Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
PM from HereToBeatUWADCock
Comments
-
puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Nacho how many times do I have to explain the reasons for Pete's struggles the last 2 years, to field a team that can compete at this level. You aint gettin back on the wagon next year either. Here's Pup's list of fucktarded HH posters who have written Pete off unfairly, criticized his coaching, demanded the unattainable and beaten him up regularly without a clue of the circumstances there within. These fuckholes are officially out as of 5-12-'16, and AINT gettin on the Pup-Pete wagon next year and going forward:CFetters_Nacho_Lover said:I didn't mind the metrics in terms of saying it looks like UW is moving along the right path but to fucking keep harping on the metrics as if the past 2 years didn't happen was disingenuous bullshit.
We've been hearing about UW getting better, moving the right path for the last 15+ years and it hasn't translated into wins. Show me the fucking wins on the field and then I'll get excited about your gay fucking metrics.
1. J- No hope for this guy. Ditched the dawgs and entire pac12 for the SEC. Traitor of worst kind.
2-. Boobs- Already checked out, trying to crawl back but too late. Dont know how good you have it till its gone babs.
3. Nacho- no clue how college football works, how bad Sark left program, no understanding of strength of this conference and how hard it is to win with Cyler Myress and then true freshmen and sophomores at near every position. Oh, throw in a high schooler to start at QB (and his blind side at Lt and RT). Nacho, you aint ever coming back to Pete's side. These guys are all interchangeable, but Nacho is a candidate #1 for sure
4. PLEsE- new and insignificant
5. Race- Closet Traitor but not surprising. He was spoiled by early 90's dawgs and expects every player to be #90, #8, #5, #4 and #9. Told people then that these guys were once-in-a-decade guys or longer. I go way back with Race which is why I was surprised he jumped on Pete's back with a sledge hammer, but still have faith in him. He's not getting back on Pete's wagon though. You pissed on the wrong coach Race you cunt.
All I have time for today. Ill round out top 10 later. Remember, these Five Fucks arent getting on dawg wagon next year or the next. They all already wrote off Pete. Tommy too insignificant to list so he just honorable mention. I need a list of nobodies next. Tommy ill give you the #1 spot ok?
Tldr, jesus -
puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Nacho how many times do I have to explain the reasons for Pete's struggles the last 2 years, to field a team that can compete at this level. You aint gettin back on the wagon next year either. Here's Pup's list of fucktarded HH posters who have written Pete off unfairly, criticized his coaching, demanded the unattainable and beaten him up regularly without a clue of the circumstances there within. These fuckholes are officially out as of 5-12-'16, and AINT gettin on the Pup-Pete wagon next year and going forward:CFetters_Nacho_Lover said:I didn't mind the metrics in terms of saying it looks like UW is moving along the right path but to fucking keep harping on the metrics as if the past 2 years didn't happen was disingenuous bullshit.
We've been hearing about UW getting better, moving the right path for the last 15+ years and it hasn't translated into wins. Show me the fucking wins on the field and then I'll get excited about your gay fucking metrics.
1. J- No hope for this guy. Ditched the dawgs and entire pac12 for the SEC. Traitor of worst kind.
2-. Boobs- Already checked out, trying to crawl back but too late. Dont know how good you have it till its gone babs.
3. Nacho- no clue how college football works, how bad Sark left program, no understanding of strength of this conference and how hard it is to win with Cyler Myress and then true freshmen and sophomores at near every position. Oh, throw in a high schooler to start at QB (and his blind side at Lt and RT). Nacho, you aint ever coming back to Pete's side. These guys are all interchangeable, but Nacho is a candidate #1 for sure
4. PLEsE- new and insignificant
5. Race- Closet Traitor but not surprising. He was spoiled by early 90's dawgs and expects every player to be #90, #8, #5, #4 and #9. Told people then that these guys were once-in-a-decade guys or longer. I go way back with Race which is why I was surprised he jumped on Pete's back with a sledge hammer, but still have faith in him. He's not getting back on Pete's wagon though. You pissed on the wrong coach Race you cunt.
