They'd have a year in the strength and conditioning program before they got hurt. Also, confidence is a real thing and letting a QB get the playbook down and learn to read a defense before throwing him to the wolves can be beneficial as well.
I can sort of agree that Browning is likely to be (slightly) better in 2016 if he plays in 2015, but he's likely to be much much better in 2019 than in 2015.
They'd have a year in the strength and conditioning program before they got hurt. Also, confidence is a real thing and letting a QB get the playbook down and learn to read a defense before throwing him to the wolves can be beneficial as well.
I can sort of agree that Browning is likely to be (slightly) better in 2016 if he plays in 2015, but he's likely to be much much better in 2019 than in 2015.
True freshmen are allowed to participate in the strength and conditioning program, and learn to read defenses too. Really, they are.
You seem to be debating rs frosh vs true frosh. I am talking about true soph vs rs frosh. There will be nothing "(slightly)" better about Browning true soph vs Browning rs frosh; the difference will be significant. As the saying goes, Nothing prepares you for the NFL, like the NFL.
Irregardless, it will all be a mute point if Browning is not the qb who gives us the best chance to win this year.
They'd have a year in the strength and conditioning program before they got hurt. Also, confidence is a real thing and letting a QB get the playbook down and learn to read a defense before throwing him to the wolves can be beneficial as well.
I can sort of agree that Browning is likely to be (slightly) better in 2016 if he plays in 2015, but he's likely to be much much better in 2019 than in 2015.
True freshmen are allowed to participate in the strength and conditioning program, and learn to read defenses too. Really, they are.
You seem to be debating rs frosh vs true frosh. I am talking about true soph vs rs frosh. There will be nothing "(slightly)" better about Browning true soph vs Browning rs frosh; the difference will be significant. As the saying goes, Nothing prepares you for the NFL, like the NFL.
Irregardless, it will all be a mute point if Browning is not the qb who gives us the best chance to win this year.
How did you come up with that? Johnny Manziel, Kellen Moore, Mariota, and Jameis Winston all played great as redshirt freshman. I'm not sure there is any proof that guys are so much better by playing as true freshman.
They'd have a year in the strength and conditioning program before they got hurt. Also, confidence is a real thing and letting a QB get the playbook down and learn to read a defense before throwing him to the wolves can be beneficial as well.
I can sort of agree that Browning is likely to be (slightly) better in 2016 if he plays in 2015, but he's likely to be much much better in 2019 than in 2015.
True freshmen are allowed to participate in the strength and conditioning program, and learn to read defenses too. Really, they are.
You seem to be debating rs frosh vs true frosh. I am talking about true soph vs rs frosh. There will be nothing "(slightly)" better about Browning true soph vs Browning rs frosh; the difference will be significant. As the saying goes, Nothing prepares you for the NFL, like the NFL.
Irregardless, it will all be a mute point if Browning is not the qb who gives us the best chance to win this year.
How did you come up with that? Johnny Manziel, Kellen Moore, Mariota, and Jameis Winston all played great as redshirt freshman. I'm not sure there is any proof that guys are so much better by playing as true freshman.
Whomever gives us the best chance to win should play. Why is this so difficult?
If Browning plays in 2015, he will be worlds better as a true soph in 2016 than he will as a rs-frosh. And he will be better in 2017, and 2018.
No one has ever said "That guy would be a better player if only he had spent last year on the bench in stead of seeing the field."
If Lindquist gives us the best chance to win, he should play.
Riddle me this, shit-for-brains: how good was Saint Marques in 2001?
Disagree. Tui won a Rose Bowl and popped off in 2000. But if Shane Fortney would have stayed, Tui would have redshirted and been great in 2001!!1 It's stupid Jerry. Tui played because he had to, just like Browning might have to. They aren't the same scenario because the '97 team had Rose Bowl expectations, but it was a case of the best QB stepping in and playing when needed.
Unrelated side note, Tui should have started in '98 too, but UW was somewhat understandably loyal to Brock.
Whomever gives us the best chance to win should play. Why is this so difficult?
If Browning plays in 2015, he will be worlds better as a true soph in 2016 than he will as a rs-frosh. And he will be better in 2017, and 2018.
No one has ever said "That guy would be a better player if only he had spent last year on the bench in stead of seeing the field."
If Lindquist gives us the best chance to win, he should play.
Riddle me this, shit-for-brains: how good was Saint Marques in 2001?
I'll take this a little further. Cody Pickett stepped in and was one of Washington's most prolific passers in 2001. It's about recruiting great players and having them be ready. People forget the Tui got hurt in the Rose Bowl and it was Pickett who stepped in and helped keep that game in hand. You're either good or you're not.
If Browning is the best guy, he needs to play. And Pete needs to recruit somebody who will be ready to take over in 2019 that's not named Browning regardless. I think Browning is the guy, but i'm in the minority in thinking that Lindquist still has some game in him.
