Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Petersen Pissed Away the Utah Game, but he won't Admit it
Comments
-
I'm not the one crying on and on either. You sound confused. The numbers are fudged though. Of that there is no question.KnocksvilleE said:
I'm not the one crying on and on about supposedly "fudged" numbers to ignoring the obvious point that the offense is younger than the defense.RaceBannon said:
You know it doesn't really seem like its my panties that are in a wad here. You sound upsetKnocksvilleE said:
Would it unwad your panties if I said 2 Freshmen starters and another that plays more than the "starter"? Hell even if we ignored the fact that Gaskin has more than 2.7x the number of rushes as Washington, say we have 2 true freshmen starting, those the QB (who plays nearly every offensive down) and the LT. Calling that 19% of the offense, which you could do if they were a WR and TE who rotate every other play, is misleading at best, bafflingly stupid at worst.RaceBannon said:
I dismiss your fudging of the numbers because you fudged the numbersKnocksvilleE said:
But I pointed out why I didn't. You just keep dismissing my responses for idiotic reasons.RaceBannon said:
I pointed out quite clearly where you fudged your numbers. You just referenced it again.KnocksvilleE said:
So what numbers did I fudge? As I said, Gaskin has been the starter every game since Oregon, except for the Utah game (though he ran during the first drive and more than Washington anyway). And he has far more carries than Washington anyway.RaceBannon said:
OkKnocksvilleE said:
Keep telling yourself that.RaceBannon said:
But I'm still right and you still fudged the numbers to make a bad pointKnocksvilleE said:
Before Washington's first fumble, Gaskin ran 5 times to Washington's 3, 6 to 4 before Washington's second fumble. So tell me again what it means that Washington was the starter? And Gaskin has been the starter for every game since Oregon (until Utah).RaceBannon said:
Had he started 3 freshman the idiot he did start wouldn't have fumbled twice and gave up a TD which kind of makes your point even more lame if that is even possibleKnocksvilleE said:
Nah you didn't stutter. You are just being stupid. What does it mean to be a starter if you play less than a backup?RaceBannon said:
No its 2 because it isn't trivial its a fact. So 19% of the offense is true freshmen compared to 0%. That's a little not a lot like I said.KnocksvilleE said:
3 True Freshmen (including the QB) to Zero. That is a lot.RaceBannon said:
He didn't start the freshman RB. That's not a hell of a lot, its a littleKnocksvilleE said:
Nope:doogsinparadise said:
Funny how the defense has young starters and key subs, yet aren't out there fucking the dog.PurpleJ said:
Race. We have a GREAT defense and the offense is only struggling because they are YOUNG. You are the worst type of Huskie fan.RaceBannon said:We want a need a great coach. Period end of fucking story. Not interested in seeing if Petersen can improve to mediocre.
Defensive starters: 4 SRs, 2 JRs, 5 SOs, 0 FR
Offensive starters: 3 SRs, 1 JR, 4 SOs, 3 FR (including QB, RB, and LT)
Offense is a hell of a lot younger than Defense
Gaskin was the starter for the last few games before the Utah game and he is probably going to be for the AZ State game as well. And the True Freshman RB is getting a hell of a lot more carries than the Jr this season. So saying he wasn't the starter for the Utah game is trivial.
Did I stutter?
thanks for dropping by now LEAVE
At all -
Then you are clearly deluded. But why am I not surprised you are still crying about the numbers?RaceBannon said:
I'm not the one crying on and on either. You sound confused. The numbers are fudged though. Of that there is no question.KnocksvilleE said:
I'm not the one crying on and on about supposedly "fudged" numbers to ignoring the obvious point that the offense is younger than the defense.RaceBannon said:
You know it doesn't really seem like its my panties that are in a wad here. You sound upsetKnocksvilleE said:
Would it unwad your panties if I said 2 Freshmen starters and another that plays more than the "starter"? Hell even if we ignored the fact that Gaskin has more than 2.7x the number of rushes as Washington, say we have 2 true freshmen starting, those the QB (who plays nearly every offensive down) and the LT. Calling that 19% of the offense, which you could do if they were a WR and TE who rotate every other play, is misleading at best, bafflingly stupid at worst.RaceBannon said:
I dismiss your fudging of the numbers because you fudged the numbersKnocksvilleE said:
But I pointed out why I didn't. You just keep dismissing my responses for idiotic reasons.RaceBannon said:
I pointed out quite clearly where you fudged your numbers. You just referenced it again.KnocksvilleE said:
So what numbers did I fudge? As I said, Gaskin has been the starter every game since Oregon, except for the Utah game (though he ran during the first drive and more than Washington anyway). And he has far more carries than Washington anyway.RaceBannon said:
OkKnocksvilleE said:
Keep telling yourself that.RaceBannon said:
But I'm still right and you still fudged the numbers to make a bad pointKnocksvilleE said:
Before Washington's first fumble, Gaskin ran 5 times to Washington's 3, 6 to 4 before Washington's second fumble. So tell me again what it means that Washington was the starter? And Gaskin has been the starter for every game since Oregon (until Utah).RaceBannon said:
Had he started 3 freshman the idiot he did start wouldn't have fumbled twice and gave up a TD which kind of makes your point even more lame if that is even possibleKnocksvilleE said:
Nah you didn't stutter. You are just being stupid. What does it mean to be a starter if you play less than a backup?RaceBannon said:
No its 2 because it isn't trivial its a fact. So 19% of the offense is true freshmen compared to 0%. That's a little not a lot like I said.KnocksvilleE said:
3 True Freshmen (including the QB) to Zero. That is a lot.RaceBannon said:
He didn't start the freshman RB. That's not a hell of a lot, its a littleKnocksvilleE said:
Nope:doogsinparadise said:
Funny how the defense has young starters and key subs, yet aren't out there fucking the dog.PurpleJ said:
Race. We have a GREAT defense and the offense is only struggling because they are YOUNG. You are the worst type of Huskie fan.RaceBannon said:We want a need a great coach. Period end of fucking story. Not interested in seeing if Petersen can improve to mediocre.
Defensive starters: 4 SRs, 2 JRs, 5 SOs, 0 FR
Offensive starters: 3 SRs, 1 JR, 4 SOs, 3 FR (including QB, RB, and LT)
Offense is a hell of a lot younger than Defense
Gaskin was the starter for the last few games before the Utah game and he is probably going to be for the AZ State game as well. And the True Freshman RB is getting a hell of a lot more carries than the Jr this season. So saying he wasn't the starter for the Utah game is trivial.
Did I stutter?
thanks for dropping by now LEAVE
At all -
You edited, THAT?KnocksvilleE said:
Then you are clearly deluded. But why am I not surprised you are still crying about the numbers?RaceBannon said:
I'm not the one crying on and on either. You sound confused. The numbers are fudged though. Of that there is no question.KnocksvilleE said:
I'm not the one crying on and on about supposedly "fudged" numbers to ignoring the obvious point that the offense is younger than the defense.RaceBannon said:
You know it doesn't really seem like its my panties that are in a wad here. You sound upsetKnocksvilleE said:
Would it unwad your panties if I said 2 Freshmen starters and another that plays more than the "starter"? Hell even if we ignored the fact that Gaskin has more than 2.7x the number of rushes as Washington, say we have 2 true freshmen starting, those the QB (who plays nearly every offensive down) and the LT. Calling that 19% of the offense, which you could do if they were a WR and TE who rotate every other play, is misleading at best, bafflingly stupid at worst.RaceBannon said:
I dismiss your fudging of the numbers because you fudged the numbersKnocksvilleE said:
But I pointed out why I didn't. You just keep dismissing my responses for idiotic reasons.RaceBannon said:
I pointed out quite clearly where you fudged your numbers. You just referenced it again.KnocksvilleE said:
So what numbers did I fudge? As I said, Gaskin has been the starter every game since Oregon, except for the Utah game (though he ran during the first drive and more than Washington anyway). And he has far more carries than Washington anyway.RaceBannon said:
OkKnocksvilleE said:
Keep telling yourself that.RaceBannon said:
But I'm still right and you still fudged the numbers to make a bad pointKnocksvilleE said:
Before Washington's first fumble, Gaskin ran 5 times to Washington's 3, 6 to 4 before Washington's second fumble. So tell me again what it means that Washington was the starter? And Gaskin has been the starter for every game since Oregon (until Utah).RaceBannon said:
Had he started 3 freshman the idiot he did start wouldn't have fumbled twice and gave up a TD which kind of makes your point even more lame if that is even possibleKnocksvilleE said:
Nah you didn't stutter. You are just being stupid. What does it mean to be a starter if you play less than a backup?RaceBannon said:
No its 2 because it isn't trivial its a fact. So 19% of the offense is true freshmen compared to 0%. That's a little not a lot like I said.KnocksvilleE said:
3 True Freshmen (including the QB) to Zero. That is a lot.RaceBannon said:
He didn't start the freshman RB. That's not a hell of a lot, its a littleKnocksvilleE said:
Nope:doogsinparadise said:
Funny how the defense has young starters and key subs, yet aren't out there fucking the dog.PurpleJ said:
Race. We have a GREAT defense and the offense is only struggling because they are YOUNG. You are the worst type of Huskie fan.RaceBannon said:We want a need a great coach. Period end of fucking story. Not interested in seeing if Petersen can improve to mediocre.
