Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Just Passing Along What I'm Hearing (NERD EDITION)
Comments
-
Yeah, but still. Down at half to Cal, I didn't want to hear that shit. Everyone was blaming Smith that day, but it was cool because Pete did a great job with the defense. It was the coordinator where we failed and the coach where we succeeded. Metrics pointing up.dnc said:
Mostly. You actually started trolling at halftime in the Cal game thread response to everyone who said how lucky we were that our defense showed up in the first half since our offense tried to put us down by 50.PurpleJ said:
We had a good defense last year. I've admitted it. Not great. Good. I started trolling Chest and a few others last year when they told me that advanced metrics said our defense was GREAT after we lost at home to Cal.Tequilla said:
If you are holding teams to 18-19 points a game in today's world of college football, you are going to win a lot of football games.PurpleJ said:I always found it interesting how metrics said we had a GREAT defense last year. Well, we still went 7-6 so that right there is an argument that the coach sucks and isn't who we thought.
We lost a number of close games last year due to youth on offense, lack of outside playmakers on offense, and Smith sucking for large portions of the season.
The defense wasn't the problem.
The point is that if you can't do better than 4-5 in conference with that defense, you might have the wrong coach. -
When has that happened in the last 15 years?salemcoog said:
I think you're forgetting how young these Huskies are.Tequilla said:
I'm not surprised that you're surprised since you are the ultimate nega doog.RoadDawg55 said:Damn. Can't lie, I'm surprised.
You have to be carrying a lot of scar tissue and pessimism to not see where this team has a chance to be really good next year.
And how they inevitably shit the bed when any expectations of contention are raised. -
Wait...so we're playing 12.4 games this season?
-
With all due respect, you're way off base here in your conclusionsPurpleJ said:
We had a good defense last year. I've admitted it. Not great. Good. I started trolling Chest and a few others last year when they told me that advanced metrics said our defense was GREAT after we lost at home to Cal.Tequilla said:
If you are holding teams to 18-19 points a game in today's world of college football, you are going to win a lot of football games.PurpleJ said:I always found it interesting how metrics said we had a GREAT defense last year. Well, we still went 7-6 so that right there is an argument that the coach sucks and isn't who we thought.
We lost a number of close games last year due to youth on offense, lack of outside playmakers on offense, and Smith sucking for large portions of the season.
The defense wasn't the problem.
The point is that if you can't do better than 4-5 in conference with that defense, you might have the wrong coach. -
Offense fucked the defense against CalThomasFremont said:
Cal scored 30Tequilla said:
If you are holding teams to 18-19 points a game in today's world of college football, you are going to win a lot of football games.PurpleJ said:I always found it interesting how metrics said we had a GREAT defense last year. Well, we still went 7-6 so that right there is an argument that the coach sucks and isn't who we thought.
We lost a number of close games last year due to youth on offense, lack of outside playmakers on offense, and Smith sucking for large portions of the season.
The defense wasn't the problem.
Oregon scored 26
Stanford scored 31
Utah scored 34
Fucking USM scored 31
Shutting down shitty teams to lower the average isn't that impressive.
And yes, I know some of those points are on the offense.
Oregon hit a number of chuck and duck plays against us ... otherwise we controlled a large portion of the game
Stanford got that total on us with a backup QB starting for us that couldn't move the football
Utah may have been the one game where I think you can look back and say that the defense wasn't very good
There were a number of injury issues in the secondary of the Fried Oreo bowl ... I take that game with a bit of a grain of salt -
the O performance against cal was more of a disgrace than anything i've seen in 5+ years. very proud of our* D holding as best they could despite being given a short field against a good college qb about 700 times. fuck that game. come to think of it, fuck this staff except kawasaki
-
Things people say if they didn't have a logical counterargument.Tequilla said:
With all due respect, you're way off base here in your conclusionsPurpleJ said:
We had a good defense last year. I've admitted it. Not great. Good. I started trolling Chest and a few others last year when they told me that advanced metrics said our defense was GREAT after we lost at home to Cal.Tequilla said:
If you are holding teams to 18-19 points a game in today's world of college football, you are going to win a lot of football games.PurpleJ said:I always found it interesting how metrics said we had a GREAT defense last year. Well, we still went 7-6 so that right there is an argument that the coach sucks and isn't who we thought.