All I have time for today. Ill round out top 10 later. Remember, these Five Fucks arent getting on dawg wagon next year or the next. They all already wrote off Pete. Tommy too insignificant to list so he just honorable mention. I need a list of nobodies next. Tommy ill give you the #1 spot ok?
-
I'm locked and turgid for the fall...trying to get a few more in the bandwagon before it leaves the station
-
Nacho? I'm stupid?puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Nacho how many times do I have to explain the reasons for Pete's struggles the last 2 years, to field a team that can compete at this level. You aint gettin back on the wagon next year either. Here's Pup's list of fucktarded HH posters who have written Pete off unfairly, criticized his coaching, demanded the unattainable and beaten him up regularly without a clue of the circumstances there within. These fuckholes are officially out as of 5-12-'16, and AINT gettin on the Pup-Pete wagon next year and going forward:CFetters_Nacho_Lover said:I didn't mind the metrics in terms of saying it looks like UW is moving along the right path but to fucking keep harping on the metrics as if the past 2 years didn't happen was disingenuous bullshit.
We've been hearing about UW getting better, moving the right path for the last 15+ years and it hasn't translated into wins. Show me the fucking wins on the field and then I'll get excited about your gay fucking metrics.
1. J- No hope for this guy. Ditched the dawgs and entire pac12 for the SEC. Traitor of worst kind.
2-. Boobs- Already checked out, trying to crawl back but too late. Dont know how good you have it till its gone babs.
3. Nacho- no clue how college football works, how bad Sark left program, no understanding of strength of this conference and how hard it is to win with Cyler Myress and then true freshmen and sophomores at near every position. Oh, throw in a high schooler to start at QB (and his blind side at Lt and RT). Nacho, you aint ever coming back to Pete's side. These guys are all interchangeable, but Nacho is a candidate #1 for sure
4. PLEsE- new and insignificant
5. Race- Closet Traitor but not surprising. He was spoiled by early 90's dawgs and expects every player to be #90, #8, #5, #4 and #9. Told people then that these guys were once-in-a-decade guys or longer. I go way back with Race which is why I was surprised he jumped on Pete's back with a sledge hammer, but still have faith in him. He's not getting back on Pete's wagon though. You pissed on the wrong coach Race you cunt.
All I have time for today. Ill round out top 10 later. Remember, these Five Fucks arent getting on dawg wagon next year or the next. They all already wrote off Pete. Tommy too insignificant to list so he just honorable mention. I need a list of nobodies next. Tommy ill give you the #1 spot ok?
-
Actually his metrics rather sucked.CFetters_Nacho_Lover said:
Jack Locknee is a great example. He had all the metrics you could ask for yet he couldn't put it to work on the field.dnc said:
I'm a pretty big believer in metrics and think they can be very useful, but exactly this.CFetters_Nacho_Lover said:I didn't mind the metrics in terms of saying it looks like UW is moving along the right path but to fucking keep harping on the metrics as if the past 2 years didn't happen was disingenuous bullshit.
We've been hearing about UW getting better, moving the right path for the last 15+ years and it hasn't translated into wins. Show me the fucking wins on the field and then I'll get excited about your gay fucking metrics. -
Am hearing there's a grassroots movement for Wins -currently out of vogue, especially among Husky followers- to move back into the top 10 most important criteria to judge a football team - possibly as early as 2021. Stay tuned...Fire_Marshall_Bill said:The stat nerds need to stay with beisbol, which has already been ruined. Don't ruin football too.
SRS has some validity, but he relied on it way too much vs. winning percentage. You have to actually win. -
Metrics are fine to an extent, but when you are arguing that 7-6 Arkansas is better than 12-1 FSU, you know you are too deep into te stat geek world.
-
GateBaseman said:
Am hearing there's a grassroots movement for Wins -currently out of vogue, especially among Husky followers- to move back into the top 10 most important criteria to judge a football team - possibly as early as 2021. Stay tuned...Fire_Marshall_Bill said:The stat nerds need to stay with beisbol, which has already been ruined. Don't ruin football too.
