We're all fucking doogz, so we all want to believe... Chest is going fucking full #offseasonnattySRSjustifieddoog, though. I hope for his sake (and for all of our sakes) that he's right.
It's not about believing. Its understanding that the team got a lot better in what was supposed to be a deep rebuilding year. If they can make the same jump next season and the season after (difficult to go from good to great and we are not solidly good yet) then we all will be very happy.
I don't understand how you think SRS supports the season, it's damning. It means that the metrics say UW had the 26th best team in the country with one of the best defenses in the country and still the best Petersen could muster was 7-6 (4-5).
Doesn't the SRS just show the UW found a way to lose to worse teams (SRS ranking wise) like the same loser program that was here before.
Boise state SRS 47th Cal SRS 29th ASU SRS 54th
So 3 easy wins... Seems like UW should have finished 10-3 (6-3). Does that make Petersen a -3 win coach?
We're all fucking doogz, so we all want to believe... Chest is going fucking full #offseasonnattySRSjustifieddoog, though. I hope for his sake (and for all of our sakes) that he's right.
It's not about believing. Its understanding that the team got a lot better in what was supposed to be a deep rebuilding year. If they can make the same jump next season and the season after (difficult to go from good to great and we are not solidly good yet) then we all will be very happy.
I don't understand how you think SRS supports the season, it's damning. It means that the metrics say UW had the 26th best team in the country with one of the best defenses in the country and still the best Petersen could muster was 7-6 (4-5).
Doesn't the SRS just show the UW found a way to lose to worse teams (SRS ranking wise) like the same loser program that was here before.
Boise state SRS 47th Cal SRS 29th ASU SRS 54th
So 3 easy wins... Seems like UW should have finished 10-3 (7-2). Does that make Petersen a -3 win coach?
Fucking THIS.
The numbers say UW should have won more games.
But they didn't.
Which means the coach fucked up.
Which means Petersen sucks.
Wasn't the whole point of the Petersen hire that he could do more with less, so he should be able to do even more with more???
We're all fucking doogz, so we all want to believe... Chest is going fucking full #offseasonnattySRSjustifieddoog, though. I hope for his sake (and for all of our sakes) that he's right.
It's not about believing. Its understanding that the team got a lot better in what was supposed to be a deep rebuilding year. If they can make the same jump next season and the season after (difficult to go from good to great and we are not solidly good yet) then we all will be very happy.
I don't understand how you think SRS supports the season, it's damning. It means that the metrics say UW had the 26th best team in the country with one of the best defenses in the country and still the best Petersen could muster was 7-6 (4-5).
Doesn't the SRS just show the UW found a way to lose to worse teams (SRS ranking wise) like the same loser program that was here before.
Boise state SRS 47th Cal SRS 29th ASU SRS 54th
So 3 easy wins... Seems like UW should have finished 10-3 (7-2). Does that make Petersen a -3 win coach?
Fucking THIS.
The numbers say UW should have won more games.
But they didn't.
Which means the coach fucked up.
Which means Petersen sucks.
Wasn't the whole point of the Petersen hire that he could do more with less, so he should be able to do even more with more???
Sounds like he is doing less with more.
I'm sympathetic to this point, but we fucked off games because we played like bitches.
Maybe as we get older that will go away and maybe it won't.
We do have 10 starters coming back on offense (I refuse to count Jaydon) and 8 starters coming back on defense (I count Clay over Jaydon, I guess).
We did have a true frosh QB.
I mean, I'm not into excuses, but I see both sides. My heart is with you, but my head says if we stop playing like fags, we might be really good next year and we might do that because we will be a year older and more into Pete culture.
People are going to take these kinds of numbers and read into them what they think or want to believe unless you really can cut through the BS and remain objective.
If you go back to before the season, I think the consensus was that the first half was going to be rougher than the back half. That played out. We knew we had youth and that was going give some ups and downs as well. I think we all thought that this was going to be a team that was going to struggle with some consistency problems offensively ... that played out as well.
The encouraging part of what we saw this year was that when this team put all the pieces together, they looked really good. Consistency and turnovers were big time factors in the losses against Cal and Utah. With the exception of the game at Stanford that Browning didn't start, every other game this year UW had a very good chance to win the game in the 4th quarter. There's definitely reason to believe with some overall team improvement plus better execution in tight situations this team could take some massive steps forward.
