Other 7 Win Turd Rebuilding Seasons
Comments
-
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.ThomasFremont said:
This is why your wall or words posts are useless.Tequilla said: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.
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. -
Fuck perspective.Tequilla said:
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.ThomasFremont said:
This is why your wall or words posts are useless.Tequilla said: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.
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. -
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 somethingHeretoBeatmyChest said: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.
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....
-
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.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Maybe as we get older that will go away and maybe it won't.
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.GreenRiverGatorz said:
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.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Maybe as we get older that will go away and maybe it won't.
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? -
If if if if if if if
-
Win or GET THE FUCK OUT what the fuck don't you get
-
"It's hard"
Jesus Christ
Fuck off -
Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
Washington Husky football: young and rebuilding since 2004
-
But it didn't play out. Midseason you had us going at least 4-1 over our last 5 regular season games.Tequilla said: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. -
I swear you must work for some shitty county level politician...Tequilla said: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.
look at all the bullshit meaningless buzzwords and platitudes in your post (bold) and all the qualifiers and pussy hedge words (underlined)
you realize you are doing this, right? -
7-6 > 7-6 > 7-6 > 7-6, it's simple math guys.
The SRS was high because the schedule was weak as fuck. Oregon and USC sucked this year and the OOC teams were abysmal (still lost to Boise).
Edit - I get that SRS takes strength of schedule into account which is kind of the point here. UW is propped up by a blowout win over a 9 win WSU team who played their backup QB and of course they are still WSU. They had some close losses over other "high SRS" teams like Oregon and Cal, but those teams weren't anything special this year. -
Let me summarize this thread: 10 wins or GTFO NEXT YEAR. It's year 3. Good defense (fuck off SFJ), lots of returning starters, conference sucks balls. If Pete can't get it done next year, then all the SRS in the world won't save his ass.
Again, 10 wins or bonfire his ass on the 50. -
That's my biggest problem with SRS, margin of victory matters way too much.SteveInShelton said:7-6 > 7-6 > 7-6 > 7-6, it's simple math guys.
The SRS was high because the schedule was weak as fuck. Oregon and USC sucked this year and the OOC teams were abysmal (still lost to Boise).
Edit - I get that SRS takes strength of schedule into account which is kind of the point here. UW is propped up by a blowout win over a 9 win WSU team who played their backup QB and of course they are still WSU. They had some close losses over other "high SRS" teams like Oregon and Cal, but those teams weren't anything special this year.
Anyway, I am in LIPO mode at this point. I do think the team is in a better place today than when Sark left. The defense has improved dramatically, but offense and special teams still need work for the team to be truly competitive. Year three is coming up, typically the tell tale year. Barring key injuries, I really want to see them challenging for for the North Division 2016. Anything less will be a disappointment. -
Massive doog thread right here. Burn it down!
-
POTYHouhusky said:
I swear you must work for some shitty county level politician...Tequilla said: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.
look at all the bullshit meaningless buzzwords and platitudes in your post (bold) and all the qualifiers and pussy hedge words (underlined)
you realize you are doing this, right? -
I know exactly what I'm saying ... Go fuck off if you don't
-
Tequilla said:
I know exactly what I'm saying ... Go fuck off if you don't
-
A Haiku:
Potty mouths abound
Go to Rose or Fiesta
Thats all I'm asking -
Nope, wrong on all accounts.SteveInShelton said:7-6 > 7-6 > 7-6 > 7-6, it's simple math guys.
The SRS was high because the schedule was weak as fuck. Oregon and USC sucked this year and the OOC teams were abysmal (still lost to Boise).
Edit - I get that SRS takes strength of schedule into account which is kind of the point here. UW is propped up by a blowout win over a 9 win WSU team who played their backup QB and of course they are still WSU. They had some close losses over other "high SRS" teams like Oregon and Cal, but those teams weren't anything special this year.