SRS has some validity, but he relied on it way too much vs. winning percentage. You have to actually win. -
That FSU team was overrated all year though in the polls and by the "eye test" and that played out in the playoffs. That is a feather in the cap of the metrics IMO not a black mark.RoadDawg55 said:Metrics are fine to an extent, but when you are arguing that 7-6 Arkansas is better than 12-1 FSU, you know you are too deep into te stat geek world.
-
America's Doog downvoted this.Baseman said:
Am hearing there's a grassroots movement for Wins -currently out of vogue, especially among Husky followers- to move back into the top 10 most important criteria to judge a football team - possibly as early as 2021. Stay tuned...Fire_Marshall_Bill said:The stat nerds need to stay with beisbol, which has already been ruined. Don't ruin football too.
SRS has some validity, but he relied on it way too much vs. winning percentage. You have to actually win. -
Metrics don't account for the opponent stemming
-
Or they coasted by with their talent and played down to their competition. They only turned it on when needed. We saw a similar situation last year at Ohio State.FremontTroll said:
That FSU team was overrated all year though in the polls and by the "eye test" and that played out in the playoffs. That is a feather in the cap of the metrics IMO not a black mark.RoadDawg55 said:Metrics are fine to an extent, but when you are arguing that 7-6 Arkansas is better than 12-1 FSU, you know you are too deep into te stat geek world.
They were blown out in the 2nd half by Oregon. Arkansas lost 6 games. Don't be that guy. -
Not living up to your namesake.FremontTroll said:
That FSU team was overrated all year though in the polls and by the "eye test" and that played out in the playoffs. That is a feather in the cap of the metrics IMO not a black mark.RoadDawg55 said:Metrics are fine to an extent, but when you are arguing that 7-6 Arkansas is better than 12-1 FSU, you know you are too deep into te stat geek world.
-
Coasted by on talent by winning 7 games by 6 or fewer points? Not to mention giving up 41 to NC State and 31 to Louisville.RoadDawg55 said:
Or they coasted by with their talent and played down to their competition. They only turned it on when needed. We saw a similar situation last year at Ohio State.FremontTroll said:
That FSU team was overrated all year though in the polls and by the "eye test" and that played out in the playoffs. That is a feather in the cap of the metrics IMO not a black mark.RoadDawg55 said:Metrics are fine to an extent, but when you are arguing that 7-6 Arkansas is better than 12-1 FSU, you know you are too deep into te stat geek world.
They were blown out in the 2nd half by Oregon. Arkansas lost 6 games. Don't be that guy.
C'mon now old school 55. You've seen enough football to know that a plundering means a lot more than eeking out a victory.
That FSU team was not good. The Oregon plundering was not surprising. -
Which one?doogsinparadise said:
Not living up to your namesake.FremontTroll said:
That FSU team was overrated all year though in the polls and by the "eye test" and that played out in the playoffs. That is a feather in the cap of the metrics IMO not a black mark.RoadDawg55 said:Metrics are fine to an extent, but when you are arguing that 7-6 Arkansas is better than 12-1 FSU, you know you are too deep into te stat geek world.
-
One team won 12 games, the other won 7. Would any coach in college football trade FSU's roster for Arkansas?FremontTroll said:
Coasted by on talent by winning 7 games by 6 or fewer points? Not to mention giving up 41 to NC State and 31 to Louisville.RoadDawg55 said:
Or they coasted by with their talent and played down to their competition. They only turned it on when needed. We saw a similar situation last year at Ohio State.FremontTroll said:
That FSU team was overrated all year though in the polls and by the "eye test" and that played out in the playoffs. That is a feather in the cap of the metrics IMO not a black mark.RoadDawg55 said:Metrics are fine to an extent, but when you are arguing that 7-6 Arkansas is better than 12-1 FSU, you know you are too deep into te stat geek world.
They were blown out in the 2nd half by Oregon. Arkansas lost 6 games. Don't be that guy.
C'mon now old school 55. You've seen enough football to know that a plundering means a lot more than eeking out a victory.