Defensive starters: 4 SRs, 2 JRs, 5 SOs, 0 FR
Offensive starters: 3 SRs, 1 JR, 4 SOs, 3 FR (including QB, RB, and LT)
Offense is a hell of a lot younger than Defense
Gaskin was the starter for the last few games before the Utah game and he is probably going to be for the AZ State game as well. And the True Freshman RB is getting a hell of a lot more carries than the Jr this season. So saying he wasn't the starter for the Utah game is trivial.
Did I stutter?
thanks for dropping by now LEAVE
At all -
I am politely answering your posts. Not crying. You need to know the differenceKnocksvilleE said:
Then you are clearly deluded. But why am I not surprised you are still crying about the numbers?RaceBannon said:
I'm not the one crying on and on either. You sound confused. The numbers are fudged though. Of that there is no question.KnocksvilleE said:
I'm not the one crying on and on about supposedly "fudged" numbers to ignoring the obvious point that the offense is younger than the defense.RaceBannon said:
You know it doesn't really seem like its my panties that are in a wad here. You sound upsetKnocksvilleE said:
Would it unwad your panties if I said 2 Freshmen starters and another that plays more than the "starter"? Hell even if we ignored the fact that Gaskin has more than 2.7x the number of rushes as Washington, say we have 2 true freshmen starting, those the QB (who plays nearly every offensive down) and the LT. Calling that 19% of the offense, which you could do if they were a WR and TE who rotate every other play, is misleading at best, bafflingly stupid at worst.RaceBannon said:
I dismiss your fudging of the numbers because you fudged the numbersKnocksvilleE said:
But I pointed out why I didn't. You just keep dismissing my responses for idiotic reasons.RaceBannon said:
I pointed out quite clearly where you fudged your numbers. You just referenced it again.KnocksvilleE said:
So what numbers did I fudge? As I said, Gaskin has been the starter every game since Oregon, except for the Utah game (though he ran during the first drive and more than Washington anyway). And he has far more carries than Washington anyway.RaceBannon said:
OkKnocksvilleE said:
Keep telling yourself that.RaceBannon said:
But I'm still right and you still fudged the numbers to make a bad pointKnocksvilleE said:
Before Washington's first fumble, Gaskin ran 5 times to Washington's 3, 6 to 4 before Washington's second fumble. So tell me again what it means that Washington was the starter? And Gaskin has been the starter for every game since Oregon (until Utah).RaceBannon said:
Had he started 3 freshman the idiot he did start wouldn't have fumbled twice and gave up a TD which kind of makes your point even more lame if that is even possibleKnocksvilleE said:
Nah you didn't stutter. You are just being stupid. What does it mean to be a starter if you play less than a backup?RaceBannon said:
No its 2 because it isn't trivial its a fact. So 19% of the offense is true freshmen compared to 0%. That's a little not a lot like I said.KnocksvilleE said:
3 True Freshmen (including the QB) to Zero. That is a lot.RaceBannon said:
He didn't start the freshman RB. That's not a hell of a lot, its a littleKnocksvilleE said:
Nope:doogsinparadise said:
Funny how the defense has young starters and key subs, yet aren't out there fucking the dog.PurpleJ said:
Race. We have a GREAT defense and the offense is only struggling because they are YOUNG. You are the worst type of Huskie fan.RaceBannon said:We want a need a great coach. Period end of fucking story. Not interested in seeing if Petersen can improve to mediocre.
Defensive starters: 4 SRs, 2 JRs, 5 SOs, 0 FR
Offensive starters: 3 SRs, 1 JR, 4 SOs, 3 FR (including QB, RB, and LT)
Offense is a hell of a lot younger than Defense
Gaskin was the starter for the last few games before the Utah game and he is probably going to be for the AZ State game as well. And the True Freshman RB is getting a hell of a lot more carries than the Jr this season. So saying he wasn't the starter for the Utah game is trivial.
Did I stutter?
thanks for dropping by now LEAVE
At all -
Hell ignoring the extreme youth of the offense by pointing to defensive youth just minimizes what an amazing job Kwiatkowski did. Unless you are Alabama and recruit 75% blue chippers, you shouldn't improve on defense after losing 4 top-44 NFL draft picks and pretty much every starter on the front 7. This defense had every right to be mediocre given what they lost. Same with the offense given that they had to replace almost the entire OLine and QB.
-
By polite, you mean ignoring pretty much every point I made to bitch about what you incorrectly think (and have not justified) to be "fudged" numbers?RaceBannon said:
I am politely answering your posts. Not crying. You need to know the differenceKnocksvilleE said:
Then you are clearly deluded. But why am I not surprised you are still crying about the numbers?RaceBannon said:
I'm not the one crying on and on either. You sound confused. The numbers are fudged though. Of that there is no question.KnocksvilleE said:
I'm not the one crying on and on about supposedly "fudged" numbers to ignoring the obvious point that the offense is younger than the defense.RaceBannon said:
You know it doesn't really seem like its my panties that are in a wad here. You sound upsetKnocksvilleE said:
Would it unwad your panties if I said 2 Freshmen starters and another that plays more than the "starter"? Hell even if we ignored the fact that Gaskin has more than 2.7x the number of rushes as Washington, say we have 2 true freshmen starting, those the QB (who plays nearly every offensive down) and the LT. Calling that 19% of the offense, which you could do if they were a WR and TE who rotate every other play, is misleading at best, bafflingly stupid at worst.RaceBannon said:
I dismiss your fudging of the numbers because you fudged the numbersKnocksvilleE said:
But I pointed out why I didn't. You just keep dismissing my responses for idiotic reasons.RaceBannon said:
I pointed out quite clearly where you fudged your numbers. You just referenced it again.KnocksvilleE said:
So what numbers did I fudge? As I said, Gaskin has been the starter every game since Oregon, except for the Utah game (though he ran during the first drive and more than Washington anyway). And he has far more carries than Washington anyway.RaceBannon said:
OkKnocksvilleE said:
Keep telling yourself that.RaceBannon said:
But I'm still right and you still fudged the numbers to make a bad pointKnocksvilleE said:
Before Washington's first fumble, Gaskin ran 5 times to Washington's 3, 6 to 4 before Washington's second fumble. So tell me again what it means that Washington was the starter? And Gaskin has been the starter for every game since Oregon (until Utah).RaceBannon said:
Had he started 3 freshman the idiot he did start wouldn't have fumbled twice and gave up a TD which kind of makes your point even more lame if that is even possibleKnocksvilleE said:
Nah you didn't stutter. You are just being stupid. What does it mean to be a starter if you play less than a backup?RaceBannon said:
No its 2 because it isn't trivial its a fact. So 19% of the offense is true freshmen compared to 0%. That's a little not a lot like I said.KnocksvilleE said:
3 True Freshmen (including the QB) to Zero. That is a lot.RaceBannon said:
He didn't start the freshman RB. That's not a hell of a lot, its a littleKnocksvilleE said:
Nope:doogsinparadise said:
Funny how the defense has young starters and key subs, yet aren't out there fucking the dog.PurpleJ said:
Race. We have a GREAT defense and the offense is only struggling because they are YOUNG. You are the worst type of Huskie fan.RaceBannon said:We want a need a great coach. Period end of fucking story. Not interested in seeing if Petersen can improve to mediocre.
Defensive starters: 4 SRs, 2 JRs, 5 SOs, 0 FR
Offensive starters: 3 SRs, 1 JR, 4 SOs, 3 FR (including QB, RB, and LT)
Offense is a hell of a lot younger than Defense
Gaskin was the starter for the last few games before the Utah game and he is probably going to be for the AZ State game as well. And the True Freshman RB is getting a hell of a lot more carries than the Jr this season. So saying he wasn't the starter for the Utah game is trivial.
