Are we ever going to win 10 games?
Comments
-
We'll be kicking ourselves for not hiring Chip Kelly.
-
Yes "us."FremontTroll said:
Who is "they"? " Us"?HuskyJW said:
I didn't find a pattern. They kick the shit out of us every year. It's a fact.FremontTroll said:
People love finding patterns. It's ingrained in our psychology.HuskyJW said:
I understand this....but I don't think we've beaten ASU since 2000. I don't care if they suck or not. Oregon is a loss until proven otherwise. Utah sucks but that is a Peterman fuck up game if I have ever seen one.FremontTroll said:
ASU sucks, Utah sucks, Oregon sucks, USC is a bunch of underachieving prima donnas.HuskyJW said:Let's go through the games....wins in boldRutgers, Idaho, Portland State, Stanford, Oregon State, USC and Arizona State.
They are going to win 5 road games? No fing way.
Here are the road games....wins in bold.
Arizona, Oregon, Utah, Cal, WSU
I see 8 wins. They have to beat Utah on the road and either USC or Arizona State at home to get to 10.
I don't see it.
There isn't a single team on the schedule that we will be big underdogs to. Stanford will likely be the best team on the schedule but we get them at home.
We lose one great player from a team that finished top 15 in the nation in SRS. The last time we were in a similar situation of such little talent graduating was 2012-2013 and that 2013 team could have won the conference with better coaching and a TE that gave a fuck (and we were way better in 2015 than 2012 according to SRS.)
If we have a real coaching staff this time we will win 10 games AT MINIMUM next year.
Rick or Ty losing to ASU has nothing to do with 2016.
Heck CP losing to them in 2014 has little to do with it. Almost all the starters on both sides in that game will be gone.
It sucks for the fans but there is no psychological wall preventing us from beating ASU. It just hasn't happened.
We will be big favorites in that game.
If I flip a quarter and it comes up tails 10 in a row is it more likely to be tails on the 11th flip?
I know I invest more emotionally than some of the d-bags. -
The point is there is nothing in common among all those losses other than the fans and the names on the jerseys.HuskyJW said:
Yes "us."FremontTroll said:
Who is "they"? " Us"?HuskyJW said:
I didn't find a pattern. They kick the shit out of us every year. It's a fact.FremontTroll said:
People love finding patterns. It's ingrained in our psychology.HuskyJW said:
I understand this....but I don't think we've beaten ASU since 2000. I don't care if they suck or not. Oregon is a loss until proven otherwise. Utah sucks but that is a Peterman fuck up game if I have ever seen one.FremontTroll said:
ASU sucks, Utah sucks, Oregon sucks, USC is a bunch of underachieving prima donnas.HuskyJW said:Let's go through the games....wins in boldRutgers, Idaho, Portland State, Stanford, Oregon State, USC and Arizona State.
They are going to win 5 road games? No fing way.
Here are the road games....wins in bold.
Arizona, Oregon, Utah, Cal, WSU
I see 8 wins. They have to beat Utah on the road and either USC or Arizona State at home to get to 10.
I don't see it.
There isn't a single team on the schedule that we will be big underdogs to. Stanford will likely be the best team on the schedule but we get them at home.
We lose one great player from a team that finished top 15 in the nation in SRS. The last time we were in a similar situation of such little talent graduating was 2012-2013 and that 2013 team could have won the conference with better coaching and a TE that gave a fuck (and we were way better in 2015 than 2012 according to SRS.)
If we have a real coaching staff this time we will win 10 games AT MINIMUM next year.
Rick or Ty losing to ASU has nothing to do with 2016.
Heck CP losing to them in 2014 has little to do with it. Almost all the starters on both sides in that game will be gone.
It sucks for the fans but there is no psychological wall preventing us from beating ASU. It just hasn't happened.
We will be big favorites in that game.
If I flip a quarter and it comes up tails 10 in a row is it more likely to be tails on the 11th flip?
I know I invest more emotionally than some of the d-bags.
So us is UW fans. Them is ASU fans. Nobody on either team or staff GAF about this streak and it doesn't affect the game planning in any way. -
Chip still hasn't had his presser so there is hope you guysPurpleJ said:We'll be kicking ourselves for not hiring Chip Kelly.
-
Just cuz you couldn't do it in 2014 with that extra game and murderers row of a schedule, doesn't mean you won't do it in say....2016.
just channeling my inner @TeqFS.
-
Is the win against 6-loss USC Pete's sig win????pat_hm said:Seriously. It's been what, 16 years?
Petersen has one signature win in 2 years.
The program has less than five signature wins since 2000, maybe one of them was on the road.
No accountability.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Or is it the win against 4- loss WSU???
Axing for a friend. -
It's the loss @ vs Oregon in '15 (moral win)salemcoog said:
Is the win against 6-loss USC Pete's sig win????pat_hm said:Seriously. It's been what, 16 years?
Petersen has one signature win in 2 years.
The program has less than five signature wins since 2000, maybe one of them was on the road.
No accountability.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Or is it the win against 4- loss WSU???
Axing for a friend.
script much? -
The Troy Utes, battered wife syndrome (zeros) and The Cristan Grey McCafferies are a L.