The crowd that says "so what" and that they need to prove it isn't wrong. The numbers and computer simulations are predictive in their correlations but are far from absolutes.
What I think can be concluded and should be agreed upon is that the potential for a sizable jump next year is definitely realistic. Being guarded and cautious with the expectations is probably reasonable given the 15 year stretch that we've been on. However, to be close minded to the fact that there could be a sizable jump of a magnitude up to a conference championship level is not paying attention to what the numbers and eyes are showing on the field.
The numbers legitimize that UW probably should have won 2 more games. I've said that before. If you want to put that 100% on the coach without considering all the circumstances fine. So then every other coach I listed sucked too? Carroll was 100% responsible for USC going 6-6 his first year and losing a bunch of close games? And then he suddenly became NC caliber coach thereafter?
The context is important. UW in 2013 was 8-4 but #13. That was Sark's 5th year. The roster was stacked. More than half the starters have started a game in the NFL. UW in 1997 was 8-4 but #7. Also a stacked roster from a NC caliber team. Those coaches were deep in their tenures with tons of NFL talent and experienced teams... and the metrics showed that they should have won a lot more.
Yes, same thing for this season but it's the second year and it was a deep rebuilding year. If you can't admit that you're not dealing with reality. The initial progress from young and rebuilding teams often shows up first in the metrics.
Look at the Seahawks. Had the same record in 2011 as 2010 but didn't make the playoffs. Very young team in 2011. Their SRS was way better in 2011. Their point differential was +6. It was -97 the year before. They were also much better in the FootballOutsiders shit. They were 7-9 but 5 losses were by 16 points. By your logic, Pete Carroll sucks or sucked then.
Good progress was made this season and things are on track for year two. That's really all I'm pointing out. Every team in the Pac12 but Stanford and maybe Oregon St. would trade their HC for Petersen.
People are going to take these kinds of numbers and read into them what they think or want to believe unless you really can cut through the BS and remain objective.
If you go back to before the season, I think the consensus was that the first half was going to be rougher than the back half. That played out. We knew we had youth and that was going give some ups and downs as well. I think we all thought that this was going to be a team that was going to struggle with some consistency problems offensively ... that played out as well.
The encouraging part of what we saw this year was that when this team put all the pieces together, they looked really good. Consistency and turnovers were big time factors in the losses against Cal and Utah. With the exception of the game at Stanford that Browning didn't start, every other game this year UW had a very good chance to win the game in the 4th quarter. There's definitely reason to believe with some overall team improvement plus better execution in tight situations this team could take some massive steps forward.
The crowd that says "so what" and that they need to prove it isn't wrong. The numbers and computer simulations are predictive in their correlations but are far from absolutes.
What I think can be concluded and should be agreed upon is that the potential for a sizable jump next year is definitely realistic. Being guarded and cautious with the expectations is probably reasonable given the 15 year stretch that we've been on. However, to be close minded to the fact that there could be a sizable jump of a magnitude up to a conference championship level is not paying attention to what the numbers and eyes are showing on the field.
This is why your wall or words posts are useless.
You say something and contradict yourself one sentence later trying to cover all the bases.
Do you expect a sizable jump, or are you cautious with your expectations?
People are going to take these kinds of numbers and read into them what they think or want to believe unless you really can cut through the BS and remain objective.
If you go back to before the season, I think the consensus was that the first half was going to be rougher than the back half. That played out. We knew we had youth and that was going give some ups and downs as well. I think we all thought that this was going to be a team that was going to struggle with some consistency problems offensively ... that played out as well.
The encouraging part of what we saw this year was that when this team put all the pieces together, they looked really good. Consistency and turnovers were big time factors in the losses against Cal and Utah. With the exception of the game at Stanford that Browning didn't start, every other game this year UW had a very good chance to win the game in the 4th quarter. There's definitely reason to believe with some overall team improvement plus better execution in tight situations this team could take some massive steps forward.
The crowd that says "so what" and that they need to prove it isn't wrong. The numbers and computer simulations are predictive in their correlations but are far from absolutes.