Did I stutter?
thanks for dropping by now LEAVE
At all -
Derp what?MisterEm said:
You edited, THAT?KnocksvilleE said:
Then you are clearly deluded. But why am I not surprised you are still crying about the numbers?RaceBannon said:
I'm not the one crying on and on either. You sound confused. The numbers are fudged though. Of that there is no question.KnocksvilleE said:
I'm not the one crying on and on about supposedly "fudged" numbers to ignoring the obvious point that the offense is younger than the defense.RaceBannon said:
You know it doesn't really seem like its my panties that are in a wad here. You sound upsetKnocksvilleE said:
Would it unwad your panties if I said 2 Freshmen starters and another that plays more than the "starter"? Hell even if we ignored the fact that Gaskin has more than 2.7x the number of rushes as Washington, say we have 2 true freshmen starting, those the QB (who plays nearly every offensive down) and the LT. Calling that 19% of the offense, which you could do if they were a WR and TE who rotate every other play, is misleading at best, bafflingly stupid at worst.RaceBannon said:
I dismiss your fudging of the numbers because you fudged the numbersKnocksvilleE said:
But I pointed out why I didn't. You just keep dismissing my responses for idiotic reasons.RaceBannon said:
I pointed out quite clearly where you fudged your numbers. You just referenced it again.KnocksvilleE said:
So what numbers did I fudge? As I said, Gaskin has been the starter every game since Oregon, except for the Utah game (though he ran during the first drive and more than Washington anyway). And he has far more carries than Washington anyway.RaceBannon said:
OkKnocksvilleE said:
Keep telling yourself that.RaceBannon said:
But I'm still right and you still fudged the numbers to make a bad pointKnocksvilleE said:
Before Washington's first fumble, Gaskin ran 5 times to Washington's 3, 6 to 4 before Washington's second fumble. So tell me again what it means that Washington was the starter? And Gaskin has been the starter for every game since Oregon (until Utah).RaceBannon said:
Had he started 3 freshman the idiot he did start wouldn't have fumbled twice and gave up a TD which kind of makes your point even more lame if that is even possibleKnocksvilleE said:
Nah you didn't stutter. You are just being stupid. What does it mean to be a starter if you play less than a backup?RaceBannon said:
No its 2 because it isn't trivial its a fact. So 19% of the offense is true freshmen compared to 0%. That's a little not a lot like I said.KnocksvilleE said:
3 True Freshmen (including the QB) to Zero. That is a lot.RaceBannon said:
He didn't start the freshman RB. That's not a hell of a lot, its a littleKnocksvilleE said:
Nope:doogsinparadise said:
Funny how the defense has young starters and key subs, yet aren't out there fucking the dog.PurpleJ said:
Race. We have a GREAT defense and the offense is only struggling because they are YOUNG. You are the worst type of Huskie fan.RaceBannon said:We want a need a great coach. Period end of fucking story. Not interested in seeing if Petersen can improve to mediocre.
Defensive starters: 4 SRs, 2 JRs, 5 SOs, 0 FR
Offensive starters: 3 SRs, 1 JR, 4 SOs, 3 FR (including QB, RB, and LT)
Offense is a hell of a lot younger than Defense
Gaskin was the starter for the last few games before the Utah game and he is probably going to be for the AZ State game as well. And the True Freshman RB is getting a hell of a lot more carries than the Jr this season. So saying he wasn't the starter for the Utah game is trivial.
Did I stutter?
thanks for dropping by now LEAVE
At all -
Oh no. The numbers were fudged. I showed that quite clearly already. You even agreed. Everyone agrees. Ask around, the numbers were fudged.KnocksvilleE said:
By polite, you mean ignoring pretty much every point I made to bitch about what you incorrectly think (and have not justified) to be "fudged" numbers?RaceBannon said:
I am politely answering your posts. Not crying. You need to know the differenceKnocksvilleE said:
Then you are clearly deluded. But why am I not surprised you are still crying about the numbers?RaceBannon said:
I'm not the one crying on and on either. You sound confused. The numbers are fudged though. Of that there is no question.KnocksvilleE said:
I'm not the one crying on and on about supposedly "fudged" numbers to ignoring the obvious point that the offense is younger than the defense.RaceBannon said:
You know it doesn't really seem like its my panties that are in a wad here. You sound upsetKnocksvilleE said:
Would it unwad your panties if I said 2 Freshmen starters and another that plays more than the "starter"? Hell even if we ignored the fact that Gaskin has more than 2.7x the number of rushes as Washington, say we have 2 true freshmen starting, those the QB (who plays nearly every offensive down) and the LT. Calling that 19% of the offense, which you could do if they were a WR and TE who rotate every other play, is misleading at best, bafflingly stupid at worst.RaceBannon said:
I dismiss your fudging of the numbers because you fudged the numbersKnocksvilleE said:
But I pointed out why I didn't. You just keep dismissing my responses for idiotic reasons.RaceBannon said:
I pointed out quite clearly where you fudged your numbers. You just referenced it again.KnocksvilleE said:
So what numbers did I fudge? As I said, Gaskin has been the starter every game since Oregon, except for the Utah game (though he ran during the first drive and more than Washington anyway). And he has far more carries than Washington anyway.RaceBannon said:
OkKnocksvilleE said:
Keep telling yourself that.RaceBannon said:
But I'm still right and you still fudged the numbers to make a bad pointKnocksvilleE said:
Before Washington's first fumble, Gaskin ran 5 times to Washington's 3, 6 to 4 before Washington's second fumble. So tell me again what it means that Washington was the starter? And Gaskin has been the starter for every game since Oregon (until Utah).RaceBannon said:
Had he started 3 freshman the idiot he did start wouldn't have fumbled twice and gave up a TD which kind of makes your point even more lame if that is even possibleKnocksvilleE said:
Nah you didn't stutter. You are just being stupid. What does it mean to be a starter if you play less than a backup?RaceBannon said:
No its 2 because it isn't trivial its a fact. So 19% of the offense is true freshmen compared to 0%. That's a little not a lot like I said.KnocksvilleE said:
3 True Freshmen (including the QB) to Zero. That is a lot.RaceBannon said:
He didn't start the freshman RB. That's not a hell of a lot, its a littleKnocksvilleE said:
Nope:doogsinparadise said:
Funny how the defense has young starters and key subs, yet aren't out there fucking the dog.PurpleJ said:
Race. We have a GREAT defense and the offense is only struggling because they are YOUNG. You are the worst type of Huskie fan.RaceBannon said:We want a need a great coach. Period end of fucking story. Not interested in seeing if Petersen can improve to mediocre.
Defensive starters: 4 SRs, 2 JRs, 5 SOs, 0 FR
Offensive starters: 3 SRs, 1 JR, 4 SOs, 3 FR (including QB, RB, and LT)
Offense is a hell of a lot younger than Defense
Gaskin was the starter for the last few games before the Utah game and he is probably going to be for the AZ State game as well. And the True Freshman RB is getting a hell of a lot more carries than the Jr this season. So saying he wasn't the starter for the Utah game is trivial.
Did I stutter?
thanks for dropping by now LEAVE
At all -
Shit post. Just curious, what is your handle on dawgman? Purpledawgfan? Nobody thinks we shouldn't pass at all. We just think we should be more of a run based team. We aren't. We aren't running the air raid, but this is a pass first team which is odd considering the production the RB's are giving us and the fact that the QB is a true freshman.KnocksvilleE said:
Looking at the team's stats, plays like that account for about 68 yards... If you only count players with positive yards, the total goes to 1249 from 1181, bringing the run game to an impressive 107th in the nation! No doubt the run game is better than the numbers suggest since it has improved over the season, but it isn't clear it is good enough to take on the #17 run defense in the nation while the #92 pass defense is left unchecked.RoadDawg55 said:
Sacks and plays like Durkee dropping a punt for -27 yards greatly contribute to the low ranking. Gaskin and D-Wash are averaging over 5.8 ypc. That is good. This is the first UW OL I have seen in years that actually moves the DL off the line. We finally have some maulers and not the pussies that made up the Cascade Front. This young OL is far better at run blocking than pass blocking.KnocksvilleE said:
Stanford's Rushing Defense is ranked #15 in total yards and #24 in YPC while Washington's is 113 in total yards and 84th in YPC. Stanford can run on whoever they want. Washinton, not so much. Hell, Washington ranks better in passing than running at 71 in total yards and 54 in YPA (Washington state has a lower YPA!).RoadDawg55 said:KnocksvilleE said:
Are you comparing the Husky's run game to Stanford's?RoadDawg55 said:
Answer the fucking question. When Stanford plays Oregon and Utah, do you think they will air it out?KnocksvilleE said:
92 vs 17 is a mssive difference. What the fuck are you seeing that makes you ignore such a massive disparity?Tequilla said:
I don't need to use my eyes to look at numbers when I've watched enough of Utah to understand what they are and aren't good at.KnocksvilleE said:
Everyone on this board didn't check out Utah's defensive stats apparentlyDennis_DeYoung said:Nail on the head. Great poonts.
