Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Huskies’ dominance reminiscent of ’91 national championship team

13»

Comments

  • doogsinparadisedoogsinparadise Member Posts: 9,320
    AIRWOLF said:

    Gaskin will play in the league no question

    I think so, but RB is a hard position. He's not very big either. Polk was a great college RB and went undrafted.
    By the time Polk left his speed had become pretty average. He came in as a burner.

    But your point is a good one, smallish, quick running backs are a dime a dozen at the NFL level.
    LaMike James wants to know where his career went.

    Taylor Rapp is going to be an AA as a senior if he doesn't get hurt.
  • SwayeSwaye Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 41,598 Founders Club
    dnc said:

    Pettis seems like a UDFA type that ends up on roster (Seahawks) bet he will replace Kearse.

    He's more physically impressive than Kearse, I would guess he'll be drafted before the 7th round.
    Well that and he's not famous for dropping as many as he caught.
    You try catching without lasic.
  • backthepackbackthepack Member Posts: 19,915
    Swaye said:

    dnc said:

    Pettis seems like a UDFA type that ends up on roster (Seahawks) bet he will replace Kearse.

    He's more physically impressive than Kearse, I would guess he'll be drafted before the 7th round.
    Well that and he's not famous for dropping as many as he caught.
    You try catching without lasic.
    You win the internet today. All heil Swaye
  • SwayeSwaye Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 41,598 Founders Club

    Swaye said:

    dnc said:

    Pettis seems like a UDFA type that ends up on roster (Seahawks) bet he will replace Kearse.

    He's more physically impressive than Kearse, I would guess he'll be drafted before the 7th round.
    Well that and he's not famous for dropping as many as he caught.
    You try catching without lasic.
    You win the internet today. All heil Swaye
    Subtle.
  • backthepackbackthepack Member Posts: 19,915
    Swaye said:

    Swaye said:

    dnc said:

    Pettis seems like a UDFA type that ends up on roster (Seahawks) bet he will replace Kearse.

    He's more physically impressive than Kearse, I would guess he'll be drafted before the 7th round.
    Well that and he's not famous for dropping as many as he caught.
    You try catching without lasic.
    You win the internet today. All heil Swaye
    Subtle.
    *faggy wink*
  • AlexisAlexis Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 3,216 Swaye's Wigwam
    How come nobody is mentioning the opening day starting safety Paxton Talailei. The original #8
  • AIRWOLFAIRWOLF Member Posts: 1,840
    dnc said:

    Pettis seems like a UDFA type that ends up on roster (Seahawks) bet he will replace Kearse.

    He's more physically impressive than Kearse, I would guess he'll be drafted before the 7th round.
    Well that and he's not famous for dropping as many as he caught.
    image
  • DooglesDoogles Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 12,642 Founders Club
    AIRWOLF said:

    Gaskin will play in the league no question

    I think so, but RB is a hard position. He's not very big either. Polk was a great college RB and went undrafted.
    By the time Polk left his speed had become pretty average. He came in as a burner.

    But your point is a good one, smallish, quick running backs are a dime a dozen at the NFL level.
    Fast enough to return a kick for a td in the NFL
  • H_DH_D Member Posts: 6,098

    dnc said:

    Pettis seems like a UDFA type that ends up on roster (Seahawks) bet he will replace Kearse.

    Mathis will be a late to mid round pick depending on his combine imo.. Gardenhire will play in the league he has size and length *faggy wink*.. Bierra fits today's modern NFL and his size is similar to Bobby Wagner both shorter and athletic..

    Gaskin will play in the league no question

    I bet a couple of our redshirts and some of our young depth will play in the NFL which is scary

    Browning is a rich man's kellen moore

    I don't really disagree with anything you said here, but holy shit, 5 straight poasts?

    Shouldn't you be in third period right now?

    Next time I have a sit down with PurpleJ to discuss bandwidth conservation, I'll sit down too with this lad to explain consolidating multiple thoughts into one coherent post.
    Not everyone is a technically gifted writer.
  • SoutherndawgSoutherndawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 8,326 Founders Club
    edited October 2016
    AIRWOLF said:

    Doogles said:

    If you asked any of the '91 dawgs, they'd laugh hysterically at the comparison.

    Those were bad motherfuckers.

    Yeah but the uncle Rico effect will be real if the 2016 dawgs run the table.

    This team is full of bad bad men too.
    I don't want to compare to 91, but this team has a lot of NFL players.

    Certain NFL players: Adams, McGary, Ross, Jones, King, Budda Baker, Victor, Qualls, Gaines, Vea...

    Probable: Gaskin, Browning, Pettis, Mathis... Browning seems small, but he's listed on NFL lists as one of the top QB's for his year.

