So I decided to indulge my inner faggot and visit coogfarm...

Kaepsknee

Peterman said:

...and this is what passes for "analysis" over there:

UW's problem is that they appear to once again trending towards a talent driven formula for success. This was fine back when only the LA schools could compete with UW talent and coaching wise, but that just isn't the case any more.

Assuming UW is one of the upper half of the conference programs, they enjoy no talent advantage over the others (USC, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, ASU), and they struggle heavily to beat them as a result.

Pete is 1-11 against UCLA, USC, Stanford, Oregon and ASU while at UW.

Sark suffered a similar problem (4-12).

All their wins came against teams who they freely admit had grossly inferior talent.

Bottom line, UW's offense in particular, is conservative and unimaginative, and lacks any advantage in playmakers that they can hope to leverage against the teams they need to beat to win this conference.

The Husky Defense will continue to be a strength, but defense is a fickle thing. So much defensive success hinges on things like turnovers and sacks, and sometimes fortune denies you. Even Stanford when from having an impenetrable defense two years ago to a fairly average one last year. Ironically they lost 5 games with the better defense, but won the conference the next year because they developed a more dynamic offense.

Man, it really sucks that Pete is going for the "talent driven formula for success"

Dont sell yourself short....Your freak flag has been waving loud and proud for a long spell now.

Kaepsknee

AIRWOLF said:

salemcoog said:

ToiletSeat said:

BlowItUp said:

he's 1-7

2014 losses to UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, ASU
2015 losses to ASU, Oregon, Stanford, win vs USC

Yep, the Coog counted 2013 to get the 1-11 claim.

UW.... Beating shitty teams to eek into Shitty Bowls since 2009.

Not coincidentally, the Huskies are 6-1 vs. WSU since 2009.

WSU... Choking to shitty .500 or below Husky teams since 2002

AIRWOLF

H_D said:

AIRWOLF said:

salemcoog said:

ToiletSeat said:

BlowItUp said:

he's 1-7

2014 losses to UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, ASU
2015 losses to ASU, Oregon, Stanford, win vs USC

Yep, the Coog counted 2013 to get the 1-11 claim.

UW.... Beating shitty teams to eek into Shitty Bowls since 2009.

Not coincidentally, the Huskies are 6-1 vs. WSU since 2009.

salemcoog said:

AIRWOLF said:

salemcoog said:

ToiletSeat said:

BlowItUp said:

he's 1-7

2014 losses to UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, ASU
2015 losses to ASU, Oregon, Stanford, win vs USC

Yep, the Coog counted 2013 to get the 1-11 claim.

UW.... Beating shitty teams to eek into Shitty Bowls since 2009.

Not coincidentally, the Huskies are 6-1 vs. WSU since 2009.

WSU... Choking to shitty .500 or below Husky teams since 2002

WSU...winning less than 3 out of every ten games since 1900

AIRWOLF

versus UW. I fucked that up.

Dick_B

Peterman said:

greenblood said:

It's pretty common to be conservative and unimaginative when you have a true freshman at quarterback.

But that is a good point about Pete against good competition. Pete's only win against the upper level Pac12 drove Sark over the edge. This is a big year for Pete. If he doesn't get more than 1 win over Ucla, USC, Oregon, and ASU next year, then he should be on the hot seat for sure.

No doubt he needs to start winning those games but how can you be 1-11 when you've played those teams a combined 8 times?

common core