SRS adjusts for the schedule and gives a maximum of 24 points for a win. So it is not propped up 100% by blowing out WSU or Arizona. WSU wasn't even in the top 40. Also ASU and Boise were not even in the top 50 so those losses hurt. -
4-1 in last 5 was consistent w my season long prediction of 7-6, 5-4 that included a bowl loss.FremontTroll said:
But it didn't play out. Midseason you had us going at least 4-1 over our last 5 regular season games.Tequilla said: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 since Peterson didn't meet my expected outcome, I should want him fired on the 50 yard line right? -
I have one...theknowledge said:A Haiku:
Potty mouths abound
Go to Rose or Fiesta
Thats all I'm asking
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
-
No obviously not where have I been that myopic? I just call everyone out for inconsistencies and its inconsistent for you to trumpet our "second half improvement" even though we failed to meet your midseason expectations.Tequilla said:
4-1 in last 5 was consistent w my season long prediction of 7-6, 5-4 that included a bowl loss.FremontTroll said:
But it didn't play out. Midseason you had us going at least 4-1 over our last 5 regular season games.Tequilla said: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 since Peterson didn't meet my expected outcome, I should want him fired on the 50 yard line right? -
The second half improvement isn't really up for debate IMO ... those that can't see that it was there aren't paying attention.
If the discussion moves towards whether the improvement was consistent with my expectations of the improvement, then that's a different question. I was mildly disappointed with the losses in close games to Utah and Arizona St (particularly this game) as I was looking forward to pulling out a close game that we'd lost from the first half. Then again, I wasn't surprised with what transpired.
We'll know what we have next year.
There's more reasons in my mind to be more optimistic about next year than not. I would be surprised if we didn't win 10+ games next year barring significant injuries. The biggest concerns that I have at this point is better/replacement/consistent play from the WR/TE position and how the defense replaces Littleton and Feeney. Other than that, it's just a matter of growth and development of the young players throughout the roster. Should they develop consistently with what we've seen throughout the roster over Pete's 2 years here, then next year should be a very good one. -
The 2nd half improvement is no different than the 2nd half improvement under Sark that ended in the legendary Holiday Bowl win. Then the fast start the next year and a bad finish.
It's the fucking schedule.
ASU, Stanford, and Oregon say fuck off. WSU and OSU say hi -
What the fuck did I just read?
-
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).Houhusky said:
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 somethingHeretoBeatmyChest said: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.
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....
Just total nonsense dude. You, Race, Tommy and a few others are literally the only people in the entire world who believe that.
Least returning starters in the conference. Vegas had us 4 wins. Other coaches in the conference thought we'd be terrible (read Athlon's 2015 preseason issue). Lost 5 guys to the NFL on defense. True freshman starters at QB, RB and LT. Recruiting ranking in the conference (past 4 years) of about 6th, which is probably 8th when you account for high rated guys not on the roster and guys leaving early (Stringfellow, Kelly, Miles, Williams, Shaq, Peters). Most preseason rankings I saw had us at 50 to 70.
Yeah we should have been 10-3. Stanford was 12-2 and had 7 guys first or second team all pac 12. They had 5 guys on offense including 4 on the first team. UW didn't have any guys on first or second team offense. A lot to work with? Fuck no. Gaskin was the only all conference caliber guy and he sucked against Div1 competition until about the 6th week of the season.
Now next year there will be a lot more to work with. Gaskin and Ross should be all conference, hopefully 1 OL and Browning and Daniels could get HM. There are plenty of guys on defense with a shot.
The huge improvement in SRS and all the efficiency ratings amid tons of new starters and true freshman is a sign that the team improved and developed. Not that they just showed up in spring and summer and were a top 30 team that then underachieved by not winning close games. -
This is mostly excuse making doog bullshit that I agree with, so I won't go hard on you for that... but WTF is this shit?HeretoBeatmyChest said:
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).Houhusky said:
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 somethingHeretoBeatmyChest said: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.
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....
Just total nonsense dude. You, Race, Tommy and a few others are literally the only people in the entire world who believe that.
Least returning starters in the conference. Vegas had us 4 wins. Other coaches in the conference thought we'd be terrible (read Athlon's 2015 preseason issue). Lost 5 guys to the NFL on defense. True freshman starters at QB, RB and LT. Recruiting ranking in the conference (past 4 years) of about 6th, which is probably 8th when you account for high rated guys not on the roster and guys leaving early (Stringfellow, Kelly, Miles, Williams, Shaq, Peters). Most preseason rankings I saw had us at 50 to 70.
Yeah we should have been 10-3. Stanford was 12-2 and had 7 guys first or second team all pac 12. They had 5 guys on offense including 4 on the first team. UW didn't have any guys on first or second team offense. A lot to work with? Fuck no. Gaskin was the only all conference caliber guy and he sucked against Div1 competition until about the 6th week of the season.