    Eldrenkamp will get a shot. I have no clue about Coleman Shelton, but he's a four year starter who has played multiple positions. Bierria might be too small, but at minimum he's a very good college LB. Gardenhire started over King at times last year. I actually think Coleman will be in a camp. The team is loaded.
    Totally agree. This is a very talented team with a number of future NFL players on it, and they play like Huskies, bad motherfuckers and all. Best part is it's also a very young team. In that regard it is like 1990 all over again. But, the season is only half over, let's see how they respond to having a target on their backs.
    The bolded is the best part. Though I certainly hope they don't have a UCLA game in them. I could probably deal with a loss without completely losing my shit, but not if it came against a real dreck team, like that fucking UCLA squad.

    I loved the 91 squad and the 90 and 92 teams were really good too, but the thing that is so different now versus 25 years ago is the offenses in the college game. Lambright's defensive scheme was a perfect way to attack traditional college offenses. It also put some players who were odd fits for traditional positions into roles where they could excel. And it was new in 90 and 91 and other teams hadn't figured out how to deal with it, sort of like true spread offenses were 10 or so years ago.

    Once the talent dropped off even a little and other teams figured out that they couldn't line up in an I-formation and beat the 46, it started getting gashed.




    In 2011, how many points did Chip Kelly's "high octane" up tempo spread offense score against Auburn, which had one of the "worst" defenses in the SEC that year? 19 points you say? And I can say with 100% confidence that the 1991 Huskies Defense was head and shoulders better than Auburn's in 2011.

    James'/Lambright's scheme took advantage of the athletes they had at their disposal. No doubt they would have adjusted to offensive schemes, and no doubt they would have been very successful. And this is kind of the point as to why it's way too early for any comparison of the 2016 Huskies to the 1991 Huskies.

    Let these guys grow into their own animal. This is a very good and very young football team, it may grow into a great one, but for now they still have a lot to prove before being compared to one of the all time great college football teams. In my lifetime only one other program in the PAC has been able to do that, and they're riddled with 5 star athletes year in and year out. It took legendary coaches McKay and Carroll to piece it all together, just as it took legendary hall of fame Coach Don James to do so at Washington. If Peterman does the same, well then we'll have become one lucky and spoiled fanbase for the second time in 40 years, and take heed, do not take it for granted, enjoy it to it's fullest while it lasts because you never know what might happen to derail it.
  • AIRWOLFAIRWOLF Member Posts: 1,840

    AIRWOLF said:

    Doogles said:

    If you asked any of the '91 dawgs, they'd laugh hysterically at the comparison.

    Those were bad motherfuckers.

    Yeah but the uncle Rico effect will be real if the 2016 dawgs run the table.

    This team is full of bad bad men too.
    I don't want to compare to 91, but this team has a lot of NFL players.

    Certain NFL players: Adams, McGary, Ross, Jones, King, Budda Baker, Victor, Qualls, Gaines, Vea...

    Probable: Gaskin, Browning, Pettis, Mathis... Browning seems small, but he's listed on NFL lists as one of the top QB's for his year.

    Eldrenkamp will get a shot. I have no clue about Coleman Shelton, but he's a four year starter who has played multiple positions. Bierria might be too small, but at minimum he's a very good college LB. Gardenhire started over King at times last year. I actually think Coleman will be in a camp. The team is loaded.
    Totally agree. This is a very talented team with a number of future NFL players on it, and they play like Huskies, bad motherfuckers and all. Best part is it's also a very young team. In that regard it is like 1990 all over again. But, the season is only half over, let's see how they respond to having a target on their backs.
    The bolded is the best part. Though I certainly hope they don't have a UCLA game in them. I could probably deal with a loss without completely losing my shit, but not if it came against a real dreck team, like that fucking UCLA squad.

    I loved the 91 squad and the 90 and 92 teams were really good too, but the thing that is so different now versus 25 years ago is the offenses in the college game. Lambright's defensive scheme was a perfect way to attack traditional college offenses. It also put some players who were odd fits for traditional positions into roles where they could excel. And it was new in 90 and 91 and other teams hadn't figured out how to deal with it, sort of like true spread offenses were 10 or so years ago.

    Once the talent dropped off even a little and other teams figured out that they couldn't line up in an I-formation and beat the 46, it started getting gashed.




    In 2011, how many points did Chip Kelly's "high octane" up tempo spread offense score against Auburn, which had one of the "worst" defenses in the SEC that year? 19 points you say? And I can say with 100% confidence that the 1991 Huskies Defense was head and shoulders better than Auburn's in 2011.

    James'/Lambright's scheme took advantage of the athletes they had at their disposal. No doubt they would have adjusted to offensive schemes, and no doubt they would have been very successful. And this is kind of the point as to why it's way too early for any comparison of the 2016 Huskies to the 1991 Huskies.