That FSU team was not good. The Oregon plundering was not surprising.
FSU had tons of NFL players on the roster and the returning Heisman Trophy winner. So they had more talent and more wins. By what FS metric was Arkansas better? FSU won 7 games by 6 or fewer points? Once again, Arkansas won 7 all season.
FSU beat Clemson with their back up QB. They beat Georgia Tech who plungered a Mississippi State team that finished much higher than Arkansas in the same fucking conference.
Maybe FSU wasn't great. That is not really the point. They didn't play to their potential, but any metric that ranks a 7 win team over a 12 win team is seriously flawed and should not be used religiously as the end all by all, which was often the case with Chest. -
Arkansas is the UW of the SEC
#offseasonnatty #Metricchamp -
RaceBannon said:
Arkansas is the UW of the SEC
#offseasonnatty #Metricchamp
Talk about pressing. Try a break for real world shit baabs. Fed your persian gato's lately? Make sure to swab your phone with alcohol thoroughly. Wipe-post-wipe-post-stroke-post-jerk-post-jiz on phone-post... -
You keep talking about Arkansas but I never said anything about Arkansas.RoadDawg55 said:
One team won 12 games, the other won 7. Would any coach in college football trade FSU's roster for Arkansas?FremontTroll said:
Coasted by on talent by winning 7 games by 6 or fewer points? Not to mention giving up 41 to NC State and 31 to Louisville.RoadDawg55 said:
Or they coasted by with their talent and played down to their competition. They only turned it on when needed. We saw a similar situation last year at Ohio State.FremontTroll said:
That FSU team was overrated all year though in the polls and by the "eye test" and that played out in the playoffs. That is a feather in the cap of the metrics IMO not a black mark.RoadDawg55 said:Metrics are fine to an extent, but when you are arguing that 7-6 Arkansas is better than 12-1 FSU, you know you are too deep into te stat geek world.
They were blown out in the 2nd half by Oregon. Arkansas lost 6 games. Don't be that guy.
C'mon now old school 55. You've seen enough football to know that a plundering means a lot more than eeking out a victory.
That FSU team was not good. The Oregon plundering was not surprising.
FSU had tons of NFL players on the roster and the returning Heisman Trophy winner. So they had more talent and more wins. By what FS metric was Arkansas better? FSU won 7 games by 6 or fewer points? Once again, Arkansas won 7 all season.
FSU beat Clemson with their back up QB. They beat Georgia Tech who plungered a Mississippi State team that finished much higher than Arkansas in the same fucking conference.
Maybe FSU wasn't great. That is not really the point. They didn't play to their potential, but any metric that ranks a 7 win team over a 12 win team is seriously flawed and should not be used religiously as the end all by all, which was often the case with Chest.
FSU sucked and was severely overrated when sorting by W/L and was more accurately rated by the metrics that was my only point and I don't give a fuck about Arkansas or your grandma's red suspenders.
HTH. -
Couldn't agree more.RoadDawg55 said:
One team won 12 games, the other won 7. Would any coach in college football trade FSU's roster for Arkansas?FremontTroll said:
Coasted by on talent by winning 7 games by 6 or fewer points? Not to mention giving up 41 to NC State and 31 to Louisville.RoadDawg55 said:
Or they coasted by with their talent and played down to their competition. They only turned it on when needed. We saw a similar situation last year at Ohio State.FremontTroll said:
That FSU team was overrated all year though in the polls and by the "eye test" and that played out in the playoffs. That is a feather in the cap of the metrics IMO not a black mark.RoadDawg55 said:Metrics are fine to an extent, but when you are arguing that 7-6 Arkansas is better than 12-1 FSU, you know you are too deep into te stat geek world.
They were blown out in the 2nd half by Oregon. Arkansas lost 6 games. Don't be that guy.
C'mon now old school 55. You've seen enough football to know that a plundering means a lot more than eeking out a victory.
That FSU team was not good. The Oregon plundering was not surprising.
FSU had tons of NFL players on the roster and the returning Heisman Trophy winner. So they had more talent and more wins. By what FS metric was Arkansas better? FSU won 7 games by 6 or fewer points? Once again, Arkansas won 7 all season.
