play if you have an elite supporting cast. Until the UW gets back to having the kind of quality QB play that is needed to compete at a high level (and really, this has been as much of the root cause of the problem since the early 2000s as anything else), the program will continue to be relatively mediocre.

    Im having a flashback now to the Stanford segment. I'm in the camp that Hogan is not terrible or average, but probably above average. He struggled early on when the line play sucked for them (SHOCKER) but once that was cleaned up he excelled.

    Knocking Hogan is akin to knocking Russel Wilson. He does what he's asked to do. I bet you he gets late round drafted, he almost went out after this year. If we had Hogan over Miley last year we beat stanford, arizona, and OKST assuming we still played them in whatever bowl.
  • HeretoBeatmyChestHeretoBeatmyChest Member Posts: 4,295
    Good thread here and great posts by @SpoonieLuv and @Doogles.

    Petersen is the best this school can do in hiring a football coach. It's really fucking hard to get a great coach, there are very few slam dunk hires but we got one.

    Not to keep beating this drum but there are many great fucking coaches who don't do shit until year 3 or 4. We all will be pissed at 4-8 or 5-7 but that does not mean Petersen is off track.

    In any event the offense has to get better or Smith has to go if it doesn't improve. He was a total fucking reach of a hire. And its not like this school doesn't have the resources to seriously upgrade the position. The hiring of Wilcox saved Sark's fledgling career. If the offense and QB play doesn't improve they need to make a change. The offense/QB cannot still be an impediment in year 3.
  • CokeGreaterThanPepsiCokeGreaterThanPepsi Member Posts: 7,646
    Doogles said:

    I laughed my ass off when chest asked if little jimmy took a few quaaludes before the show. Then my quaaludes kicked in and I passed the fuck out. Probably have to relisten.

    My 2 cents on Petes job security is that if we have Hawkins 2.0 on our hands, we better make sure he has failed before we hit the reset button. I get the entire 3 years or GTFO, but here is the reality.

    Sark was a salesman (a damn good one) who went from a cell phone kiosk to an NFL head coaching offer in like 5 years. He didn't have the resume, inherited a relatively talented roster in retrospect, and produced medioce results while using the program as training wheels with the safety net of 0-12 to fool the nation he was good. It was a brilliant career move on his part, quite honestly a tip of the cap. But there was a legitimate call for his firing after year 3.

    Enter Petersen. We know the resume. He gets as much time as he needs in my book barring complete Ty like implosion. I'm so apathetic to the program right now, I can't give him the quick hook no matter how many stats back up a call to fire him. If Chris fucking Petersen can't get us back to relevance, I seriously might be done.

    In year 3 if we don't win the North i'll be pissed, but i'll give him to year 5 because i have absolutely zero faith in the next man we hire and am willing to gamble Petersen's mediocre start as an outlier to greater things than a complete reset of another regime that will fail because we are the new WASHINGTON and that's what we're good at.

    This program needs him to succeed, I think he will, but if he doesn't, holy shit my money will start going elsewhere unless we poach Saban.

    This is basically exactly my thoughts. It really comes down to the fact that this is the absolute best hire we could have asked for and I am willing to give Peterman his time because if he can't get us back then we are absolutely fucked.

    And I think he will get us back, so, yeah.
  • TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,931
    Good point on Hogan in that it is hard at times to figure out where he is at. He can look great one day and WTF the next. It's very possible that I'm underselling him a bit by saying he is average and he very well may be above average. He's certainly better than Price which would make him no worse than the 2nd best UW QB in the last 10+ years
  • RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,123
    Tequilla said:

    Only way Pete gets on the hot seat is if he loses boosters, attendance, money, etc. Hard to imagine that he'll be hurt by lack of performance given the staunch support that Romar gets when there is overwhelming reasons to end that experiment.

    While it's very possible that Petersen will get a ton of shit if the QB position and Smith are disasters this season, those are easy fixes by firing Smith and then turning everything over to Browning afterwards.

    There's more talent on this team than I think people are willing to talk about because of the black cloud on the offense/QB.

    One thing that I do think is worth talking about from the podcast is this notion that Petersen is taking on the Stanford model and the idea that the Stanford model is successful with or without a QB. Since Luck left for the NFL, Stanford has been an above average team in the conference with what is a very average PAC QB. Make no mistake that in today's world of college football where 30+ points per game are more of a norm than an exception, that having quality QB play is paramount. If you have a all-conference (or better) caliber of QB, you have a chance to win your conference for sure. I can't think of many situations in the last 5 years or so where there has been a high caliber team that didn't have at least above average QB play. You can be an above average team with average QB play if the rest of your team is an upper end of the conference team and you can be a contender with above average QB play if you have an elite supporting cast. Until the UW gets back to having the kind of quality QB play that is needed to compete at a high level (and really, this has been as much of the root cause of the problem since the early 2000s as anything else), the program will continue to be relatively mediocre.

    31-10. Two Pac 12 championships, two Rose Bowl appearances, one Rose Bowl win. That is well above average and after 15 years of bullshit, that kind of success is a wet dream for a Husky fan.
  • RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,123
    Gladstone said:

    I'll have to go back and listen again but I thought you said he wouldn't be on the hot seat at that point. He definitely would be 100% on the hot seat if we win 2-3 games this year. No question.

    If I misheard and you were talking about firing him then yeah I agree.

    Sark got 5 years and wasn't going anywhere until he chose to LEAVE! Ty got 4 years. Romar is still the basketball coach. Disgruntled fans will call in and complain if Petersen wins 3 games. Poasters here and on dawgman will call for Petersen to be fired, but he isn't going anywhere and will get 4-5 years, even if we continue to suck. It seems to take catastrophe level disasters for a coach to get fired at UW. Mediocrity has long been accepted.
Sign In or Register to comment.