What I think can be concluded and should be agreed upon is that the potential for a sizable jump next year is definitely realistic. Being guarded and cautious with the expectations is probably reasonable given the 15 year stretch that we've been on. However, to be close minded to the fact that there could be a sizable jump of a magnitude up to a conference championship level is not paying attention to what the numbers and eyes are showing on the field.
This is why your wall or words posts are useless.
You say something and contradict yourself one sentence later trying to cover all the bases.
Do you expect a sizable jump, or are you cautious with your expectations?
Pick a side.
I've already picked a side ... I've been on record for a while saying that there's not a reason to not think that 10+ wins next year isn't very realistic and a very good chance at winning the North.
What you are failing to realize in what I'm saying is that instead of blasting you (or others with similar viewpoints) for your opinions, what I'm pointing out is that I can understand the skepticism of those that aren't prepared to buy in until seeing the results. You can pick your reasons for that whether it be Pete being a terrible game coach, Babushka, losing culture surrounding the program for 15 years, etc.
Saying that I understand the perspective doesn't mean that I agree with the perspective or am playing both sides.
People are going to take these kinds of numbers and read into them what they think or want to believe unless you really can cut through the BS and remain objective.
If you go back to before the season, I think the consensus was that the first half was going to be rougher than the back half. That played out. We knew we had youth and that was going give some ups and downs as well. I think we all thought that this was going to be a team that was going to struggle with some consistency problems offensively ... that played out as well.
The encouraging part of what we saw this year was that when this team put all the pieces together, they looked really good. Consistency and turnovers were big time factors in the losses against Cal and Utah. With the exception of the game at Stanford that Browning didn't start, every other game this year UW had a very good chance to win the game in the 4th quarter. There's definitely reason to believe with some overall team improvement plus better execution in tight situations this team could take some massive steps forward.
The crowd that says "so what" and that they need to prove it isn't wrong. The numbers and computer simulations are predictive in their correlations but are far from absolutes.
What I think can be concluded and should be agreed upon is that the potential for a sizable jump next year is definitely realistic. Being guarded and cautious with the expectations is probably reasonable given the 15 year stretch that we've been on. However, to be close minded to the fact that there could be a sizable jump of a magnitude up to a conference championship level is not paying attention to what the numbers and eyes are showing on the field.
This is why your wall or words posts are useless.
You say something and contradict yourself one sentence later trying to cover all the bases.
Do you expect a sizable jump, or are you cautious with your expectations?
Pick a side.
I've already picked a side ... I've been on record for a while saying that there's not a reason to not think that 10+ wins next year isn't very realistic and a very good chance at winning the North.
What you are failing to realize in what I'm saying is that instead of blasting you (or others with similar viewpoints) for your opinions, what I'm pointing out is that I can understand the skepticism of those that aren't prepared to buy in until seeing the results. You can pick your reasons for that whether it be Pete being a terrible game coach, Babushka, losing culture surrounding the program for 15 years, etc.
Saying that I understand the perspective doesn't mean that I agree with the perspective or am playing both sides.
The numbers legitimize that UW probably should have won 2 more games. I've said that before. If you want to put that 100% on the coach without considering all the circumstances fine. So then every other coach I listed sucked too? Carroll was 100% responsible for USC going 6-6 his first year and losing a bunch of close games? And then he suddenly became NC caliber coach thereafter?
The context is important. UW in 2013 was 8-4 but #13. That was Sark's 5th year. The roster was stacked. More than half the starters have started a game in the NFL. UW in 1997 was 8-4 but #7. Also a stacked roster from a NC caliber team. Those coaches were deep in their tenures with tons of NFL talent and experienced teams... and the metrics showed that they should have won a lot more.
Yes, same thing for this season but it's the second year and it was a deep rebuilding year. If you can't admit that you're not dealing with reality. The initial progress from young and rebuilding teams often shows up first in the metrics.
Look at the Seahawks. Had the same record in 2011 as 2010 but didn't make the playoffs. Very young team in 2011. Their SRS was way better in 2011. Their point differential was +6. It was -97 the year before. They were also much better in the FootballOutsiders shit. They were 7-9 but 5 losses were by 16 points. By your logic, Pete Carroll sucks or sucked then.
Good progress was made this season and things are on track for year two. That's really all I'm pointing out. Every team in the Pac12 but Stanford and maybe Oregon St. would trade their HC for Petersen.