We lost a number of close games last year due to youth on offense, lack of outside playmakers on offense, and Smith sucking for large portions of the season.
The defense wasn't the problem.
The point is that if you can't do better than 4-5 in conference with that defense, you might have the wrong coach.
-
and LakeGladstone said:the O performance against cal was more of a disgrace than anything i've seen in 5+ years. very proud of our* D holding as best they could despite being given a short field against a good college qb about 700 times. fuck that game. come to think of it, fuck this staff except kawasaki
-
Your forgetting that Cal's defense was dominate last yearGladstone said:the O performance against cal was more of a disgrace than anything i've seen in 5+ years. very proud of our* D holding as best they could despite being given a short field against a good college qb about 700 times. fuck that game. come to think of it, fuck this staff except kawasaki
-
You over inflate the team every single year. I'll stand by my 8-4 prediction.Tequilla said:
I'm not surprised that you're surprised since you are the ultimate nega doog.RoadDawg55 said:Damn. Can't lie, I'm surprised.
You have to be carrying a lot of scar tissue and pessimism to not see where this team has a chance to be really good next year.
I see why the team could be good. I like a lot of the players. I also see how we could be a metrics darling. -
At least nobody can say the metrics or Vegas only predicted 5 wins. Dumbest argument of all time. Sark hit most of the Vegas expectations as well when he was at UW.
-
CHRISTTequilla said:
Offense fucked the defense against CalThomasFremont said:
Cal scored 30Tequilla said:
If you are holding teams to 18-19 points a game in today's world of college football, you are going to win a lot of football games.PurpleJ said:I always found it interesting how metrics said we had a GREAT defense last year. Well, we still went 7-6 so that right there is an argument that the coach sucks and isn't who we thought.
We lost a number of close games last year due to youth on offense, lack of outside playmakers on offense, and Smith sucking for large portions of the season.
The defense wasn't the problem.
Oregon scored 26
Stanford scored 31
Utah scored 34
Fucking USM scored 31
Shutting down shitty teams to lower the average isn't that impressive.
And yes, I know some of those points are on the offense.
Oregon hit a number of chuck and duck plays against us ... otherwise we controlled a large portion of the game
Stanford got that total on us with a backup QB starting for us that couldn't move the football
Utah may have been the one game where I think you can look back and say that the defense wasn't very good
There were a number of injury issues in the secondary of the Fried Oreo bowl ... I take that game with a bit of a grain of salt -
Oh shit. Rose bowl and nattys.....
-
How many nattys for UW LeBron...?
-
You are confusing me being nice with not having a sound counterargument ...PurpleJ said:
Things people say if they didn't have a logical counterargument.Tequilla said:
With all due respect, you're way off base here in your conclusionsPurpleJ said:
We had a good defense last year. I've admitted it. Not great. Good. I started trolling Chest and a few others last year when they told me that advanced metrics said our defense was GREAT after we lost at home to Cal.Tequilla said:
If you are holding teams to 18-19 points a game in today's world of college football, you are going to win a lot of football games.PurpleJ said:I always found it interesting how metrics said we had a GREAT defense last year. Well, we still went 7-6 so that right there is an argument that the coach sucks and isn't who we thought.
We lost a number of close games last year due to youth on offense, lack of outside playmakers on offense, and Smith sucking for large portions of the season.
The defense wasn't the problem.
The point is that if you can't do better than 4-5 in conference with that defense, you might have the wrong coach.
I don't feel like going into a TL, DR taking the gloves off type of response to how idiotic your position is ...
And I didn't really feel like going down the road of saying that based on your "experience" that you didn't have a clue what you were talking about ...
Happy now? -
I don't know why you would take the gloves off either, considering that the record so far supports my pessimism. By all means, let it play out. But I'm right. The point is Pete hasn't done dick here and he needs to.
-
We have to win big games before we're anything more than one of the best 3-4 loss teams in the country.RoadDawg55 said:
You over inflate the team every single year. I'll stand by my 8-4 prediction.Tequilla said:
I'm not surprised that you're surprised since you are the ultimate nega doog.RoadDawg55 said:Damn. Can't lie, I'm surprised.
