Would you be happy holding CAL to 24 or less?

YellowSnow

I think I would. Currently we’re averaging keeping PAC opponents to 8.28 pts below their average scoring. CAL is averaging 41 a game (43 at home), so our average showing on D would have them scoring 33 give or take. Seems, however, given how our defense matches up against a pass happy offense with a so, so running game, I’d sure hope we can do a lot better than 33. 5 games into conference play, UW is still 1st in PAC in Pass Defense, 1st in Long Pass Plays surrendered, 1st in TD’s given up in the Red Zone, etc. 24 pts or less scored by CAL (especially if 7 of these are in garbage time) would feel like a good outcome to me. Holding them to 17 pts in honor of ’91 would be even better, but doesn’t appear likely.

Hell, last year we only gave up 30 to CAL after turning the ball over 5 times (3 fumbles, 2 INTs), so maybe I’m being a big pussy being satisfied with giving up 24. Imagine what we could do with Gaskin/Coleman rushing for 300yds combined, and 1 or no turnovers on the day, to keep CAL’s offense on the sideline as much as possible. They had the ball for 39 minutes last year when the game was in Berkeley.

NeGgaPlEaSe

I think we get the PAC 12 refs and Larry to pull their heads out and support Washington to the playoffs for fucking once

Oregon type curb stomp.. they get 14 points

AIRWOLF

I would have no problem with 24 points, assuming 14 of them come against the 2s and 3s, who play damn near the whole second half.

The UW offense ought to be able to get into the 40s by the middle of the 3rd qtr.

HuskyJW

They can score in the 30's and wear pink tutu's for all I care as long as UW wins.

Swaye

I would only be happy with 3 or less.

Gladstone

Straight up is good enough.

YellowSnow

Swaye said:

I would only be happy with 3 or less.

It's been many moons since that happened...'97 was last time we gave up 3 or less to CAL.

PostGameOrangeSlices

70 to 0 our next 4 games. Leave no doubt in a committee with fucking Tyrone on it

Swaye

YellowSnow said:

Swaye said:

I would only be happy with 3 or less.

It's been many moons since that happened...'97 was last time we gave up 3 or less to CAL.

I have high standards.










I live in a trailer.

2001400ex

One thing that's an issue is time of possession of all things. We score too quickly, even when trying to run with gaskin, he got 12 yard chunks at a time. Then the stupid penalties on defense on third down that extends drives.

In other words, our defense is playing better than the scoreboard shows. In 1991, no one scored on our 2s and 3s either.

AIRWOLF

2001400ex said:

In 1991, no one scored on our 2s and 3s either.

Kwiatkowski blitzes 9% of the time. Lambright din't blitz 9% of the time.

Mad_Son

24 depends on the circumstances. If our 2nd and 3rd stringers give up points that is fine. If we win 25-24 I won't be happy. My goal for the season is to have us score more points in our lowest scoring game than we allow to our opponents in their highest scoring game. To date our 31 scored against Utah is higher than our 28 allowed to Arizona... so far so good..

BearsWiin

dhdawg

2001400ex said:

One thing that's an issue is time of possession of all things. We score too quickly, even when trying to run with gaskin, he got 12 yard chunks at a time. Then the stupid penalties on defense on third down that extends drives.

In other words, our defense is playing better than the scoreboard shows. In 1991, no one scored on our 2s and 3s either.

so you're saying if we do a better job of shortening the game and keeping our defense off the field the better chance we'll have at winning the game?

CuntWaffle

They have played 2 defenses with a pulse. Utah and USC. They scored 24 and 23. We? Should hold them to at least under 20 unless we are winning 63-0 in the 4th and put in the 3rd and 4th stringers.

AIRWOLF

CuntWaffle said:

They have played 2 defenses with a pulse. Utah and USC. They scored 24 and 23. We? Should hold them to at least under 20 unless we are winning 63-0 in the 4th and put in the 3rd and 4th stringers.

Air raid gonna Air raid.

IrishDawg22

I think if we outscore them we will remain undefeated.

dnc

Swaye said:

YellowSnow said:

Swaye said:

I would only be happy with 3 or less.

It's been many moons since that happened...'97 was last time we gave up 3 or less to CAL.

I have high standards.










I live in a trailer.

All the comforts of the res, on wheels!

YellowSnow

dnc said:

Swaye said:

YellowSnow said:

Swaye said:

I would only be happy with 3 or less.

It's been many moons since that happened...'97 was last time we gave up 3 or less to CAL.

I have high standards.










I live in a trailer.

All the comforts of the res, on wheels!

Were @Swaye 's ancestors more like nomadic, teepee Indians or semi-settled longhouse ones? I haven't lurked here long enough to know if this has been covered previously. I also get confused because the premium chat room logo shows a teepee but references a wigwam.

Swaye

YellowSnow said:

dnc said:

Swaye said:

YellowSnow said:

Swaye said:

I would only be happy with 3 or less.

It's been many moons since that happened...'97 was last time we gave up 3 or less to CAL.

I have high standards.










I live in a trailer.

All the comforts of the res, on wheels!

Were @Swaye 's ancestors more like nomadic, teepee Indians or semi-settled longhouse ones? I haven't lurked here long enough to know if this has been covered previously. I also get confused because the premium chat room logo shows a teepee but references a wigwam.

I like to keep people guessing. I'm a hard target.

My people lived in wigwam style homes, but they were called asi. And now you know...

AIRWOLF

IrishDawg22 said:

I think if we outscore them we will remain undefeated.

Is that some kind of advanced stats prediction bullshit?