    Let these guys grow into their own animal. This is a very good and very young football team, it may grow into a great one, but for now they still have a lot to prove before being compared to one of the all time great college football teams. In my lifetime only one other program in the PAC has been able to do that, and they're riddled with 5 star athletes year in and year out. It took legendary coaches McKay and Carroll to piece it all together, just as it took legendary hall of fame Coach Don James to do so at Washington. If Peterman does the same, well then we'll have become one lucky and spoiled fanbase for the second time in 40 years, and take heed, do not take it for granted, enjoy it to it's fullest while it lasts because you never know what might happen to derail it.
    This is all true, and well stated.

    And I certainly wasn't denigrating the '91 defense in any way. I was just pointing out that the combination of players and the scheme Lambright implemented late in '89 really captured lightning in a bottle.

    I'm not crowning this year's team as anything, other than clearly improved over last year's (and many years before that). And yeah, the schedule has been weak over the 9 game winning streak. Quite weak. But there also haven't been too many games that have been close to competitive.

    One thing is for sure, it will be interesting...
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    Doogles said:

    If you asked any of the '91 dawgs, they'd laugh hysterically at the comparison.

    Those were bad motherfuckers.

    Yeah but the uncle Rico effect will be real if the 2016 dawgs run the table.

    This team is full of bad bad men too.
    I don't want to compare to 91, but this team has a lot of NFL players.

    Certain NFL players: Adams, McGary, Ross, Jones, King, Budda Baker, Victor, Qualls, Gaines, Vea...

    Probable: Gaskin, Browning, Pettis, Mathis... Browning seems small, but he's listed on NFL lists as one of the top QB's for his year.

    Eldrenkamp will get a shot. I have no clue about Coleman Shelton, but he's a four year starter who has played multiple positions. Bierria might be too small, but at minimum he's a very good college LB. Gardenhire started over King at times last year. I actually think Coleman will be in a camp. The team is loaded.
    Totally agree. This is a very talented team with a number of future NFL players on it, and they play like Huskies, bad motherfuckers and all. Best part is it's also a very young team. In that regard it is like 1990 all over again. But, the season is only half over, let's see how they respond to having a target on their backs.
    I was thinking 1990 also. Young team developing talent. Destroyed some teams. Struggled against a few others that we shouldn't have.

    1991, we were the top dawg. We were the Alabama. Yeah Miami was there, they were the fast and loose team. We were the smash mouth, Fuck you team. Remember hearing the stories if how they'd tell the defense the play at the line and they still couldn't stop us.

    For us to be the 1991 team, we have to be the Alabama, the team everyone is looking up at. That's some serious doog shit to say right now.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 108,647 Founders Club
    2001400ex said:

    Doogles said:

    If you asked any of the '91 dawgs, they'd laugh hysterically at the comparison.

    Those were bad motherfuckers.

    Yeah but the uncle Rico effect will be real if the 2016 dawgs run the table.

    This team is full of bad bad men too.
    I don't want to compare to 91, but this team has a lot of NFL players.

    Certain NFL players: Adams, McGary, Ross, Jones, King, Budda Baker, Victor, Qualls, Gaines, Vea...

    Probable: Gaskin, Browning, Pettis, Mathis... Browning seems small, but he's listed on NFL lists as one of the top QB's for his year.

    Eldrenkamp will get a shot. I have no clue about Coleman Shelton, but he's a four year starter who has played multiple positions. Bierria might be too small, but at minimum he's a very good college LB. Gardenhire started over King at times last year. I actually think Coleman will be in a camp. The team is loaded.
    Totally agree. This is a very talented team with a number of future NFL players on it, and they play like Huskies, bad motherfuckers and all. Best part is it's also a very young team. In that regard it is like 1990 all over again. But, the season is only half over, let's see how they respond to having a target on their backs.
    I was thinking 1990 also. Young team developing talent. Destroyed some teams. Struggled against a few others that we shouldn't have.

    1991, we were the top dawg. We were the Alabama. Yeah Miami was there, they were the fast and loose team. We were the smash mouth, Fuck you team. Remember hearing the stories if how they'd tell the defense the play at the line and they still couldn't stop us.

    For us to be the 1991 team, we have to be the Alabama, the team everyone is looking up at. That's some serious doog shit to say right now.
    Fuck off
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    2001400ex said:

    Doogles said:

    If you asked any of the '91 dawgs, they'd laugh hysterically at the comparison.

    Those were bad motherfuckers.

    Yeah but the uncle Rico effect will be real if the 2016 dawgs run the table.

    This team is full of bad bad men too.
    I don't want to compare to 91, but this team has a lot of NFL players.