If you coach at Washington, you need to be run first.
I want to puke when he talks about Dawg weather. He is a fucking pass happy faggot who practices indoors when it rains.
It's fucking startling incompetence. I hate offense first/pass first fag coaches.
Whittingham outclassed Pete by simply doing the thing that made sense.
Fuck. I hate Pete's fucking bullshit.
Everyone on this bored knew: RUN THE BALL 30 TIMES TO GASKIN AND YOU WIN.
How could Pete not know that? It's not that he doesn't know it, it's just that he feels no pressure to win, doesn't give a fuck about stealing money from our fans and wants to prove he's right more than he wants to prove he knows how to win.
It's a fucking joke. FMFYFE.
Nice yeah, but still. I would have never predicted you would have this dumbass response.KnocksvilleE said:
Are you comparing the Husky's run game to Stanford's?RoadDawg55 said:
Answer the fucking question. When Stanford plays Oregon and Utah, do you think they will air it out?KnocksvilleE said:
92 vs 17 is a mssive difference. What the fuck are you seeing that makes you ignore such a massive disparity?Tequilla said:
I don't need to use my eyes to look at numbers when I've watched enough of Utah to understand what they are and aren't good at.KnocksvilleE said:
Everyone on this board didn't check out Utah's defensive stats apparentlyDennis_DeYoung said:Nail on the head. Great poonts.
If you coach at Washington, you need to be run first.
I want to puke when he talks about Dawg weather. He is a fucking pass happy faggot who practices indoors when it rains.
It's fucking startling incompetence. I hate offense first/pass first fag coaches.
Whittingham outclassed Pete by simply doing the thing that made sense.
Fuck. I hate Pete's fucking bullshit.
Everyone on this bored knew: RUN THE BALL 30 TIMES TO GASKIN AND YOU WIN.
How could Pete not know that? It's not that he doesn't know it, it's just that he feels no pressure to win, doesn't give a fuck about stealing money from our fans and wants to prove he's right more than he wants to prove he knows how to win.
It's a fucking joke. FMFYFE.
If Washington ran the ball against Utah, it would have been weakness on Utah's best strength. Instead it is Washington's kinda weakness on Utah's blaring weakness.
If you honestly believe UW is better at throwing the ball, kill yourself.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/stats/_/id/264
http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/team/_/stat/rushing/sort/rushingYards
Even then, running more wouldn't guarantee them 5.8 YPC since other fatigue and stacked boxes would hurt their numbers.
Gaskin and D Wash combined for 26 carries and 148 yards against Utah. There are plenty of facts to prove this team can run the football, but keep informing it and defending the FS coaching that repeatedly does the same thing and fails most of the time.
Against Utah, Peterman called for around 48 passes (39 attempts, 9 Browning runs) and 28 runs (2 were reverses).
Against Oregon, around 40 passes (32 attempts, 8 QB runs/sacks) and 21 RB carries.
Against Cal, 37 passes (28 attempts, 9 QB runs/sacks) and 15 RB carries.
It's ridiculous, it's stupid and the only real argument anyone that tries to argue against this is that Petersen knows more about football than we do. Well no shit, but he's also been trotting out shitty offenses for 4 straight years.
It has very little to nothing to do with Utah's vaunted run D. We aren't balanced. This team is pass heavy every game because that is what Petersen wants to do. It's fucking mind boggling though. We have a very good defense and the RB's, especially Gaskin produce. -
nope. Never agreed.RaceBannon said:
Oh no. The numbers were fudged. I showed that quite clearly already. You even agreed. Everyone agrees. Ask around, the numbers were fudged.KnocksvilleE said:
By polite, you mean ignoring pretty much every point I made to bitch about what you incorrectly think (and have not justified) to be "fudged" numbers?RaceBannon said:
I am politely answering your posts. Not crying. You need to know the differenceKnocksvilleE said:
Then you are clearly deluded. But why am I not surprised you are still crying about the numbers?RaceBannon said:
I'm not the one crying on and on either. You sound confused. The numbers are fudged though. Of that there is no question.KnocksvilleE said:
I'm not the one crying on and on about supposedly "fudged" numbers to ignoring the obvious point that the offense is younger than the defense.RaceBannon said:
You know it doesn't really seem like its my panties that are in a wad here. You sound upsetKnocksvilleE said:
Would it unwad your panties if I said 2 Freshmen starters and another that plays more than the "starter"? Hell even if we ignored the fact that Gaskin has more than 2.7x the number of rushes as Washington, say we have 2 true freshmen starting, those the QB (who plays nearly every offensive down) and the LT. Calling that 19% of the offense, which you could do if they were a WR and TE who rotate every other play, is misleading at best, bafflingly stupid at worst.RaceBannon said:
I dismiss your fudging of the numbers because you fudged the numbersKnocksvilleE said:
But I pointed out why I didn't. You just keep dismissing my responses for idiotic reasons.RaceBannon said:
I pointed out quite clearly where you fudged your numbers. You just referenced it again.KnocksvilleE said:
So what numbers did I fudge? As I said, Gaskin has been the starter every game since Oregon, except for the Utah game (though he ran during the first drive and more than Washington anyway). And he has far more carries than Washington anyway.RaceBannon said:
OkKnocksvilleE said:
Keep telling yourself that.RaceBannon said:
But I'm still right and you still fudged the numbers to make a bad pointKnocksvilleE said:
Before Washington's first fumble, Gaskin ran 5 times to Washington's 3, 6 to 4 before Washington's second fumble. So tell me again what it means that Washington was the starter? And Gaskin has been the starter for every game since Oregon (until Utah).RaceBannon said:
Had he started 3 freshman the idiot he did start wouldn't have fumbled twice and gave up a TD which kind of makes your point even more lame if that is even possibleKnocksvilleE said:
Nah you didn't stutter. You are just being stupid. What does it mean to be a starter if you play less than a backup?RaceBannon said:
No its 2 because it isn't trivial its a fact. So 19% of the offense is true freshmen compared to 0%. That's a little not a lot like I said.KnocksvilleE said:
3 True Freshmen (including the QB) to Zero. That is a lot.RaceBannon said:
He didn't start the freshman RB. That's not a hell of a lot, its a littleKnocksvilleE said:
Nope:doogsinparadise said:
Funny how the defense has young starters and key subs, yet aren't out there fucking the dog.PurpleJ said:
Race. We have a GREAT defense and the offense is only struggling because they are YOUNG. You are the worst type of Huskie fan.RaceBannon said:We want a need a great coach. Period end of fucking story. Not interested in seeing if Petersen can improve to mediocre.
Defensive starters: 4 SRs, 2 JRs, 5 SOs, 0 FR
Offensive starters: 3 SRs, 1 JR, 4 SOs, 3 FR (including QB, RB, and LT)
Offense is a hell of a lot younger than Defense
Gaskin was the starter for the last few games before the Utah game and he is probably going to be for the AZ State game as well. And the True Freshman RB is getting a hell of a lot more carries than the Jr this season. So saying he wasn't the starter for the Utah game is trivial.
Did I stutter?