FSU beat Clemson with their back up QB. They beat Georgia Tech who plungered a Mississippi State team that finished much higher than Arkansas in the same fucking conference.
Maybe FSU wasn't great. That is not really the point. They didn't play to their potential, but any metric that ranks a 7 win team over a 12 win team is seriously flawed and should not be used religiously as the end all by all, which was often the case with Chest.
By the way, 2002 Ohio State eked out more than a few wins by small margins but went on to beat a fantastic Miami team in the Fiesta Bowl to win a MNC. And 37 of the 43 starters on that team were eventually drafted into the NFL. Bottom line, margin of victory can be vastly misleading. -
Puke. Fuckin Pumpy.GrundleStiltzkin said:RaceBannon said:Arkansas is the UW of the SEC
#offseasonnatty #Metricchamp
Talk about pressing. Try a break for real world shit baabs. Fed your persian gato's lately? Make sure to swab your phone with alcohol thoroughly. Wipe-post-wipe-post-stroke-post-jerk-post-jiz on phone-post... -
Even the SEC lovers don't suck off Arkansas this much.
-
That is your best example of a team that luckboxed its way to a national championship? A team with an all-time great defense and a limited offense led by Craig Krenzel and his 12TD-7INT statline?Southerndawg said:
Couldn't agree more.RoadDawg55 said:
One team won 12 games, the other won 7. Would any coach in college football trade FSU's roster for Arkansas?FremontTroll said:
Coasted by on talent by winning 7 games by 6 or fewer points? Not to mention giving up 41 to NC State and 31 to Louisville.RoadDawg55 said:
Or they coasted by with their talent and played down to their competition. They only turned it on when needed. We saw a similar situation last year at Ohio State.FremontTroll said:
That FSU team was overrated all year though in the polls and by the "eye test" and that played out in the playoffs. That is a feather in the cap of the metrics IMO not a black mark.RoadDawg55 said:Metrics are fine to an extent, but when you are arguing that 7-6 Arkansas is better than 12-1 FSU, you know you are too deep into te stat geek world.
They were blown out in the 2nd half by Oregon. Arkansas lost 6 games. Don't be that guy.
C'mon now old school 55. You've seen enough football to know that a plundering means a lot more than eeking out a victory.
That FSU team was not good. The Oregon plundering was not surprising.
FSU had tons of NFL players on the roster and the returning Heisman Trophy winner. So they had more talent and more wins. By what FS metric was Arkansas better? FSU won 7 games by 6 or fewer points? Once again, Arkansas won 7 all season.
FSU beat Clemson with their back up QB. They beat Georgia Tech who plungered a Mississippi State team that finished much higher than Arkansas in the same fucking conference.
Maybe FSU wasn't great. That is not really the point. They didn't play to their potential, but any metric that ranks a 7 win team over a 12 win team is seriously flawed and should not be used religiously as the end all by all, which was often the case with Chest.
By the way, 2002 Ohio State eked out more than a few wins by small margins but went on to beat a fantastic Miami team in the Fiesta Bowl to win a MNC. And 37 of the 43 starters on that team were eventually drafted into the NFL. Bottom line, margin of victory can be vastly misleading.
No shit they won a lot of close games.
But they won them 13-9 and 10-6 not 37-35 or 30-26. The only team to score 20+ on them before the MNCG was in the season opener against Mike Leach's Red Raiders.
That was a great defense that controlled every game they were in. And nobody takes the air out of the ball and sits on a one-score lead like Jim Tressel- that is why its called Tresselball.
Oh by the way SRS of course loved that '02 Buckeye defense ranking them #1 in the nation by a wiiiiiiiiiiide margin.
This argument is ridiculous. Next the revenge of the nerds crowd is going to tell me that Iowa was really good all year last year due to their lofty w/l record. They fucking sucked and if you didn't make $$$ betting against them in the Rose Bowl then you should kill yourself.
