We'll surely be able to turn the poor performance of our offense around after this class... just hear me out!!!
We got one decent OL, a crappy OL to make sure the decent one didn't decommit, a short, white tailback, the second best TE in Oregon who didn't play this year because of a back injury, a hyphen-name QB no one wanted and two shit-stains at WR.
In 4-5 years our O is going to beast people!
On the season Washington was 9th in points scored in the conference. The inexperienced O-line and true freshmen skill guys needed the first half of the season to gel. The Huskies averaged 38 points a game over the last 6 games of the season which was good for 4th best and within 1.5 and 3 points of second and third.
For a good comparison lets use UCLA. They were @ 32.2 for the season a the Dawgs were 30.6. However the last 6 games they averaged only 28 points a game to the Huskies 38 points a game.
I fully expect the Huskies to be in the top 4 teams in the Pac-12 for offense next season. Add to that our #1 ranked defense which should not be any worse than first or second in the Pac and our team is poised for a great 2016.
The great thing about ending every season with Oregon State, Wazzu, and a shit tier bowl is it really spring boards are young and improving Dawgs towards the offseason natty.
The bad thing about playing Oregon and Stanford by October is TSIO.
UW: a championship level PAC-12 RB, a bottom division PAC-12 OL, and a Big Sky receiving corp
A bottom division O-line??? The same unit that started the season with 18 total starts among them, the majority of those starts belonging to 1 guy. The same unit that saw a true freshman left tackle take over his position a few games in? The same unit that led to a 10 point bump in points scored per game over the last 6 games of the season? The same unit that gelled and will come into 2016 young but experienced and ripping aholes open on opposing D lines this year? Doubt them. They will be the most improved unit on the field in 2016.
And receivers? Maybe Coach Pete has a specific vision for his offense and values fast play makers that can play slot, out of the backfield and traditional route running over a group of fast tall receivers. I will admit one would be very nice and help our offense. But since you are not a coach for the team you have no idea how they assign value to receivers and what they want for their offensive schemes. They went after Fuller early on for a reason. He wasnt a plan B or C guy. Petersen runs a complex offense. That is another reason the team struggled early on with all those true freshmen learning his schemes. The offense uses a lot of movement and is more complex than throwing a lob bal to a tall receiver to go up and get.
Comments