thanks for dropping by now LEAVE
At all -
You didKnocksvilleE said:
nope. Never agreed.RaceBannon said:
Oh no. The numbers were fudged. I showed that quite clearly already. You even agreed. Everyone agrees. Ask around, the numbers were fudged.KnocksvilleE said:
By polite, you mean ignoring pretty much every point I made to bitch about what you incorrectly think (and have not justified) to be "fudged" numbers?RaceBannon said:
I am politely answering your posts. Not crying. You need to know the differenceKnocksvilleE said:
Then you are clearly deluded. But why am I not surprised you are still crying about the numbers?RaceBannon said:
I'm not the one crying on and on either. You sound confused. The numbers are fudged though. Of that there is no question.KnocksvilleE said:
I'm not the one crying on and on about supposedly "fudged" numbers to ignoring the obvious point that the offense is younger than the defense.RaceBannon said:
You know it doesn't really seem like its my panties that are in a wad here. You sound upsetKnocksvilleE said:
Would it unwad your panties if I said 2 Freshmen starters and another that plays more than the "starter"? Hell even if we ignored the fact that Gaskin has more than 2.7x the number of rushes as Washington, say we have 2 true freshmen starting, those the QB (who plays nearly every offensive down) and the LT. Calling that 19% of the offense, which you could do if they were a WR and TE who rotate every other play, is misleading at best, bafflingly stupid at worst.RaceBannon said:
I dismiss your fudging of the numbers because you fudged the numbersKnocksvilleE said:
But I pointed out why I didn't. You just keep dismissing my responses for idiotic reasons.RaceBannon said:
I pointed out quite clearly where you fudged your numbers. You just referenced it again.KnocksvilleE said:
So what numbers did I fudge? As I said, Gaskin has been the starter every game since Oregon, except for the Utah game (though he ran during the first drive and more than Washington anyway). And he has far more carries than Washington anyway.RaceBannon said:
OkKnocksvilleE said:
Keep telling yourself that.RaceBannon said:
But I'm still right and you still fudged the numbers to make a bad pointKnocksvilleE said:
Before Washington's first fumble, Gaskin ran 5 times to Washington's 3, 6 to 4 before Washington's second fumble. So tell me again what it means that Washington was the starter? And Gaskin has been the starter for every game since Oregon (until Utah).RaceBannon said:
Had he started 3 freshman the idiot he did start wouldn't have fumbled twice and gave up a TD which kind of makes your point even more lame if that is even possibleKnocksvilleE said:
Nah you didn't stutter. You are just being stupid. What does it mean to be a starter if you play less than a backup?RaceBannon said:
No its 2 because it isn't trivial its a fact. So 19% of the offense is true freshmen compared to 0%. That's a little not a lot like I said.KnocksvilleE said:
3 True Freshmen (including the QB) to Zero. That is a lot.RaceBannon said:
He didn't start the freshman RB. That's not a hell of a lot, its a littleKnocksvilleE said:
Nope:doogsinparadise said:
Funny how the defense has young starters and key subs, yet aren't out there fucking the dog.PurpleJ said:
Race. We have a GREAT defense and the offense is only struggling because they are YOUNG. You are the worst type of Huskie fan.RaceBannon said:We want a need a great coach. Period end of fucking story. Not interested in seeing if Petersen can improve to mediocre.
Defensive starters: 4 SRs, 2 JRs, 5 SOs, 0 FR
Offensive starters: 3 SRs, 1 JR, 4 SOs, 3 FR (including QB, RB, and LT)
Offense is a hell of a lot younger than Defense
Gaskin was the starter for the last few games before the Utah game and he is probably going to be for the AZ State game as well. And the True Freshman RB is getting a hell of a lot more carries than the Jr this season. So saying he wasn't the starter for the Utah game is trivial.
Did I stutter?
thanks for dropping by now LEAVE
At all -
Not sure where you got the idea I was rebutting some argument about never passing the ball. I was stating that their are downsides to running the ball more (not always), and that you can't expect your YPC to be as good if you run more often with RB fatigue and opponents loading the box. So we don't know what this team looks like if it runs the ball more. There have been a few really successful drives. But there have been total duds as well. DW has terrible vision and only has a good YPC because he gets the occasional big play (but a run first offense cannot rely on that, unless youwant even more 3rd and longs). Gaskin is more reliable but he is a small true freshmen and may be more prone to fatigue and wear and tear You can mention all the games where they threw it more and lost but we don't know if they would have been any better with a more run heavy offense.RoadDawg55 said:
Shit post. Just curious, what is your handle on dawgman? Purpledawgfan? Nobody thinks we shouldn't pass at all. We just think we should be more of a run based team. We aren't. We aren't running the air raid, but this is a pass first team which is odd considering the production the RB's are giving us and the fact that the QB is a true freshman.KnocksvilleE said:
Looking at the team's stats, plays like that account for about 68 yards... If you only count players with positive yards, the total goes to 1249 from 1181, bringing the run game to an impressive 107th in the nation! No doubt the run game is better than the numbers suggest since it has improved over the season, but it isn't clear it is good enough to take on the #17 run defense in the nation while the #92 pass defense is left unchecked.RoadDawg55 said:
Sacks and plays like Durkee dropping a punt for -27 yards greatly contribute to the low ranking. Gaskin and D-Wash are averaging over 5.8 ypc. That is good. This is the first UW OL I have seen in years that actually moves the DL off the line. We finally have some maulers and not the pussies that made up the Cascade Front. This young OL is far better at run blocking than pass blocking.KnocksvilleE said:
Stanford's Rushing Defense is ranked #15 in total yards and #24 in YPC while Washington's is 113 in total yards and 84th in YPC. Stanford can run on whoever they want. Washinton, not so much. Hell, Washington ranks better in passing than running at 71 in total yards and 54 in YPA (Washington state has a lower YPA!).RoadDawg55 said:KnocksvilleE said:
Are you comparing the Husky's run game to Stanford's?RoadDawg55 said:
Answer the fucking question. When Stanford plays Oregon and Utah, do you think they will air it out?KnocksvilleE said:
92 vs 17 is a mssive difference. What the fuck are you seeing that makes you ignore such a massive disparity?Tequilla said:
I don't need to use my eyes to look at numbers when I've watched enough of Utah to understand what they are and aren't good at.KnocksvilleE said:
Everyone on this board didn't check out Utah's defensive stats apparentlyDennis_DeYoung said:Nail on the head. Great poonts.
If you coach at Washington, you need to be run first.
I want to puke when he talks about Dawg weather. He is a fucking pass happy faggot who practices indoors when it rains.
It's fucking startling incompetence. I hate offense first/pass first fag coaches.
Whittingham outclassed Pete by simply doing the thing that made sense.
Fuck. I hate Pete's fucking bullshit.
Everyone on this bored knew: RUN THE BALL 30 TIMES TO GASKIN AND YOU WIN.
How could Pete not know that? It's not that he doesn't know it, it's just that he feels no pressure to win, doesn't give a fuck about stealing money from our fans and wants to prove he's right more than he wants to prove he knows how to win.
It's a fucking joke. FMFYFE.
Nice yeah, but still. I would have never predicted you would have this dumbass response.KnocksvilleE said:
Are you comparing the Husky's run game to Stanford's?RoadDawg55 said:
Answer the fucking question. When Stanford plays Oregon and Utah, do you think they will air it out?KnocksvilleE said:
92 vs 17 is a mssive difference. What the fuck are you seeing that makes you ignore such a massive disparity?Tequilla said:
I don't need to use my eyes to look at numbers when I've watched enough of Utah to understand what they are and aren't good at.KnocksvilleE said:
Everyone on this board didn't check out Utah's defensive stats apparentlyDennis_DeYoung said:Nail on the head. Great poonts.
If you coach at Washington, you need to be run first.
I want to puke when he talks about Dawg weather. He is a fucking pass happy faggot who practices indoors when it rains.
It's fucking startling incompetence. I hate offense first/pass first fag coaches.
Whittingham outclassed Pete by simply doing the thing that made sense.
Fuck. I hate Pete's fucking bullshit.
Everyone on this bored knew: RUN THE BALL 30 TIMES TO GASKIN AND YOU WIN.
How could Pete not know that? It's not that he doesn't know it, it's just that he feels no pressure to win, doesn't give a fuck about stealing money from our fans and wants to prove he's right more than he wants to prove he knows how to win.
It's a fucking joke. FMFYFE.
If Washington ran the ball against Utah, it would have been weakness on Utah's best strength. Instead it is Washington's kinda weakness on Utah's blaring weakness.
If you honestly believe UW is better at throwing the ball, kill yourself.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/stats/_/id/264
http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/team/_/stat/rushing/sort/rushingYards
Even then, running more wouldn't guarantee them 5.8 YPC since other fatigue and stacked boxes would hurt their numbers.
Gaskin and D Wash combined for 26 carries and 148 yards against Utah. There are plenty of facts to prove this team can run the football, but keep informing it and defending the FS coaching that repeatedly does the same thing and fails most of the time.
Against Utah, Peterman called for around 48 passes (39 attempts, 9 Browning runs) and 28 runs (2 were reverses).
Against Oregon, around 40 passes (32 attempts, 8 QB runs/sacks) and 21 RB carries.
Against Cal, 37 passes (28 attempts, 9 QB runs/sacks) and 15 RB carries.
It's ridiculous, it's stupid and the only real argument anyone that tries to argue against this is that Petersen knows more about football than we do. Well no shit, but he's also been trotting out shitty offenses for 4 straight years.
It has very little to nothing to do with Utah's vaunted run D. We aren't balanced. This team is pass heavy every game because that is what Petersen wants to do. It's fucking mind boggling though. We have a very good defense and the RB's, especially Gaskin produce.