Now next year there will be a lot more to work with. Gaskin and Ross should be all conference, hopefully 1 OL and Browning and Daniels could get HM. There are plenty of guys on defense with a shot.
The huge improvement in SRS and all the efficiency ratings amid tons of new starters and true freshman is a sign that the team improved and developed. Not that they just showed up in spring and summer and were a top 30 team that then underachieved by not winning close games.
The truth is he was always our best RB and the fact that we didn't have him ahead of DWarsh every game following Sac State is inexcusable. No one could make the argument that DWarsh earned to be in front of him after Sac State.
Do people just think he was magically ready to get 130+ vs. USC and Oregon?
Fuck to the fuck no. Football coaches are just fucking stupid and we should've started him game 1 vs. Boise like we did with Jakey. I suppose you could excuse BSU (I don't), but not starting him after he looked like Tiki Barber against Sac State was FS.
No matter how much the DWoogs wanted to hold onto the 'home run hitter' bullshit; DWarsh cost us the game vs. Utah and starting Gaskin obviously showed over the course of the season he was clearly our best back. -
IMO the biggest factor behind Gaskin taking off the 2nd half of the season was the growth of the OL over the same period. Once Gaskin gets a hint of a crease, away he goes. Early in the season, there wasn't even a hint of a crease.
-
Well after tearing up Sac St, Gaskin sucked against Utah St when they gave him the bulk of the carries and then had only 5/16 against Cal while DW tore them up. Gaskin was having more success against USC so they leaned on him from that point on. And DW was working against Arizona and Utah until the two turnovers.Dennis_DeYoung said:
This is mostly excuse making doog bullshit that I agree with, so I won't go hard on you for that... but WTF is this shit?HeretoBeatmyChest said:
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).Houhusky said:
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 somethingHeretoBeatmyChest said: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.
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....
Just total nonsense dude. You, Race, Tommy and a few others are literally the only people in the entire world who believe that.
Least returning starters in the conference. Vegas had us 4 wins. Other coaches in the conference thought we'd be terrible (read Athlon's 2015 preseason issue). Lost 5 guys to the NFL on defense. True freshman starters at QB, RB and LT. Recruiting ranking in the conference (past 4 years) of about 6th, which is probably 8th when you account for high rated guys not on the roster and guys leaving early (Stringfellow, Kelly, Miles, Williams, Shaq, Peters). Most preseason rankings I saw had us at 50 to 70.
Yeah we should have been 10-3. Stanford was 12-2 and had 7 guys first or second team all pac 12. They had 5 guys on offense including 4 on the first team. UW didn't have any guys on first or second team offense. A lot to work with? Fuck no. Gaskin was the only all conference caliber guy and he sucked against Div1 competition until about the 6th week of the season.
Now next year there will be a lot more to work with. Gaskin and Ross should be all conference, hopefully 1 OL and Browning and Daniels could get HM. There are plenty of guys on defense with a shot.
The huge improvement in SRS and all the efficiency ratings amid tons of new starters and true freshman is a sign that the team improved and developed. Not that they just showed up in spring and summer and were a top 30 team that then underachieved by not winning close games.
The truth is he was always our best RB and the fact that we didn't have him ahead of DWarsh every game following Sac State is inexcusable. No one could make the argument that DWarsh earned to be in front of him after Sac State.
Do people just think he was magically ready to get 130+ vs. USC and Oregon?
Fuck to the fuck no. Football coaches are just fucking stupid and we should've started him game 1 vs. Boise like we did with Jakey. I suppose you could excuse BSU (I don't), but not starting him after he looked like Tiki Barber against Sac State was FS.
No matter how much the DWoogs wanted to hold onto the 'home run hitter' bullshit; DWarsh cost us the game vs. Utah and starting Gaskin obviously showed over the course of the season he was clearly our best back.
In retrospect its entirely a knee jerk reaction to say we would have beat Utah St and Arizona without DW and we should have ran Gaskin the entire season. They went with the hot hand early on. After Sac St they featured Gaskin the next two games and he didn't do shit while DW tore up Cal and had 2 long receiving TD's against Utah St.
The reality was the offense needed DW until Browning and Gaskin got comfortable.
Looking back I think one could argue DW also cost us the Cal game. Dropped the go ahead TD in the 4th quarter and prior to that fumbled in Cal territory.