You have to be carrying a lot of scar tissue and pessimism to not see where this team has a chance to be really good next year.
I see why the team could be good. I like a lot of the players. I also see how we could be a metrics darling.
That being said, because I've seen the parallels with TCU, before the 2014 season I stated (before anybody was even thinking of this) that if TCU got competent QB play that they had a really good chance to win the Big 12. Before last year, before the season even started, I said that the one game that scared the shit out of me on the schedule was the game at Oklahoma State.
I've said that I'd be really surprised if this team finished 9-3 or worse this year barring a major injury. I'm not going to say that everybody should be fired if that happens because there's a lot of different ways that you can end up at that record. Before the season last year if you told me that TCU would be 10-2 and playing in the Alamo Bowl I would have said that would have been a pretty bad year. Then you start factoring in all the injuries, etc. and at the end of the year I was probably more encouraged about the direction of the program going forward than at any other time. -
8-4. Unless something really weird happens.
-
Shit prediction. Shit posterDennis_DeYoung said:8-4. Unless something really weird happens.
-
Well Pete cant coach, he's a WAC coach ,and UW is medoicre so dont get too excited... right nerds?.
-
You are the leading proponent of UW sucking for at least 2 more years so I guess you agree with the above assessment.puppylove_sugarsteel said:Well Pete cant coach, he's a WAC coach ,and UW is medoicre so dont get too excited... right nerds?.
-
Here is the deal. WE have the talent to win this year, no question. But because I am a Husky fan I will not believe it until I actually see tangible evidence that WE are there.
And I am saying that as one of the leading offseason natty doogs on this site. -
The division or at least 7-2 are fair expectations. Like Puppy, I do believe there's a good likelihood of these things happening. Like a lot of you noids, I have the dread of the last 12 yrs in the back of my head.PurpleJ said:I always found it interesting how metrics said we had a GREAT defense last year. Well, we still went 7-6 so that right there is an argument that the coach sucks and isn't who we thought.
I'm staying pessimistic because Pete hasn't accomplished anything yet and it's the way he lost some of those games. Not encouraging, but I'm not saying he should be gone yet. I'll give him this year, but he better win the division. -
FtfyTequilla said:
Offense fucked the defense against Cal so we lostThomasFremont said:
Cal scored 30Tequilla said:
If you are holding teams to 18-19 points a game in today's world of college football, you are going to win a lot of football games.PurpleJ said:I always found it interesting how metrics said we had a GREAT defense last year. Well, we still went 7-6 so that right there is an argument that the coach sucks and isn't who we thought.
We lost a number of close games last year due to youth on offense, lack of outside playmakers on offense, and Smith sucking for large portions of the season.
The defense wasn't the problem.
Oregon scored 26
Stanford scored 31
Utah scored 34
Fucking USM scored 31
Shutting down shitty teams to lower the average isn't that impressive.
And yes, I know some of those points are on the offense.
Oregon hit a number of chuck and duck plays against us ... otherwise we controlled a large portion of the game but we still lost anyways
Stanford got that total on us with a backup QB starting for us that couldn't move the football and we lost
Utah may have been the one game where I think you can look back and say that the defense wasn't very good and we lost that game too
There were a number of injury issues in the secondary of the Fried Oreo bowl ... I take that game with a Salt lick
-
A.K.A. When you're a real forecaster like myself or Sam Hinkie, you just tend to see things that the rest of the rabble doesn't. You can look beneath the surface of getting fucking embarrassed by faggot Pac 12 teams and see the improvement and process playing out.Tequilla said:
You are confusing me being nice with not having a sound counterargument ...PurpleJ said:
Things people say if they didn't have a logical counterargument.Tequilla said:
With all due respect, you're way off base here in your conclusionsPurpleJ said:
We had a good defense last year. I've admitted it. Not great. Good. I started trolling Chest and a few others last year when they told me that advanced metrics said our defense was GREAT after we lost at home to Cal.Tequilla said:
If you are holding teams to 18-19 points a game in today's world of college football, you are going to win a lot of football games.PurpleJ said:I always found it interesting how metrics said we had a GREAT defense last year. Well, we still went 7-6 so that right there is an argument that the coach sucks and isn't who we thought.