As for those games, it isn't surprising they threw the ball more. Smith starts each game on a script and they were way behind by the time it was finished. You can't blame them for throwing it when they are far behind.
http://www.uwdawgpound.com/2015/10/29/9622014/mailbag-absurdly-late-kickoff-edition
In addition, you keep saying Peterson is "calling" all these pass plays but how many are really just run/pass option? How many of the successful runs due to the run/pass option? We cannot be sure what is helping keep the YPC high in the run game. Though I hope we get a chance to find out in the Apple Cup, given that Wazzu's defense is a mirror image of Utah's. I will be very pissed if they pass a bunch in that game (unless it is to catch up).
And no I am not on Dawgman. -
Where?RaceBannon said:
You didKnocksvilleE said:
nope. Never agreed.RaceBannon said:
Oh no. The numbers were fudged. I showed that quite clearly already. You even agreed. Everyone agrees. Ask around, the numbers were fudged.KnocksvilleE said:
By polite, you mean ignoring pretty much every point I made to bitch about what you incorrectly think (and have not justified) to be "fudged" numbers?RaceBannon said:
I am politely answering your posts. Not crying. You need to know the differenceKnocksvilleE said:
Then you are clearly deluded. But why am I not surprised you are still crying about the numbers?RaceBannon said:
I'm not the one crying on and on either. You sound confused. The numbers are fudged though. Of that there is no question.KnocksvilleE said:
I'm not the one crying on and on about supposedly "fudged" numbers to ignoring the obvious point that the offense is younger than the defense.RaceBannon said:
You know it doesn't really seem like its my panties that are in a wad here. You sound upsetKnocksvilleE said:
Would it unwad your panties if I said 2 Freshmen starters and another that plays more than the "starter"? Hell even if we ignored the fact that Gaskin has more than 2.7x the number of rushes as Washington, say we have 2 true freshmen starting, those the QB (who plays nearly every offensive down) and the LT. Calling that 19% of the offense, which you could do if they were a WR and TE who rotate every other play, is misleading at best, bafflingly stupid at worst.RaceBannon said:
I dismiss your fudging of the numbers because you fudged the numbersKnocksvilleE said:
But I pointed out why I didn't. You just keep dismissing my responses for idiotic reasons.RaceBannon said:
I pointed out quite clearly where you fudged your numbers. You just referenced it again.KnocksvilleE said:
So what numbers did I fudge? As I said, Gaskin has been the starter every game since Oregon, except for the Utah game (though he ran during the first drive and more than Washington anyway). And he has far more carries than Washington anyway.RaceBannon said:
OkKnocksvilleE said:
Keep telling yourself that.RaceBannon said:
But I'm still right and you still fudged the numbers to make a bad pointKnocksvilleE said:
Before Washington's first fumble, Gaskin ran 5 times to Washington's 3, 6 to 4 before Washington's second fumble. So tell me again what it means that Washington was the starter? And Gaskin has been the starter for every game since Oregon (until Utah).RaceBannon said:
Had he started 3 freshman the idiot he did start wouldn't have fumbled twice and gave up a TD which kind of makes your point even more lame if that is even possibleKnocksvilleE said:
Nah you didn't stutter. You are just being stupid. What does it mean to be a starter if you play less than a backup?RaceBannon said:
No its 2 because it isn't trivial its a fact. So 19% of the offense is true freshmen compared to 0%. That's a little not a lot like I said.KnocksvilleE said:
3 True Freshmen (including the QB) to Zero. That is a lot.RaceBannon said:
He didn't start the freshman RB. That's not a hell of a lot, its a littleKnocksvilleE said:
Nope:doogsinparadise said:
Funny how the defense has young starters and key subs, yet aren't out there fucking the dog.PurpleJ said:
Race. We have a GREAT defense and the offense is only struggling because they are YOUNG. You are the worst type of Huskie fan.RaceBannon said:We want a need a great coach. Period end of fucking story. Not interested in seeing if Petersen can improve to mediocre.
Defensive starters: 4 SRs, 2 JRs, 5 SOs, 0 FR
Offensive starters: 3 SRs, 1 JR, 4 SOs, 3 FR (including QB, RB, and LT)
Offense is a hell of a lot younger than Defense
Gaskin was the starter for the last few games before the Utah game and he is probably going to be for the AZ State game as well. And the True Freshman RB is getting a hell of a lot more carries than the Jr this season. So saying he wasn't the starter for the Utah game is trivial.
Did I stutter?
thanks for dropping by now LEAVE
At all -
He's not Saban or Meyer level. I thought he probably wasn't. People want that which is fine, but I'm a Doog who is willing to settle for top 25 75% of the time, no losing seasons, and a some Rose Bowls. Right now he's looking more like a Bellotti type.DugtheDoog said:I think most of Derek's points are valid. I had the same knee-jerk reaction. I also agree with what Teq said. I know it's cool to lead a miserable and pathetic life, but if you're still in LIFPO mode with Peterbilt, you certainly don't have blinders on or are being doogish. Are there a lot of discouraging signs? Hell yeah. There's also a lot of encouraging signs.
I'm still in LIFPO mode but realize Peterbilt isn't a tier 1 coach. But in my mind, there's really only 5-6, if that, premium quality, automatic game changing coaches in college football that can win no matter who they put out on the field. All we know right now is Peterman has made some really FS mistakes and he's not a complete game-changing coach. But other than that, he could be Dirk Koetter or he could be a top 15 coach who once he gets his guys in there, averages 5.5-6 P12 wins/year. That jury is still out. And anyone who says they know for sure he's Dirk Koetter is just as idiotic as a doog claiming he's the next Don James.
Peterman is not a top 10 coach in the country. That's about all we know so far. -
They didn't run much to start the game in those losses either. In fact, Gaskin had more 2nd half carries against both Oregon and Utah. Fuck off. Keep ignoring the real stats and coming up with, "yeah, but we don't know what's going on or the run/pass options."KnocksvilleE said:
Not sure where you got the idea I was rebutting some argument about never passing the ball. I was stating that their are downsides to running the ball more (not always), and that you can't expect your YPC to be as good if you run more often with RB fatigue and opponents loading the box. So we don't know what this team looks like if it runs the ball more. There have been a few really successful drives. But there have been total duds as well. DW has terrible vision and only has a good YPC because he gets the occasional big play (but a run first offense cannot rely on that, unless youwant even more 3rd and longs). Gaskin is more reliable but he is a small true freshmen and may be more prone to fatigue and wear and tear You can mention all the games where they threw it more and lost but we don't know if they would have been any better with a more run heavy offense.RoadDawg55 said:
Shit post. Just curious, what is your handle on dawgman? Purpledawgfan? Nobody thinks we shouldn't pass at all. We just think we should be more of a run based team. We aren't. We aren't running the air raid, but this is a pass first team which is odd considering the production the RB's are giving us and the fact that the QB is a true freshman.KnocksvilleE said:
Looking at the team's stats, plays like that account for about 68 yards... If you only count players with positive yards, the total goes to 1249 from 1181, bringing the run game to an impressive 107th in the nation! No doubt the run game is better than the numbers suggest since it has improved over the season, but it isn't clear it is good enough to take on the #17 run defense in the nation while the #92 pass defense is left unchecked.RoadDawg55 said:
Sacks and plays like Durkee dropping a punt for -27 yards greatly contribute to the low ranking. Gaskin and D-Wash are averaging over 5.8 ypc. That is good. This is the first UW OL I have seen in years that actually moves the DL off the line. We finally have some maulers and not the pussies that made up the Cascade Front. This young OL is far better at run blocking than pass blocking.KnocksvilleE said:
Stanford's Rushing Defense is ranked #15 in total yards and #24 in YPC while Washington's is 113 in total yards and 84th in YPC. Stanford can run on whoever they want. Washinton, not so much. Hell, Washington ranks better in passing than running at 71 in total yards and 54 in YPA (Washington state has a lower YPA!).RoadDawg55 said:KnocksvilleE said:
Are you comparing the Husky's run game to Stanford's?RoadDawg55 said:
Answer the fucking question. When Stanford plays Oregon and Utah, do you think they will air it out?KnocksvilleE said:
92 vs 17 is a mssive difference. What the fuck are you seeing that makes you ignore such a massive disparity?Tequilla said:
I don't need to use my eyes to look at numbers when I've watched enough of Utah to understand what they are and aren't good at.KnocksvilleE said:
Everyone on this board didn't check out Utah's defensive stats apparentlyDennis_DeYoung said:Nail on the head. Great poonts.
If you coach at Washington, you need to be run first.
I want to puke when he talks about Dawg weather. He is a fucking pass happy faggot who practices indoors when it rains.
It's fucking startling incompetence. I hate offense first/pass first fag coaches.
Whittingham outclassed Pete by simply doing the thing that made sense.
Fuck. I hate Pete's fucking bullshit.
Everyone on this bored knew: RUN THE BALL 30 TIMES TO GASKIN AND YOU WIN.