    Certain NFL players: Adams, McGary, Ross, Jones, King, Budda Baker, Victor, Qualls, Gaines, Vea...

    Probable: Gaskin, Browning, Pettis, Mathis... Browning seems small, but he's listed on NFL lists as one of the top QB's for his year.

    Eldrenkamp will get a shot. I have no clue about Coleman Shelton, but he's a four year starter who has played multiple positions. Bierria might be too small, but at minimum he's a very good college LB. Gardenhire started over King at times last year. I actually think Coleman will be in a camp. The team is loaded.
    Totally agree. This is a very talented team with a number of future NFL players on it, and they play like Huskies, bad motherfuckers and all. Best part is it's also a very young team. In that regard it is like 1990 all over again. But, the season is only half over, let's see how they respond to having a target on their backs.
    I was thinking 1990 also. Young team developing talent. Destroyed some teams. Struggled against a few others that we shouldn't have.

    1991, we were the top dawg. We were the Alabama. Yeah Miami was there, they were the fast and loose team. We were the smash mouth, Fuck you team. Remember hearing the stories if how they'd tell the defense the play at the line and they still couldn't stop us.

    For us to be the 1991 team, we have to be the Alabama, the team everyone is looking up at. That's some serious doog shit to say right now.
    Fuck off
    Don't reply to my comments.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 108,647 Founders Club
    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    Doogles said:

    If you asked any of the '91 dawgs, they'd laugh hysterically at the comparison.

    Those were bad motherfuckers.

    Yeah but the uncle Rico effect will be real if the 2016 dawgs run the table.

    This team is full of bad bad men too.
    I don't want to compare to 91, but this team has a lot of NFL players.

    Certain NFL players: Adams, McGary, Ross, Jones, King, Budda Baker, Victor, Qualls, Gaines, Vea...

    Probable: Gaskin, Browning, Pettis, Mathis... Browning seems small, but he's listed on NFL lists as one of the top QB's for his year.

    Eldrenkamp will get a shot. I have no clue about Coleman Shelton, but he's a four year starter who has played multiple positions. Bierria might be too small, but at minimum he's a very good college LB. Gardenhire started over King at times last year. I actually think Coleman will be in a camp. The team is loaded.
    Totally agree. This is a very talented team with a number of future NFL players on it, and they play like Huskies, bad motherfuckers and all. Best part is it's also a very young team. In that regard it is like 1990 all over again. But, the season is only half over, let's see how they respond to having a target on their backs.
    I was thinking 1990 also. Young team developing talent. Destroyed some teams. Struggled against a few others that we shouldn't have.

    1991, we were the top dawg. We were the Alabama. Yeah Miami was there, they were the fast and loose team. We were the smash mouth, Fuck you team. Remember hearing the stories if how they'd tell the defense the play at the line and they still couldn't stop us.

    For us to be the 1991 team, we have to be the Alabama, the team everyone is looking up at. That's some serious doog shit to say right now.
    Fuck off
    Don't reply to my comments.
    Fuck off
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    2001400ex said:

    2001400ex said:

    Doogles said:

    If you asked any of the '91 dawgs, they'd laugh hysterically at the comparison.

    Those were bad motherfuckers.

    Yeah but the uncle Rico effect will be real if the 2016 dawgs run the table.

    This team is full of bad bad men too.
    I don't want to compare to 91, but this team has a lot of NFL players.

    Certain NFL players: Adams, McGary, Ross, Jones, King, Budda Baker, Victor, Qualls, Gaines, Vea...

    Probable: Gaskin, Browning, Pettis, Mathis... Browning seems small, but he's listed on NFL lists as one of the top QB's for his year.

    Eldrenkamp will get a shot. I have no clue about Coleman Shelton, but he's a four year starter who has played multiple positions. Bierria might be too small, but at minimum he's a very good college LB. Gardenhire started over King at times last year. I actually think Coleman will be in a camp. The team is loaded.
    Totally agree. This is a very talented team with a number of future NFL players on it, and they play like Huskies, bad motherfuckers and all. Best part is it's also a very young team. In that regard it is like 1990 all over again. But, the season is only half over, let's see how they respond to having a target on their backs.
    I was thinking 1990 also. Young team developing talent. Destroyed some teams. Struggled against a few others that we shouldn't have.

    1991, we were the top dawg. We were the Alabama. Yeah Miami was there, they were the fast and loose team. We were the smash mouth, Fuck you team. Remember hearing the stories if how they'd tell the defense the play at the line and they still couldn't stop us.

    For us to be the 1991 team, we have to be the Alabama, the team everyone is looking up at. That's some serious doog shit to say right now.
    Fuck off
    Don't reply to my comments.
    Fuck off
    Great contribution as always.
Sign In or Register to comment.