Every single year at least a team or two manage to cheat fate and keep a false mirage of a good record going until late in the year. That is just one clear example of why the metrics will always be more predictive of future results than past w/l record- pointing out one possible mis-ranking of some Arkansas team that everyone else forgot about two years ago in one of the rating systems that one specific faggot loved to spout doesn't invalidate the entire idea of using more specific statistics to rank teams when there are far more mistakes when ranking purely by w/l or any human attempt to sort based on the eye test as proven by every AP poll ever.
Does that mean that a high SRS or FPI or F/+ ranking means shit for accomplishments? Of course not you jackass. Past vs. future. Try to see the difference. -
Gloves off
-
You may have missed the pointFremontTroll said:
That is your best example of a team that luckboxed its way to a national championship? A team with an all-time great defense and a limited offense led by Craig Krenzel and his 12TD-7INT statline?Southerndawg said:
Couldn't agree more.RoadDawg55 said:
One team won 12 games, the other won 7. Would any coach in college football trade FSU's roster for Arkansas?FremontTroll said:
Coasted by on talent by winning 7 games by 6 or fewer points? Not to mention giving up 41 to NC State and 31 to Louisville.RoadDawg55 said:
Or they coasted by with their talent and played down to their competition. They only turned it on when needed. We saw a similar situation last year at Ohio State.FremontTroll said:
That FSU team was overrated all year though in the polls and by the "eye test" and that played out in the playoffs. That is a feather in the cap of the metrics IMO not a black mark.RoadDawg55 said:Metrics are fine to an extent, but when you are arguing that 7-6 Arkansas is better than 12-1 FSU, you know you are too deep into te stat geek world.
They were blown out in the 2nd half by Oregon. Arkansas lost 6 games. Don't be that guy.
C'mon now old school 55. You've seen enough football to know that a plundering means a lot more than eeking out a victory.
That FSU team was not good. The Oregon plundering was not surprising.
FSU had tons of NFL players on the roster and the returning Heisman Trophy winner. So they had more talent and more wins. By what FS metric was Arkansas better? FSU won 7 games by 6 or fewer points? Once again, Arkansas won 7 all season.
FSU beat Clemson with their back up QB. They beat Georgia Tech who plungered a Mississippi State team that finished much higher than Arkansas in the same fucking conference.
Maybe FSU wasn't great. That is not really the point. They didn't play to their potential, but any metric that ranks a 7 win team over a 12 win team is seriously flawed and should not be used religiously as the end all by all, which was often the case with Chest.
By the way, 2002 Ohio State eked out more than a few wins by small margins but went on to beat a fantastic Miami team in the Fiesta Bowl to win a MNC. And 37 of the 43 starters on that team were eventually drafted into the NFL. Bottom line, margin of victory can be vastly misleading.
No shit they won a lot of close games.
But they won them 13-9 and 10-6 not 37-35 or 30-26. The only team to score 20+ on them before the MNCG was in the season opener against Mike Leach's Red Raiders.
That was a great defense that controlled every game they were in. And nobody takes the air out of the ball and sits on a one-score lead like Jim Tressel- that is why its called Tresselball.
Oh by the way SRS of course loved that '02 Buckeye defense ranking them #1 in the nation by a wiiiiiiiiiiide margin.
This argument is ridiculous. Next the revenge of the nerds crowd is going to tell me that Iowa was really good all year last year due to their lofty w/l record. They fucking sucked and if you didn't make $$$ betting against them in the Rose Bowl then you should kill yourself.
Every single year at least a team or two manage to cheat fate and keep a false mirage of a good record going until late in the year. That is just one clear example of why the metrics will always be more predictive of future results than past w/l record- pointing out one possible mis-ranking of some Arkansas team that everyone else forgot about two years ago in one of the rating systems that one specific faggot loved to spout doesn't invalidate the entire idea of using more specific statistics to rank teams when there are far more mistakes when ranking purely by w/l or any human attempt to sort based on the eye test as proven by every AP poll ever.
Does that mean that a high SRS or FPI or F/+ ranking means shit for accomplishments? Of course not you jackass. Past vs. future. Try to see the difference.