How could Pete not know that? It's not that he doesn't know it, it's just that he feels no pressure to win, doesn't give a fuck about stealing money from our fans and wants to prove he's right more than he wants to prove he knows how to win.
It's a fucking joke. FMFYFE.
Nice yeah, but still. I would have never predicted you would have this dumbass response.KnocksvilleE said:
Are you comparing the Husky's run game to Stanford's?RoadDawg55 said:
Answer the fucking question. When Stanford plays Oregon and Utah, do you think they will air it out?KnocksvilleE said:
92 vs 17 is a mssive difference. What the fuck are you seeing that makes you ignore such a massive disparity?Tequilla said:
I don't need to use my eyes to look at numbers when I've watched enough of Utah to understand what they are and aren't good at.KnocksvilleE said:
Everyone on this board didn't check out Utah's defensive stats apparentlyDennis_DeYoung said:Nail on the head. Great poonts.
If you coach at Washington, you need to be run first.
I want to puke when he talks about Dawg weather. He is a fucking pass happy faggot who practices indoors when it rains.
It's fucking startling incompetence. I hate offense first/pass first fag coaches.
Whittingham outclassed Pete by simply doing the thing that made sense.
Fuck. I hate Pete's fucking bullshit.
Everyone on this bored knew: RUN THE BALL 30 TIMES TO GASKIN AND YOU WIN.
How could Pete not know that? It's not that he doesn't know it, it's just that he feels no pressure to win, doesn't give a fuck about stealing money from our fans and wants to prove he's right more than he wants to prove he knows how to win.
It's a fucking joke. FMFYFE.
If Washington ran the ball against Utah, it would have been weakness on Utah's best strength. Instead it is Washington's kinda weakness on Utah's blaring weakness.
If you honestly believe UW is better at throwing the ball, kill yourself.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/stats/_/id/264
http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/team/_/stat/rushing/sort/rushingYards
Even then, running more wouldn't guarantee them 5.8 YPC since other fatigue and stacked boxes would hurt their numbers.
Gaskin and D Wash combined for 26 carries and 148 yards against Utah. There are plenty of facts to prove this team can run the football, but keep informing it and defending the FS coaching that repeatedly does the same thing and fails most of the time.
Against Utah, Peterman called for around 48 passes (39 attempts, 9 Browning runs) and 28 runs (2 were reverses).
Against Oregon, around 40 passes (32 attempts, 8 QB runs/sacks) and 21 RB carries.
Against Cal, 37 passes (28 attempts, 9 QB runs/sacks) and 15 RB carries.
It's ridiculous, it's stupid and the only real argument anyone that tries to argue against this is that Petersen knows more about football than we do. Well no shit, but he's also been trotting out shitty offenses for 4 straight years.
It has very little to nothing to do with Utah's vaunted run D. We aren't balanced. This team is pass heavy every game because that is what Petersen wants to do. It's fucking mind boggling though. We have a very good defense and the RB's, especially Gaskin produce.
As for those games, it isn't surprising they threw the ball more. Smith starts each game on a script and they were way behind by the time it was finished. You can't blame them for throwing it when they are far behind.
http://www.uwdawgpound.com/2015/10/29/9622014/mailbag-absurdly-late-kickoff-edition
In addition, you keep saying Peterson is "calling" all these pass plays but how many are really just run/pass option? How many of the successful runs due to the run/pass option? We cannot be sure what is helping keep the YPC high in the run game. Though I hope we get a chance to find out in the Apple Cup, given that Wazzu's defense is a mirror image of Utah's. I will be very pissed if they pass a bunch in that game (unless it is to catch up).
And no I am not on Dawgman.
Nobody cares about uwdoogpound or your shitty mailbag with made up questions. -
Gaskin could have had more carries in the second half because the matchup favored run more often and the run/pass option became run.RoadDawg55 said:
They didn't run much to start the game in those losses either. In fact, Gaskin had more 2nd half carries against both Oregon and Utah. Fuck off. Keep ignoring the real stats and coming up with, "yeah, but we don't know what's going on or the run/pass options."KnocksvilleE said:
Not sure where you got the idea I was rebutting some argument about never passing the ball. I was stating that their are downsides to running the ball more (not always), and that you can't expect your YPC to be as good if you run more often with RB fatigue and opponents loading the box. So we don't know what this team looks like if it runs the ball more. There have been a few really successful drives. But there have been total duds as well. DW has terrible vision and only has a good YPC because he gets the occasional big play (but a run first offense cannot rely on that, unless youwant even more 3rd and longs). Gaskin is more reliable but he is a small true freshmen and may be more prone to fatigue and wear and tear You can mention all the games where they threw it more and lost but we don't know if they would have been any better with a more run heavy offense.RoadDawg55 said:
Shit post. Just curious, what is your handle on dawgman? Purpledawgfan? Nobody thinks we shouldn't pass at all. We just think we should be more of a run based team. We aren't. We aren't running the air raid, but this is a pass first team which is odd considering the production the RB's are giving us and the fact that the QB is a true freshman.KnocksvilleE said:
Looking at the team's stats, plays like that account for about 68 yards... If you only count players with positive yards, the total goes to 1249 from 1181, bringing the run game to an impressive 107th in the nation! No doubt the run game is better than the numbers suggest since it has improved over the season, but it isn't clear it is good enough to take on the #17 run defense in the nation while the #92 pass defense is left unchecked.RoadDawg55 said:
Sacks and plays like Durkee dropping a punt for -27 yards greatly contribute to the low ranking. Gaskin and D-Wash are averaging over 5.8 ypc. That is good. This is the first UW OL I have seen in years that actually moves the DL off the line. We finally have some maulers and not the pussies that made up the Cascade Front. This young OL is far better at run blocking than pass blocking.KnocksvilleE said:
Stanford's Rushing Defense is ranked #15 in total yards and #24 in YPC while Washington's is 113 in total yards and 84th in YPC. Stanford can run on whoever they want. Washinton, not so much. Hell, Washington ranks better in passing than running at 71 in total yards and 54 in YPA (Washington state has a lower YPA!).RoadDawg55 said:KnocksvilleE said:
Are you comparing the Husky's run game to Stanford's?RoadDawg55 said:
Answer the fucking question. When Stanford plays Oregon and Utah, do you think they will air it out?KnocksvilleE said:
92 vs 17 is a mssive difference. What the fuck are you seeing that makes you ignore such a massive disparity?Tequilla said:
I don't need to use my eyes to look at numbers when I've watched enough of Utah to understand what they are and aren't good at.KnocksvilleE said:
Everyone on this board didn't check out Utah's defensive stats apparentlyDennis_DeYoung said:Nail on the head. Great poonts.
If you coach at Washington, you need to be run first.
I want to puke when he talks about Dawg weather. He is a fucking pass happy faggot who practices indoors when it rains.
It's fucking startling incompetence. I hate offense first/pass first fag coaches.
Whittingham outclassed Pete by simply doing the thing that made sense.
Fuck. I hate Pete's fucking bullshit.
Everyone on this bored knew: RUN THE BALL 30 TIMES TO GASKIN AND YOU WIN.
How could Pete not know that? It's not that he doesn't know it, it's just that he feels no pressure to win, doesn't give a fuck about stealing money from our fans and wants to prove he's right more than he wants to prove he knows how to win.
It's a fucking joke. FMFYFE.
Nice yeah, but still. I would have never predicted you would have this dumbass response.KnocksvilleE said:
Are you comparing the Husky's run game to Stanford's?RoadDawg55 said:
Answer the fucking question. When Stanford plays Oregon and Utah, do you think they will air it out?KnocksvilleE said:
92 vs 17 is a mssive difference. What the fuck are you seeing that makes you ignore such a massive disparity?Tequilla said:
I don't need to use my eyes to look at numbers when I've watched enough of Utah to understand what they are and aren't good at.KnocksvilleE said:
Everyone on this board didn't check out Utah's defensive stats apparentlyDennis_DeYoung said:Nail on the head. Great poonts.
If you coach at Washington, you need to be run first.
I want to puke when he talks about Dawg weather. He is a fucking pass happy faggot who practices indoors when it rains.
It's fucking startling incompetence. I hate offense first/pass first fag coaches.
Whittingham outclassed Pete by simply doing the thing that made sense.
Fuck. I hate Pete's fucking bullshit.
Everyone on this bored knew: RUN THE BALL 30 TIMES TO GASKIN AND YOU WIN.
How could Pete not know that? It's not that he doesn't know it, it's just that he feels no pressure to win, doesn't give a fuck about stealing money from our fans and wants to prove he's right more than he wants to prove he knows how to win.