1) "UW should have won 2 more games" I don't understand how you can say this, agree with it, and think things are going well... Maybe it was the altitude or El Niño or something
2) "context is important" = perspective guys!
3) NFL... WTF?
4) If SRS shows progress then it also shows that Petersen had some of the most to work with in the country and did the least with it (wins wise).
If Petersen takes a team with SRS of 9.79 and wins 7 games it is going to take a SRS of 13.9 (top 10) for him just to break 10 wins one season.
You can't have it both ways, "it shows great improvement guys! Except when it doesn't because it can't measure certain things so ignore what SRS says now!"
5) IDGAF what other shitty programs would do or want with Petersen. USC wanted Sark, Oregon wanted Helfrich, UCLA wanted Mora and they are all football humping retards. Other schools willing to trade their coaches who have already beaten Petersen says nothing about Petes ability.
Besides you have already shown multiple times that you believe SRS is the most important thing in the beginning.
If SRS is more indicative of a program and a coach then you have to say that Petersen is a -2 or -3 win coach
If wins and losses are more indicative of a program and a coach then 4-5 > 4-5....
Maybe as we get older that will go away and maybe it won't.
This is really what it comes down to. Our underachieving this year was either due to youth, coaching fuckups, or some combination of both. Next year will answer everything, so I don't know why so many people are eager to pick which side of the spectrum we're on.
Maybe as we get older that will go away and maybe it won't.
This is really what it comes down to. Our underachieving this year was either due to youth, coaching fuckups, or some combination of both. Next year will answer everything, so I don't know why so many people are eager to pick which side of the spectrum we're on.
Let it fucking play out.
Because many on this board are tied up in needing to pick a side so that they can say "told you so" and grab screenshots to throw back in people's face.
Everybody here is desperate for a winner at a high level and getting back to being in the discussion for winning the conference. I'm not convinced though that that will be enough for some around here.
Winning at the highest levels is hard ... it's really hard. The difference between winning national or conference championships or seemingly an underachieving season can be any number of factors.
I'd be seriously interested in understanding how people view the Buffalo Bills winning 4 straight AFC Titles but losing each year in the Super Bowl, the Atlanta Braves of the 1990s+ with only 1 World Series title, or even Kansas and their however many consecutive Big 12 titles but only 1 National Championship over that time period? At what point does sustained excellence and being in the position to win the title get trumped by the failure to win at that level?
People are going to take these kinds of numbers and read into them what they think or want to believe unless you really can cut through the BS and remain objective.
If you go back to before the season, I think the consensus was that the first half was going to be rougher than the back half. That played out. We knew we had youth and that was going give some ups and downs as well. I think we all thought that this was going to be a team that was going to struggle with some consistency problems offensively ... that played out as well.
But it didn't play out. Midseason you had us going at least 4-1 over our last 5 regular season games.
Comments
I don't understand how you think SRS supports the season, it's damning. It means that the metrics say UW had the 26th best team in the country with one of the best defenses in the country and still the best Petersen could muster was 7-6 (4-5).
Doesn't the SRS just show the UW found a way to lose to worse teams (SRS ranking wise) like the same loser program that was here before.
Boise state SRS 47th
Cal SRS 29th
ASU SRS 54th
So 3 easy wins... Seems like UW should have finished 10-3 (6-3). Does that make Petersen a -3 win coach?
The numbers say UW should have won more games.
But they didn't.
Which means the coach fucked up.
Which means Petersen sucks.
Wasn't the whole point of the Petersen hire that he could do more with less, so he should be able to do even more with more???
Sounds like he is doing less with more.
Maybe as we get older that will go away and maybe it won't.
We do have 10 starters coming back on offense (I refuse to count Jaydon) and 8 starters coming back on defense (I count Clay over Jaydon, I guess).
We did have a true frosh QB.
I mean, I'm not into excuses, but I see both sides. My heart is with you, but my head says if we stop playing like fags, we might be really good next year and we might do that because we will be a year older and more into Pete culture.
This is real?
Yes. And there's more:
If you go back to before the season, I think the consensus was that the first half was going to be rougher than the back half. That played out. We knew we had youth and that was going give some ups and downs as well. I think we all thought that this was going to be a team that was going to struggle with some consistency problems offensively ... that played out as well.