We lost a number of close games last year due to youth on offense, lack of outside playmakers on offense, and Smith sucking for large portions of the season.
The defense wasn't the problem.
The point is that if you can't do better than 4-5 in conference with that defense, you might have the wrong coach.
I don't feel like going into a TL, DR taking the gloves off type of response to how idiotic your position is ...
And I didn't really feel like going down the road of saying that based on your "experience" that you didn't have a clue what you were talking about ...
Happy now?
Happy now? -
Has anyone seen Tequilla and Hinkie in the same room?haie said:
A.K.A. When you're a real forecaster like myself or Sam Hinkie, you just tend to see things that the rest of the rabble doesn't. You can look beneath the surface of getting fucking embarrassed by faggot Pac 12 teams and see the improvement and process playing out.Tequilla said:
You are confusing me being nice with not having a sound counterargument ...PurpleJ said:
Things people say if they didn't have a logical counterargument.Tequilla said:
With all due respect, you're way off base here in your conclusionsPurpleJ said:
We had a good defense last year. I've admitted it. Not great. Good. I started trolling Chest and a few others last year when they told me that advanced metrics said our defense was GREAT after we lost at home to Cal.Tequilla said:
If you are holding teams to 18-19 points a game in today's world of college football, you are going to win a lot of football games.PurpleJ said:I always found it interesting how metrics said we had a GREAT defense last year. Well, we still went 7-6 so that right there is an argument that the coach sucks and isn't who we thought.
We lost a number of close games last year due to youth on offense, lack of outside playmakers on offense, and Smith sucking for large portions of the season.
The defense wasn't the problem.
The point is that if you can't do better than 4-5 in conference with that defense, you might have the wrong coach.
I don't feel like going into a TL, DR taking the gloves off type of response to how idiotic your position is ...
And I didn't really feel like going down the road of saying that based on your "experience" that you didn't have a clue what you were talking about ...
Happy now?
Happy now? -
Tequilla's pretty anti hoops metricsdoogsinparadise said:
Has anyone seen Tequilla and Hinkie in the same room?haie said:
A.K.A. When you're a real forecaster like myself or Sam Hinkie, you just tend to see things that the rest of the rabble doesn't. You can look beneath the surface of getting fucking embarrassed by faggot Pac 12 teams and see the improvement and process playing out.Tequilla said:
You are confusing me being nice with not having a sound counterargument ...PurpleJ said:
Things people say if they didn't have a logical counterargument.Tequilla said:
With all due respect, you're way off base here in your conclusionsPurpleJ said:
We had a good defense last year. I've admitted it. Not great. Good. I started trolling Chest and a few others last year when they told me that advanced metrics said our defense was GREAT after we lost at home to Cal.Tequilla said:
If you are holding teams to 18-19 points a game in today's world of college football, you are going to win a lot of football games.PurpleJ said:I always found it interesting how metrics said we had a GREAT defense last year. Well, we still went 7-6 so that right there is an argument that the coach sucks and isn't who we thought.
We lost a number of close games last year due to youth on offense, lack of outside playmakers on offense, and Smith sucking for large portions of the season.
The defense wasn't the problem.
The point is that if you can't do better than 4-5 in conference with that defense, you might have the wrong coach.
I don't feel like going into a TL, DR taking the gloves off type of response to how idiotic your position is ...
And I didn't really feel like going down the road of saying that based on your "experience" that you didn't have a clue what you were talking about ...
Happy now?
Happy now? -
Yeah but not next year. We never suck next year.RaceBannon said:
You are the leading proponent of UW sucking for at least 2 more years so I guess you agree with the above assessment.puppylove_sugarsteel said:Well Pete cant coach, he's a WAC coach ,and UW is medoicre so dont get too excited... right nerds?.
-
And if WE can't win with our talent, there should be some heads rolling.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:Here is the deal. WE have the talent to win this year, no question. But because I am a Husky fan I will not believe it until I actually see tangible evidence that WE are there.
And I am saying that as one of the leading offseason natty doogs on this site. -
Tequilla needs to take a walk with the wife to Fort Worth to get some perspective.
Then stay there.