It's a fucking joke. FMFYFE.
If Washington ran the ball against Utah, it would have been weakness on Utah's best strength. Instead it is Washington's kinda weakness on Utah's blaring weakness.
If you honestly believe UW is better at throwing the ball, kill yourself.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/stats/_/id/264
http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/team/_/stat/rushing/sort/rushingYards
Even then, running more wouldn't guarantee them 5.8 YPC since other fatigue and stacked boxes would hurt their numbers.
Gaskin and D Wash combined for 26 carries and 148 yards against Utah. There are plenty of facts to prove this team can run the football, but keep informing it and defending the FS coaching that repeatedly does the same thing and fails most of the time.
Against Utah, Peterman called for around 48 passes (39 attempts, 9 Browning runs) and 28 runs (2 were reverses).
Against Oregon, around 40 passes (32 attempts, 8 QB runs/sacks) and 21 RB carries.
Against Cal, 37 passes (28 attempts, 9 QB runs/sacks) and 15 RB carries.
It's ridiculous, it's stupid and the only real argument anyone that tries to argue against this is that Petersen knows more about football than we do. Well no shit, but he's also been trotting out shitty offenses for 4 straight years.
It has very little to nothing to do with Utah's vaunted run D. We aren't balanced. This team is pass heavy every game because that is what Petersen wants to do. It's fucking mind boggling though. We have a very good defense and the RB's, especially Gaskin produce.
As for those games, it isn't surprising they threw the ball more. Smith starts each game on a script and they were way behind by the time it was finished. You can't blame them for throwing it when they are far behind.
http://www.uwdawgpound.com/2015/10/29/9622014/mailbag-absurdly-late-kickoff-edition
In addition, you keep saying Peterson is "calling" all these pass plays but how many are really just run/pass option? How many of the successful runs due to the run/pass option? We cannot be sure what is helping keep the YPC high in the run game. Though I hope we get a chance to find out in the Apple Cup, given that Wazzu's defense is a mirror image of Utah's. I will be very pissed if they pass a bunch in that game (unless it is to catch up).
And no I am not on Dawgman.
Nobody cares about uwdoogpound or your shitty mailbag with made up questions.
I have been giving you guys stats and you keep seeing lame excuses to ignore them. You are so completely sure the offense would be so much better with more running you are absolutely sure they should have run against the 17th ranked run defense more than passing against the 92nd ranked pass defense. Fuck skepticism, eh. Fuck determning it the problem is more playcalling or execution. Not when it is so satisfying to call for Smith and Peterson's head. -
And your prescription for fixing the offense is to have more "run plays" and fewer "pass plays." Who needs Smith and Peterson when they have you guys?
-
This guy is still here dooging it up?
-
Oh the irony.KnocksvilleE said:
Derp what?MisterEm said:
You edited, THAT?KnocksvilleE said:
Then you are clearly deluded. But why am I not surprised you are still crying about the numbers?RaceBannon said:
I'm not the one crying on and on either. You sound confused. The numbers are fudged though. Of that there is no question.KnocksvilleE said:
I'm not the one crying on and on about supposedly "fudged" numbers to ignoring the obvious point that the offense is younger than the defense.RaceBannon said:
You know it doesn't really seem like its my panties that are in a wad here. You sound upsetKnocksvilleE said:
Would it unwad your panties if I said 2 Freshmen starters and another that plays more than the "starter"? Hell even if we ignored the fact that Gaskin has more than 2.7x the number of rushes as Washington, say we have 2 true freshmen starting, those the QB (who plays nearly every offensive down) and the LT. Calling that 19% of the offense, which you could do if they were a WR and TE who rotate every other play, is misleading at best, bafflingly stupid at worst.RaceBannon said:
I dismiss your fudging of the numbers because you fudged the numbersKnocksvilleE said:
But I pointed out why I didn't. You just keep dismissing my responses for idiotic reasons.RaceBannon said:
I pointed out quite clearly where you fudged your numbers. You just referenced it again.KnocksvilleE said:
So what numbers did I fudge? As I said, Gaskin has been the starter every game since Oregon, except for the Utah game (though he ran during the first drive and more than Washington anyway). And he has far more carries than Washington anyway.RaceBannon said:
OkKnocksvilleE said:
Keep telling yourself that.RaceBannon said:
But I'm still right and you still fudged the numbers to make a bad pointKnocksvilleE said:
Before Washington's first fumble, Gaskin ran 5 times to Washington's 3, 6 to 4 before Washington's second fumble. So tell me again what it means that Washington was the starter? And Gaskin has been the starter for every game since Oregon (until Utah).RaceBannon said:
Had he started 3 freshman the idiot he did start wouldn't have fumbled twice and gave up a TD which kind of makes your point even more lame if that is even possibleKnocksvilleE said:
Nah you didn't stutter. You are just being stupid. What does it mean to be a starter if you play less than a backup?RaceBannon said:
No its 2 because it isn't trivial its a fact. So 19% of the offense is true freshmen compared to 0%. That's a little not a lot like I said.KnocksvilleE said:
3 True Freshmen (including the QB) to Zero. That is a lot.RaceBannon said:
He didn't start the freshman RB. That's not a hell of a lot, its a littleKnocksvilleE said:
Nope:doogsinparadise said:
Funny how the defense has young starters and key subs, yet aren't out there fucking the dog.PurpleJ said:
Race. We have a GREAT defense and the offense is only struggling because they are YOUNG. You are the worst type of Huskie fan.RaceBannon said:We want a need a great coach. Period end of fucking story. Not interested in seeing if Petersen can improve to mediocre.
Defensive starters: 4 SRs, 2 JRs, 5 SOs, 0 FR
Offensive starters: 3 SRs, 1 JR, 4 SOs, 3 FR (including QB, RB, and LT)
Offense is a hell of a lot younger than Defense
Gaskin was the starter for the last few games before the Utah game and he is probably going to be for the AZ State game as well. And the True Freshman RB is getting a hell of a lot more carries than the Jr this season. So saying he wasn't the starter for the Utah game is trivial.
Did I stutter?
thanks for dropping by now LEAVE
At all -
This argument has to be a joke right....?
-
RaceBannon said:
This guy is still here derping it up?
-
This is elementary analysis, fucking Christ.
-
Doogs love to make the argument that ypc will go down with more carries, and the related argument that without the 79 yard run player x's ypc would've been only 2.5 or whatever. Don't be that Doog.
-
Can't forget the "so you think you're smarter then the coaches" argument. Right from the playbook.KnocksvilleE said:And your prescription for fixing the offense is to have more "run plays" and fewer "pass plays." Who needs Smith and Peterson when they have you guys?
-
Don't also be a fucktard and say that because a guy ran 15 times for 100 yards when one of those carries was for 85 yards that the running game on the hole was a success. It wasn't. It would have got you one big score but otherwise ended up putting you in a lot of long down/distance relationships.doogsinparadise said:Doogs love to make the argument that ypc will go down with more carries, and the related argument that without the 79 yard run player x's ypc would've been only 2.5 or whatever. Don't be that Doog.
-
Nice numbers, you get them from @KnocksvilleE?Tequilla said:
Don't also be a fucktard and say that because a guy ran 15 times for 100 yards when one of those carries was for 85 yards that the running game on the hole was a success. It wasn't. It would have got you one big score but otherwise ended up putting you in a lot of long down/distance relationships.doogsinparadise said:Doogs love to make the argument that ypc will go down with more carries, and the related argument that without the 79 yard run player x's ypc would've been only 2.5 or whatever. Don't be that Doog.
-
Nothing better than reading about how cal will plummet and Oregon will suck and stanford will go back to being stanford and asu sucks meanwhile we can't beat any of them. Really cool stuffDoogles said:It's special talking about next year during this year. It's just so irritating.
-
But why do I hate the posters on this board?phineas said:
Nothing better than reading about how cal will plummet and Oregon will suck and stanford will go back to being stanford and asu sucks meanwhile we can't beat any of them. Really cool stuffDoogles said:It's special talking about next year during this year. It's just so irritating.
-
@KnocksvilleE, nothing to say this week? 62 drop backs is no big deal because we don't know how many were run/pass options. And you wonder why UWdoogpound gets no respect here? Wash the semen out of your eyes.
-
62 drop backs and a 14 point halftime lead that leads to a loss.RoadDawg55 said:@KnocksvilleE, nothing to say this week? 62 drop backs is no big deal because we don't know how many were run/pass options. And you wonder why UWdoogpound gets no respect here? Wash the semen out of your eyes.
Good luck getting a
@KnocksvilleE response addressing facts or his previous shit posts.
Youth, Mickens, Hall, Smiff will be his excuse chain.