9-3 plus the shit bowl. 10-3 -
Listen Fags......2016 will be a 11-2 year
-
PAC is in major transition next year ... it's all sitting there for the Dawgs to have a strong year.
I figure that one way or another we'll split the Stanford/Oregon back to back and we'll be riding too high and full of just enough confidence to piss away one of the USC/Arizona St games (see 1990 piss job against UCLA).
This team is one year away IMO from being on the national stage ... but it's good enough to win the North and maybe conference next year. -
"maybe" the conference.Tequilla said:PAC is in major transition next year ... it's all sitting there for the Dawgs to have a strong year.
I figure that one way or another we'll split the Stanford/Oregon back to back and we'll be riding too high and full of just enough confidence to piss away one of the USC/Arizona St games (see 1990 piss job against UCLA).
This team is one year away IMO from being on the national stage ... but it's good enough to win the North and maybe conference next year.
How about maybe 9 games, when was the last time UW was even relevant in November?
-
@Tequila: You used the terms "figure" and "maybe." Grab your armor and shield. J already dropped the Chippy bomb, so you know what's coming, don't you?
-
I think you'll see at least 10-3 this year.pat_hm said:Seriously. It's been what, 16 years?
Petersen has one signature win in 2 years.
The program has less than five signature wins since 2000, maybe one of them was on the road.
No accountability.
I'll believe it when I see it.
I remember jawing on DM back in 2003/4 with Doogs who were pawsitive that Cal would shit the bed in 2004 because "Cal hasn't had three straight winning seasons in over 50 years so they never will again." Cal won 10 that year and the DM mantra quickly turned to "We're going to steal you're coach."
Just because it hasn't happened in 16 years doesn't mean shit right now. UW has had crap coaches for too long. It has a good one now. -
We're essentially 8 months away from the season at this point when you factor in the non conference dreckfest. Saying anything in absolutes is FS. But then again, there are fucktards that take shit that I say, copy it, and then bring it back up years from now. So whatever.
We will win 10 games again.
It will happen in the near future.
I'd put the O/U number on UW wins next year at 9.5. I expect Vegas to be at 9. Anything less would be an easy buy on the Over IMO.
There is still a lot of growth that this program needs to do in proving that it can win close games. I expect growth here in 2016 but there will still be a few instances where they learn some hard lessons.
BTW and completely off topic, I got a laugh this morning when reading an article about the struggles of my Dallas Stars and the recent struggles of defending Art Ross Trophy Winner (leading point getter for those not up to date on NHL Trophy meanings), Stars Captain Jamie Benn. The article talked about how when the team or himself is struggling, one of his biggest problems is that he tries too hard. When asked about it his response was "I hate to lose."
The UW roster is starting to be built on a bunch of guys that you get the impression that they don't like to lose. I loved Browning's responses to some of the losses last year about being pissed. The roster as a whole will grow in this regard over the offseason. But there will be a few setbacks this year. It's part of the process and learning what it takes to win at a high level. -
10 wins in the best conference in the country is not easy. This team needs a lot of help, exceptional coaching and young players to step up to achieve lofty goals such as this.
I think 10 wins is POSSIBLE, but in no buttfuckered way should be expected. This is an extremely young team, at every key position. If they go 9-4 it will be a fine achievement, and springboard to Pete's 4th year and EXPECTED 10-win season. At that point accountibility is on the table.
Some dipshit newfish poster said Pete has had 1 signature win in 2 years thus he cant coach. Ill expect that number to grow exponentially next year I f 10 wins isn't achieved. Better expect 9 now to avoid chaos.
10 wins next year, in this conference, with Sarks Junk, and true sophomores littered throughout the starting 22 will be coach-of-the-year material...for the third time in Petersens masterful coaching career. -
El. Oh. Fucking El.puppylove_sugarsteel said:10 wins in the best conference in the country is not easy. This team needs a lot of help, exceptional coaching and young players to step up to achieve lofty goals such as this.
-
Sorry but if you haven't won a national title in over a decade you are not the best conference. Cased closed. End of discussionpuppylove_sugarsteel said:10 wins in the best conference in the country is not easy. This team needs a lot of help, exceptional coaching and young players to step up to achieve lofty goals such as this.
I think 10 wins is POSSIBLE, but in no buttfuckered way should be expected. This is an extremely young team, at every key position. If they go 9-4 it will be a fine achievement, and springboard to Pete's 4th year and EXPECTED 10-win season. At that point accountibility is on the table.
Some dipshit newfish poster said Pete has had 1 signature win in 2 years thus he cant coach. Ill expect that number to grow exponentially next year I f 10 wins isn't achieved. Better expect 9 now to avoid chaos.
10 wins next year, in this conference, with Sarks Junk, and true sophomores littered throughout the starting 22 will be coach-of-the-year material...for the third time in Petersens masterful coaching career. -
I needs screenshots, now I has themTequilla said:PAC is in major transition next year ... it's all sitting there for the Dawgs to have a strong year.
I figure that one way or another we'll split the Stanford/Oregon back to back and we'll be riding too high and full of just enough confidence to piss away one of the USC/Arizona St games (see 1990 piss job against UCLA).
