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

Doogs ... turn away

2»

Comments

  • HuskyJW
    HuskyJW Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 15,594 Founders Club
    ....when they wanted to move the ball down the field they did???? Who the fuck doesn't want to move the ball down the field on every possession??
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TierbsHsotBoobs
    TierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    HuskyJW said:

    ....when they wanted to move the ball down the field they did???? Who the fuck doesn't want to move the ball down the field on every possession??


    image
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • creepycoug
    creepycoug Member Posts: 24,487
    TheHB said:

    ... after re-watching the Stanford game, I am more convinced than ever that UW is going to get butt abused tomorrow.

    When Stanford wanted to move the ball down the field, it did. UW's defense is not all that, yet. And we know how shitty the Huskies defend Oregon.

    I love Price, but his receivers don't help him at critical times. And Sankey can't score eight TDs.

    UW's special teams are a mess. Against Oregon, that's probably all the Ducks need to win.

    The definition of insanity applies here to anyone who thinks Washington will win tomorrow.

    And fuck you, I am not going to LIFPO.

    stoopid. I get the whole, "when that team is focused" shit. I get it. Sometimes teams play below their capability and, when they focus, take it up another level.

    Stanford/UW wasn't that. If losing your #5 ranking doesn't get you focused during a game that was never out of either team's reach, then you aren't able to focus.

    But, to at least help your point a little, it wasn't just UW's D. It was a combination of improvement on the D side of the ball PLUS Stanford's terribly predictable play calling. You know what's fucking coming all the time. Or at least you know it's going to be one of, at most, three things. How Washington does defending Oregon has little to do with how Washington did defending Stanford. Hell, they defended Stanford last year, albeit with Nunes, with a much shittier version of their D, and still got plungered by Oregon.


    I think that's what you mean to write/??

    And that is the problem with "smash mouth/old school" football everyone wants. you gotta have the horses to do it, because everyone knows what's coming. you have to be able to out-execute and out-athlete the other guy, which is fucking hard to do. Jimmy Johnson ran his offenses just like this. Awesome O lines with a solid running game and a sure handed, strong receiver and an accurate quarterback. You knew what Dallas was going to do, it just didn't matter because they did anyway. But even Jimmy used to say in interviews, "everyone wants to play this way. it's just that not everyone has the personnel to do it." that is the deal with Furd, and when their personnel aren't that much better than yours, you'll play with them.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TheHB
    TheHB Member Posts: 7,151
    My poont was that Stanford was focused on running clock ... not scoring points ... when they led by 10. Scoring would have been a byproduct, but Shaw was very Sark-like in that he was trying to keep UW off the field. Watch the game again. If you honestly think UW was winning the line of scrimmage -- or whatever cliché you want to use to indicate which team was "in charge," then you need to DIAFF because you are inhaling oxygen the worthy among us can use.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MisterEm
    MisterEm Member Posts: 6,685
    TierbsHsotBoobs said:

    HuskyJW said:

    ....when they wanted to move the ball down the field they did???? Who the fuck doesn't want to move the ball down the field on every possession??


    image
    Needs more Top-Pot doughnuts to take seriously.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter