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....
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).
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?
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.
Pretty good. Imagination is lacking, but I think I'm starting to get your point. You're frustrated. Unlike you though, I hold out a glimmer of hope for our chances next year to be a true player for the North and the Pac title. I give it said year to flash, if not then burn it down......again.
Seven wins next year Would permanently take down My budding sweat tent
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.
2013: 9-4 (5-4 in confrence) 2014: 8-6 (5-4 in confrence ) 2015: 7-6 (4-5 in confrence)
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....
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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
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....
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).
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?
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.
Speaking of that....did you ever find a new TV?
Honest to god, no. It's still broke. I've been 'busy'.
Fuck. At this point, I'm glad the dawgs didn't win the Cactus Bowl last year. If they had I'd never hear the end of it from all the shrill cunts screaming and shitting their pants over a 2 game drop from 9-5 to 7-6! Pete wouldn't just suck. He'd be as bad or worse than Sark, who won 9 two years before! Don't deny it CP haters. That's your logic.
Fuck. At this point, I'm glad the dawgs didn't win the Cactus Bowl last year. If they had I'd never hear the end of it from all the shrill cunts screaming and shitting their pants over a 2 game drop from 9-5 to 7-6! Pete wouldn't just suck. He'd be as bad or worse than Sark, who won 9 two years before! Don't deny it CP haters. That's your logic.
Only a doog would prefer a loss over a win.
That's your logic.
Now go do us all a favor and kill yourself.
And if it's not too much, can I get a shout out in the suicide letter?
Jim Tressell 2001, 7-5, #28 SRS. (Inherited #7 team previous 4 years) Won NC next season. Pete Carroll 2001, 6-6, #26 SRS. (Inherited #23 team previous 4 years) #1 SRS in next season, won NC year after. Would have won NC in current system. Bob Stoops 1999, 7-5, #19 SRS. (Inherited #70 team previous 4 years) Won NC next season. Nick Saban 2007, 7-6, #27 SRS. (Inherited #27 team previous 4 years) #1 late next season, loss in SEC champ kept them out of NC game. Won NC next year. Jeff Tedford 2002, 7-5, #26 SRS. One completion away from playing in NC game two seasons later.
Chris Petersen 2015, 7-6, #26 SRS. Inherited #35 team previous 4 years.
One distinction is for those four guys (not Tedford) it was their first season while for Petersen this was his second season. Given the transition, major turnover and rebuilding that had to be done, year 2 was somewhat like a first season. Tedford's second year was a similar rebuilding job as the team he inherited had many seniors.
Not only were we #26 in SRS but in the #23 in ESPN's efficiency and #20 in FEI. I think the S&P+ rating is unusually high and I place more emphasis on FEI as that has more to do with scoring whereas S&P+ focuses on yards.
The same people who hate the metrics now were using them several years ago to debunk Sark's 7-6 teams as good or improved teams.
I know I'm late to the party on this one, but Tedford's 7-5 season in 2002 was his first season. Cal went 8-6 his second season, 2003, starting off 3-5 before finishing 5-1 (one of those last five victories was an absolute plunger raping of UW, 54-7).
You are right. At first I had his 2nd season up there but changed it then forgot. I see some similarity b/w his year 2 and Pete's year 2 as both had to further rebuild after having experienced teams in year 1.
Fuck. At this point, I'm glad the dawgs didn't win the Cactus Bowl last year. If they had I'd never hear the end of it from all the shrill cunts screaming and shitting their pants over a 2 game drop from 9-5 to 7-6! Pete wouldn't just suck. He'd be as bad or worse than Sark, who won 9 two years before! Don't deny it CP haters. That's your logic.
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.
2013: 9-4 (5-4 in confrence) 2014: 8-6 (5-4 in confrence ) 2015: 7-6 (4-5 in confrence)
And Baseman can't spell conference, despite three efforts.
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.
2013: 9-4 (5-4 in confrence) 2014: 8-6 (5-4 in confrence ) 2015: 7-6 (4-5 in confrence)
And Baseman can't spell conference, despite three efforts.
Spoken like a future UW AD. 7-6 , 4-5 #1.5 in metrics.
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.
2013: 9-4 (5-4 in confrence) 2014: 8-6 (5-4 in confrence ) 2015: 7-6 (4-5 in confrence)
And Baseman can't spell conference, despite three efforts.
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.
2013: 9-4 (5-4 in confrence) 2014: 8-6 (5-4 in confrence ) 2015: 7-6 (4-5 in confrence)
It was 4-5 in conference in 2014. Peterman has never had a winning conference record here.
But the SRS is high and the progress doesn't show up on the scoreboard.
Comments
Seven wins next year
Would permanently take down
My budding sweat tent
Eight and nine might too but they just don't fit.
2013: 9-4 (5-4 in confrence)
2014: 8-6 (5-4 in confrence )
2015: 7-6 (4-5 in confrence)
That's your logic.
Now go do us all a favor and kill yourself.
And if it's not too much, can I get a shout out in the suicide letter?
#FREEPUB
FYI: Your threesomes with J and Race doesn't make you friends. Just fags.
You are right. At first I had his 2nd season up there but changed it then forgot. I see some similarity b/w his year 2 and Pete's year 2 as both had to further rebuild after having experienced teams in year 1.
Losers lose
But the SRS is high and the progress doesn't show up on the scoreboard.