This team is one year away IMO from being on the national stage ... but it's good enough to win the North and maybe conference next year. -
puppylove_sugarsteel said:
10 wins in the best conference in the country is not easy. This team needs a lot of help, exceptional coaching and young players to step up to achieve lofty goals such as this.
I think 10 wins is POSSIBLE, but in no buttfuckered way should be expected. This is an extremely young team, at every key position. If they go 9-4 it will be a fine achievement, and springboard to Pete's 4th year and EXPECTED 10-win season. At that point accountibility is on the table.
Some dipshit newfish poster said Pete has had 1 signature win in 2 years thus he cant coach. Ill expect that number to grow exponentially next year I f 10 wins isn't achieved. Better expect 9 now to avoid chaos.
10 wins next year, in this conference, with Sarks Junk, and true sophomores littered throughout the starting 22 will be coach-of-the-year material...for the third time in Petersens masterful coaching career.
The facts agree with Puppy -
What a fucking shitty conference ... they are only .500 in games played within their own conference. Media bias I tell you.Baseman said:puppylove_sugarsteel said:10 wins in the best conference in the country is not easy. This team needs a lot of help, exceptional coaching and young players to step up to achieve lofty goals such as this.
I think 10 wins is POSSIBLE, but in no buttfuckered way should be expected. This is an extremely young team, at every key position. If they go 9-4 it will be a fine achievement, and springboard to Pete's 4th year and EXPECTED 10-win season. At that point accountibility is on the table.
Some dipshit newfish poster said Pete has had 1 signature win in 2 years thus he cant coach. Ill expect that number to grow exponentially next year I f 10 wins isn't achieved. Better expect 9 now to avoid chaos.
10 wins next year, in this conference, with Sarks Junk, and true sophomores littered throughout the starting 22 will be coach-of-the-year material...for the third time in Petersens masterful coaching career.
The facts agree with Puppy -
They need to win the North at a minimum THIS coming year.
All this "well they COULD win it this year but probably next year because of x, y, and z"
is
for
fucking
faggots.
-
We just need more time for every team in the Pac 12 to have a plane crash so we can really SHINE!
-
Stanford- W
LOLILOLOLOLOLOLOLLLIKILILILOLOOOLOLLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -
Pete has to win 10 games or what...? He should be fired? He's not a championship coach? He sucks?
Mark Dantonio only won 6 his third year. Then he won 3 conference titles the following 6 years. Art Briles was 7-6 his 3rd year and is 50-19 since. Fuck off with your fucking absolutes. Pete will be the coach here a long time and thats a good thing. He's doing a good job and will have success in the future.
We need to win 10 games because it would help push recruiting up a notch. Current recruiting + Pete's program is enough for us to win a league title or two in the next 10 years. We are good enough to compete for a conference title at this point (2016 and future). But if we want to be a national program again or win several titles in a short span we need to get better players.
And its not a huge difference we are talking about. Its basically being good enough to get that extra 4-5 star guy every year. If UW was 10-3 and 10-3 the past two years we get Long and maybe Eason. Maybe we steal a big time guy out of Cali like Tagaloa, Asiasi or Juarez. Over 3-4 years that shit adds up. Its a handful of guys. Get Kongbo and I really like the current class. But again, if we had enough past success we could have gotten probably 2 more big time guys.
Where would the difference be on the current roster? This is Pete's 3rd class. If he had just gotten 1 blue chip WR and 1 blue chip safety (in addition to Budda) in his first 2 classes, our chances to win the north would be 19% higher. -
DPOTD
-
Our first the throw away season is over post of 2016HeretoBeatmyChest said:Pete has to win 10 games or what...? He should be fired? He's not a championship coach? He sucks?
Mark Dantonio only won 6 his third year. Then he won 3 conference titles the following 6 years. Art Briles was 7-6 his 3rd year and is 50-19 since. Fuck off with your fucking absolutes. Pete will be the coach here a long time and thats a good thing. He's doing a good job and will have success in the future.
We need to win 10 games because it would help push recruiting up a notch. Current recruiting + Pete's program is enough for us to win a league title or two in the next 10 years. We are good enough to compete for a conference title at this point (2016 and future). But if we want to be a national program again or win several titles in a short span we need to get better players.
And its not a huge difference we are talking about. Its basically being good enough to get that extra 4-5 star guy every year. If UW was 10-3 and 10-3 the past two years we get Long and maybe Eason. Maybe we steal a big time guy out of Cali like Tagaloa, Asiasi or Juarez. Over 3-4 years that shit adds up. Its a handful of guys. Get Kongbo and I really like the current class. But again, if we had enough past success we could have gotten probably 2 more big time guys.
Where would the difference be on the current roster? This is Pete's 3rd class. If he had just gotten 1 blue chip WR and 1 blue chip safety (in addition to Budda) in his first 2 classes, our chances to win the north would be 19% higher.
WOOF -
If UW can't win 10 games with the easiest schedule in the galaxy next year, it will never happen.
-
Next question: Would you rather beat Oregon and win 9 games or lose to Oregon and win 10?