As mentioned before, the slightest improvement can be a 2-3 game difference. If Browning is worth those victories, it's better for the program to win 7-8 and go to a shit bowl and continue recruiting than go 4-5 and have serious doubts about the direction under Pete.
Whomever gives us the best chance to win should play. Why is this so difficult?
If Browning plays in 2015, he will be worlds better as a true soph in 2016 than he will as a rs-frosh. And he will be better in 2017, and 2018.
No one has ever said "That guy would be a better player if only he had spent last year on the bench in stead of seeing the field."
If Lindquist gives us the best chance to win, he should play.
Riddle me this, shit-for-brains: how good was Saint Marques in 2001?
I'll take this a little further. Cody Pickett stepped in and was one of Washington's most prolific passers in 2001. It's about recruiting great players and having them be ready. People forget the Tui got hurt in the Rose Bowl and it was Pickett who stepped in and helped keep that game in hand. You're either good or you're not.
If Browning is the best guy, he needs to play. And Pete needs to recruit somebody who will be ready to take over in 2019 that's not named Browning regardless. I think Browning is the guy, but i'm in the minority in thinking that Lindquist still has some game in him.
As mentioned before, the slightest improvement can be a 2-3 game difference. If Browning is worth those victories, it's better for the program to win 7-8 and go to a shit bowl and continue recruiting than go 4-5 and have serious doubts about the direction under Pete.
Whomever gives us the best chance to win should play. Why is this so difficult?
If Browning plays in 2015, he will be worlds better as a true soph in 2016 than he will as a rs-frosh. And he will be better in 2017, and 2018.
No one has ever said "That guy would be a better player if only he had spent last year on the bench in stead of seeing the field."
If Lindquist gives us the best chance to win, he should play.
Riddle me this, shit-for-brains: how good was Saint Marques in 2001?
I'll take this a little further. Cody Pickett stepped in and was one of Washington's most prolific passers in 2001. It's about recruiting great players and having them be ready. People forget the Tui got hurt in the Rose Bowl and it was Pickett who stepped in and helped keep that game in hand. You're either good or you're not.
If Browning is the best guy, he needs to play. And Pete needs to recruit somebody who will be ready to take over in 2019 that's not named Browning regardless. I think Browning is the guy, but i'm in the minority in thinking that Lindquist still has some game in him.
As mentioned before, the slightest improvement can be a 2-3 game difference. If Browning is worth those victories, it's better for the program to win 7-8 and go to a shit bowl and continue recruiting than go 4-5 and have serious doubts about the direction under Pete.
2-2 for a whopping 11 yards, but still
IIRC both throws came on the game sealing TD drive. He could have gone 0-2 for 0 yards and a punt and who knows, maybe we have nothing to talk about since 92.
The point is he was ready to play. Last time we've had two NFL QBs on the roster at the same time.
Whomever gives us the best chance to win should play. Why is this so difficult?
If Browning plays in 2015, he will be worlds better as a true soph in 2016 than he will as a rs-frosh. And he will be better in 2017, and 2018.
No one has ever said "That guy would be a better player if only he had spent last year on the bench in stead of seeing the field."
If Lindquist gives us the best chance to win, he should play.
Riddle me this, shit-for-brains: how good was Saint Marques in 2001?
I'll take this a little further. Cody Pickett stepped in and was one of Washington's most prolific passers in 2001. It's about recruiting great players and having them be ready. People forget the Tui got hurt in the Rose Bowl and it was Pickett who stepped in and helped keep that game in hand. You're either good or you're not.
If Browning is the best guy, he needs to play. And Pete needs to recruit somebody who will be ready to take over in 2019 that's not named Browning regardless. I think Browning is the guy, but i'm in the minority in thinking that Lindquist still has some game in him.
As mentioned before, the slightest improvement can be a 2-3 game difference. If Browning is worth those victories, it's better for the program to win 7-8 and go to a shit bowl and continue recruiting than go 4-5 and have serious doubts about the direction under Pete.
2-2 for a whopping 11 yards, but still
IIRC both throws came on the game sealing TD drive. He could have gone 0-2 for 0 yards and a punt and who knows, maybe we have nothing to talk about since 92.
The point is he was ready to play. Last time we've had two NFL QBs on the roster at the same time.
Why do you hate Picket and Stanback or Stanback and Jake. Before I get corrected, Stanback did play (at least practice) at QB for the Patriots.
Whomever gives us the best chance to win should play. Why is this so difficult?
If Browning plays in 2015, he will be worlds better as a true soph in 2016 than he will as a rs-frosh. And he will be better in 2017, and 2018.
No one has ever said "That guy would be a better player if only he had spent last year on the bench in stead of seeing the field."
If Lindquist gives us the best chance to win, he should play.
Riddle me this, shit-for-brains: how good was Saint Marques in 2001?
