Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
A few football thoughts.
Comments
-
UW didn't lose to USC because of its defense ... they gave up 24 points ... and the primary failing of the defense was some below average play from them in the red zone that was the difference between 16 and 24 points.DerekJohnson said:I'm convinced that if we had really gone after Darnold then UW wins that game at home.
The route concepts that USC hurt us with were bringing high/low crossing routes in the middle of the field in positions in front of the LB and behind the same LB and in front of the S. Darnold's talented enough to make not only those throws, but the right decisions on who to throw the ball to. If you go back and look at the stats, the guys killing us weren't JuJu, etc. that you typically expect to get their catches. It was the TE who didn't do much the entire year up until that point.
And in case you haven't noticed, USC athletes >>> Colorado athletes. If the strategy to beat us was so easy (just follow the SC blueprint), then EVERYBODY would have done it. -
USCs defense is better than Colorados.
-
You spelled "RUN THE FUCKING BALL" wrong.DerekJohnson said:I'm convinced that if we had really gone after Darnold then UW wins that game at home.
Defense gave up 3 TDs. One at the end of the half where we shouldn't have given them an extra possession (let down, prevent D); and one following our 3-and-out after the turnover where we forgot to run the fucking ball and our D got sent back out after they created a huge momentum swing.
We keep the D off the field in that game and run the ball: we win.
Also, D allowed 7 points in the second half after we adjusted.
HTH. -
Coleman was suspended for that game for running all over the first team defense in practiceDennis_DeYoung said:
You spelled "RUN THE FUCKING BALL" wrong.DerekJohnson said:I'm convinced that if we had really gone after Darnold then UW wins that game at home.
Defense gave up 3 TDs. One at the end of the half where we shouldn't have given them an extra possession (let down, prevent D); and one following our 3-and-out after the turnover where we forgot to run the fucking ball and our D got sent back out after they created a huge momentum swing.
We keep the D off the field in that game and run the ball: we win.
Also, D allowed 7 points in the second half after we adjusted.
HTH. -
USC beat us in the intermediate pass areas and downfield between the hash marks.DerekJohnson said:
I get what you're saying, but the intermediate and short stuff is exactly how USC moved the ball on us, when we were reticent to bring extra pressure against Darnold.Tequilla said:
Actually completely disagree ...DerekJohnson said:
but if we consistently drop 7 and rush 4, it could play right into Colorado's handsTequilla said:
That's pretty much my takeaway as well ...Dawgs4ever said:I strongly agree with Tequila on this.
The only game I saw from Colorado where they didn't really put pressure on the short to intermediate routes was USC because they were afraid of the speed killing them over the top. How much they worry about our speed will be one thing I'm watching early because while they may worry about our speed, I'm not sure they will worry about Jake's arm.
You can run the ball on them as their front 7 is fundamentally sound but lacks overall athletic talent ... it's the reason why they are constantly bringing pressure because they want to be in a position to dictate the action to shorten the play. Unlike us, they don't have the ability to sit back, contain, and then attack mistakes.
This is a game where Chico could be huge for us in a number of different ways. I wouldn't be surprised if he lines up in the backfield a few times trying to get him in coverage versus LBs. The Cougs ran a go route with Morrow coming out of the backfield right down the middle of the field against a LB and it was an easy TD. A play like that COULD be there for us as well.
It's important for us to get up in this game early because Colorado's going to have a hard time moving the ball consistently against us from what I've seen. IF we can get Sefo into positions where he feels like he has to press, the game could be blown open rather easily.
Sefo is not a technically gifted passer ... he's ok with the intermediate and short stuff. A lot of what they do comes back to some RPO's and getting the ball out of their WRs with numbers. The WR screen game in those instances typically don't work well against us.
The biggest thing that I've seen in their passing game that is making me feel very bullish on this game is that their WRs really don't do a good job of extending plays and giving Sefo options when the original routes break down. That combined with Sefo having very, very poor footwork tells me that there could be some opportunities for us to create turnovers.
Our defense is largely predicated on not only stopping the run, but forcing teams to throw the ball short where we tackle immediately. You can't win football games when your only offense is throwing short because eventually we squeeze those routes away as well (ask the Coug).
Where rushing 4 and dropping 7 becomes more of an issue is when you're playing a QB that is as talented as guy like Deshaun Watson who will eventually pick you apart or a mobile QB like JT Barrett or Jalen Hurts where if you lose contain with your 4 man rush and allow them to get out and run they can compromise your defense. Sefo doesn't have the arm/accuracy of a Watson and he's nowhere close to the runner that Barrett or Hurts is.
Even then, that game was lost by the gameplan, not the defense -
I don't know if we would have won the game. But I totally agree we should have blitzed early and often. Even WSU last week we didn't blitz enough. Against USC I felt it was stubbornness that we didn't blitz. As in we thought we could eventually get pressure. Last week I felt it was because we were winning badly so didn't want to tip our hands to Colorado that we were going to blitz.DerekJohnson said:I'm convinced that if we had really gone after Darnold then UW wins that game at home.
But..... We needed to do way more on offense against USC to win. The running east to west stuff was bullshit. We should have just run up the middle all game.
And Jake needs to recognize the man to man coverage earlier and throw the ball while Ross and Pettis are still in his range. -
DerekJohnson said:
I'm convinced that if we had kept Tedford a few extra days then UW wins that game at home.
-
On paper, the Huskies should win this one. Speaking as a Buffs fan, the worst disparity between the teams is in the WA kick and punt return talent vs. the CO kick and punt teams. That being said, these Buffs have some talent, a ton of heart, lots of experience, great coaching, and sort of a "team of destiny" vibe. This will be a great game.
-
Team of Destiny? Good Christ!Ringer said:On paper, the Huskies should win this one. Speaking as a Buffs fan, the worst disparity between the teams is in the WA kick and punt return talent vs. the CO kick and punt teams. That being said, these Buffs have some talent, a ton of heart, lots of experience, great coaching, and sort of a "team of destiny" vibe. This will be a great game.
-
Perhaps I went too far with that "team of destiny" hyperbole. But a team which recently went 2-25 in the PAC 12 over several years and is now poised (with a few minor breaks in tomorrow's game) to at least win the PAC 12 and go to the Rose Bowl has a certain, shall we say, [cue French accent] je ne sais quoi, oui?CuntWaffle said:
Team of Destiny? Good Christ!Ringer said:On paper, the Huskies should win this one. Speaking as a Buffs fan, the worst disparity between the teams is in the WA kick and punt return talent vs. the CO kick and punt teams. That being said, these Buffs have some talent, a ton of heart, lots of experience, great coaching, and sort of a "team of destiny" vibe. This will be a great game.