The encouraging part of what we saw this year was that when this team put all the pieces together, they looked really good. Consistency and turnovers were big time factors in the losses against Cal and Utah. With the exception of the game at Stanford that Browning didn't start, every other game this year UW had a very good chance to win the game in the 4th quarter. There's definitely reason to believe with some overall team improvement plus better execution in tight situations this team could take some massive steps forward.
The crowd that says "so what" and that they need to prove it isn't wrong. The numbers and computer simulations are predictive in their correlations but are far from absolutes.
What I think can be concluded and should be agreed upon is that the potential for a sizable jump next year is definitely realistic. Being guarded and cautious with the expectations is probably reasonable given the 15 year stretch that we've been on. However, to be close minded to the fact that there could be a sizable jump of a magnitude up to a conference championship level is not paying attention to what the numbers and eyes are showing on the field.
The context is important. UW in 2013 was 8-4 but #13. That was Sark's 5th year. The roster was stacked. More than half the starters have started a game in the NFL. UW in 1997 was 8-4 but #7. Also a stacked roster from a NC caliber team. Those coaches were deep in their tenures with tons of NFL talent and experienced teams... and the metrics showed that they should have won a lot more.
Yes, same thing for this season but it's the second year and it was a deep rebuilding year. If you can't admit that you're not dealing with reality. The initial progress from young and rebuilding teams often shows up first in the metrics.
Look at the Seahawks. Had the same record in 2011 as 2010 but didn't make the playoffs. Very young team in 2011. Their SRS was way better in 2011. Their point differential was +6. It was -97 the year before. They were also much better in the FootballOutsiders shit. They were 7-9 but 5 losses were by 16 points. By your logic, Pete Carroll sucks or sucked then.
Good progress was made this season and things are on track for year two. That's really all I'm pointing out. Every team in the Pac12 but Stanford and maybe Oregon St. would trade their HC for Petersen.
Chest should pm @IrishDawg22.
You say something and contradict yourself one sentence later trying to cover all the bases.
Do you expect a sizable jump, or are you cautious with your expectations?
Pick a side.
What you are failing to realize in what I'm saying is that instead of blasting you (or others with similar viewpoints) for your opinions, what I'm pointing out is that I can understand the skepticism of those that aren't prepared to buy in until seeing the results. You can pick your reasons for that whether it be Pete being a terrible game coach, Babushka, losing culture surrounding the program for 15 years, etc.
Saying that I understand the perspective doesn't mean that I agree with the perspective or am playing both sides.
2x baby.
2) "context is important" = perspective guys!
3) NFL... WTF?
4)
If SRS shows progress then it also shows that Petersen had some of the most to work with in the country and did the least with it (wins wise).
If Petersen takes a team with SRS of 9.79 and wins 7 games it is going to take a SRS of 13.9 (top 10) for him just to break 10 wins one season.
You can't have it both ways, "it shows great improvement guys! Except when it doesn't because it can't measure certain things so ignore what SRS says now!"
5) IDGAF what other shitty programs would do or want with Petersen. USC wanted Sark, Oregon wanted Helfrich, UCLA wanted Mora and they are all football humping retards. Other schools willing to trade their coaches who have already beaten Petersen says nothing about Petes ability.
Besides you have already shown multiple times that you believe SRS is the most important thing in the beginning.
If SRS is more indicative of a program and a coach then you have to say that Petersen is a -2 or -3 win coach
If wins and losses are more indicative of a program and a coach then 4-5 > 4-5....
Let it fucking play out.
Everybody here is desperate for a winner at a high level and getting back to being in the discussion for winning the conference. I'm not convinced though that that will be enough for some around here.
Winning at the highest levels is hard ... it's really hard. The difference between winning national or conference championships or seemingly an underachieving season can be any number of factors.
I'd be seriously interested in understanding how people view the Buffalo Bills winning 4 straight AFC Titles but losing each year in the Super Bowl, the Atlanta Braves of the 1990s+ with only 1 World Series title, or even Kansas and their however many consecutive Big 12 titles but only 1 National Championship over that time period? At what point does sustained excellence and being in the position to win the title get trumped by the failure to win at that level?
Jesus Christ
Fuck off