I'll take this a little further. Cody Pickett stepped in and was one of Washington's most prolific passers in 2001. It's about recruiting great players and having them be ready. People forget the Tui got hurt in the Rose Bowl and it was Pickett who stepped in and helped keep that game in hand. You're either good or you're not.
If Browning is the best guy, he needs to play. And Pete needs to recruit somebody who will be ready to take over in 2019 that's not named Browning regardless. I think Browning is the guy, but i'm in the minority in thinking that Lindquist still has some game in him.
As mentioned before, the slightest improvement can be a 2-3 game difference. If Browning is worth those victories, it's better for the program to win 7-8 and go to a shit bowl and continue recruiting than go 4-5 and have serious doubts about the direction under Pete.
2-2 for a whopping 11 yards, but still
IIRC both throws came on the game sealing TD drive. He could have gone 0-2 for 0 yards and a punt and who knows, maybe we have nothing to talk about since 92.
The point is he was ready to play. Last time we've had two NFL QBs on the roster at the same time.
Came in last minute of the 3rd quarter and QB'd 3 plays for net 9 yards (first play being a near fumble on hand off exchange) and Tui came back first play in the 4th and handed off for a 4th down conversion.
Disagree. Tui won a Rose Bowl and popped off in 2000. But if Shane Fortney would have stayed, Tui would have redshirted and been great in 2001!!1 It's stupid Jerry. Tui played because he had to, just like Browning might have to. They aren't the same scenario because the '97 team had Rose Bowl expectations, but it was a case of the best QB stepping in and playing when needed.
Marques got *much* better every year he was on campus. People forget that, although he created a lot of (justified) excitement in '97, he wasn't actually very effective and didn't really win games. That came later.
Had Marques redshirted, then been coming off a Rose Bowl MVP performance as a junior, he would have entered his senior year as a leading Heisman candidate. We can debate how good that '01 team could have been with Marques at the helm, but nobody can debate that both Marques and the Huskies would have been much better with him at QB in '01 than he and they were in '97. That's the valid comparison.
I'll take this a little further. Cody Pickett stepped in and was one of Washington's most prolific passers in 2001. It's about recruiting great players and having them be ready. People forget the Tui got hurt in the Rose Bowl and it was Pickett who stepped in and helped keep that game in hand. You're either good or you're not.
I freely concede Pickett was really good in 2001. (In retrospect, it was his best year by far.) But he wasn't as good as Marques would have been. UW with Marques doesn't lose at Corvallis in '01. And they sure as fuck don't lose that Holiday Bowl. Even the Miami game probably would have been a somewhat dignified (albeit losing) effort.
Comments
If Browning plays in 2015, he will be worlds better as a true soph in 2016 than he will as a rs-frosh. And he will be better in 2017, and 2018.
No one has ever said "That guy would be a better player if only he had spent last year on the bench in stead of seeing the field."
If Lindquist gives us the best chance to win, he should play.
They would not be.
I can sort of agree that Browning is likely to be (slightly) better in 2016 if he plays in 2015, but he's likely to be much much better in 2019 than in 2015.
True freshmen are allowed to participate in the strength and conditioning program, and learn to read defenses too. Really, they are.
You seem to be debating rs frosh vs true frosh. I am talking about true soph vs rs frosh. There will be nothing "(slightly)" better about Browning true soph vs Browning rs frosh; the difference will be significant. As the saying goes, Nothing prepares you for the NFL, like the NFL.
Irregardless, it will all be a mute point if Browning is not the qb who gives us the best chance to win this year.
Unrelated side note, Tui should have started in '98 too, but UW was somewhat understandably loyal to Brock.
If Browning is the best guy, he needs to play. And Pete needs to recruit somebody who will be ready to take over in 2019 that's not named Browning regardless. I think Browning is the guy, but i'm in the minority in thinking that Lindquist still has some game in him.
As mentioned before, the slightest improvement can be a 2-3 game difference. If Browning is worth those victories, it's better for the program to win 7-8 and go to a shit bowl and continue recruiting than go 4-5 and have serious doubts about the direction under Pete.
The point is he was ready to play. Last time we've had two NFL QBs on the roster at the same time.
Went on to score that possession.
You're not wrong, but you're not right
Had Marques redshirted, then been coming off a Rose Bowl MVP performance as a junior, he would have entered his senior year as a leading Heisman candidate. We can debate how good that '01 team could have been with Marques at the helm, but nobody can debate that both Marques and the Huskies would have been much better with him at QB in '01 than he and they were in '97. That's the valid comparison. I freely concede Pickett was really good in 2001. (In retrospect, it was his best year by far.) But he wasn't as good as Marques would have been. UW with Marques doesn't lose at Corvallis in '01. And they sure as fuck don't lose that Holiday Bowl. Even the Miami game probably would have been a somewhat dignified (albeit losing) effort.