I hate the media. If the starter goes down at either UW or USC, they are done at the national level. Carta-Samuels is as unproven as any back up QB and it's not a certainty he will even return. WSU is already fucked when it comes to competing nationally.
You're right that both are likely out of it from the perspective of winning a national championship ...
What I'm not sure I would agree with is that it eliminates either (particularly UW) from being in a position to win the P12 and get to the CFP.
The rationale that I would use to put Washington at #1 is as follows:
1) Starting QB was P12 Offensive POY and will be entering his 3rd season as a starter ... as strong of a resume as anybody in the conference
2) Run game has 2 proven talents in Gaskin and Coleman to support
3) Defense has shown strong year to year consistency and as a result reason to expect defensive losses from 2016 will be adequately replaced in 2017 leading to similar level production
4) Should anybody lose their QB, what team is best positioned to still win big with a backup QB in play ...
There's no question that UW would have to change their offense a bit with Magna Carta at the controls. I wouldn't want to see an offense where Magna was throwing more than 20 to 25 times at most. This would become a heavy run first team relying on play action passing to be successful. But by and large we have the running backs to be able to run the ball 50 times per game. Our OL has the potential to take another leap this offseason to be able to be the kind of OL that can run the ball when everybody knows it is coming ... and add that to our heavy 2 TE sets and you have a decent recipe there. We will have bigger receiving options to allow Magna to execute that play action game by creating easier chain moving throws. But the key is the defense in that as Softy pointed out yesterday UW was the only team in college football last year to not allow 30 points in a game. The onus then moves to the defense to control the game and limit scoring ... which they are capable of taking on that responsibility and keeping teams into the 14-24 point range on a consistent basis.
If that scenario plays out, while I personally don't think Magna is anything more than average P12 QB, I do think that he has the kind of weapons around him on offense to be able to get into the 20's on a consistent basis. And if we're in the 20's ... that will give us a chance to win a lot of games still.
We used backup quarterbacks in 2014 and 2015 and sucked ass.
They won't even let KJ throw the ball.
The 2017 team has significantly better talent around the roster than the 2014 or 2015 teams ...
I hate the media. If the starter goes down at either UW or USC, they are done at the national level. Carta-Samuels is as unproven as any back up QB and it's not a certainty he will even return. WSU is already fucked when it comes to competing nationally.
You're right that both are likely out of it from the perspective of winning a national championship ...
What I'm not sure I would agree with is that it eliminates either (particularly UW) from being in a position to win the P12 and get to the CFP.
The rationale that I would use to put Washington at #1 is as follows:
1) Starting QB was P12 Offensive POY and will be entering his 3rd season as a starter ... as strong of a resume as anybody in the conference
2) Run game has 2 proven talents in Gaskin and Coleman to support
3) Defense has shown strong year to year consistency and as a result reason to expect defensive losses from 2016 will be adequately replaced in 2017 leading to similar level production
4) Should anybody lose their QB, what team is best positioned to still win big with a backup QB in play ...
There's no question that UW would have to change their offense a bit with Magna Carta at the controls. I wouldn't want to see an offense where Magna was throwing more than 20 to 25 times at most. This would become a heavy run first team relying on play action passing to be successful. But by and large we have the running backs to be able to run the ball 50 times per game. Our OL has the potential to take another leap this offseason to be able to be the kind of OL that can run the ball when everybody knows it is coming ... and add that to our heavy 2 TE sets and you have a decent recipe there. We will have bigger receiving options to allow Magna to execute that play action game by creating easier chain moving throws. But the key is the defense in that as Softy pointed out yesterday UW was the only team in college football last year to not allow 30 points in a game. The onus then moves to the defense to control the game and limit scoring ... which they are capable of taking on that responsibility and keeping teams into the 14-24 point range on a consistent basis.
If that scenario plays out, while I personally don't think Magna is anything more than average P12 QB, I do think that he has the kind of weapons around him on offense to be able to get into the 20's on a consistent basis. And if we're in the 20's ... that will give us a chance to win a lot of games still.
We used backup quarterbacks in 2014 and 2015 and sucked ass.
They won't even let KJ throw the ball.
The 2017 team has significantly better talent around the roster than the 2014 or 2015 teams ...
I'm sorry, but you're assuming I read your posts.
But you have no problem responding or judging based on what you don't read by assuming ... that's plain idiotic
I hate the media. If the starter goes down at either UW or USC, they are done at the national level. Carta-Samuels is as unproven as any back up QB and it's not a certainty he will even return. WSU is already fucked when it comes to competing nationally.
You're right that both are likely out of it from the perspective of winning a national championship ...
What I'm not sure I would agree with is that it eliminates either (particularly UW) from being in a position to win the P12 and get to the CFP.
The rationale that I would use to put Washington at #1 is as follows:
1) Starting QB was P12 Offensive POY and will be entering his 3rd season as a starter ... as strong of a resume as anybody in the conference
2) Run game has 2 proven talents in Gaskin and Coleman to support
3) Defense has shown strong year to year consistency and as a result reason to expect defensive losses from 2016 will be adequately replaced in 2017 leading to similar level production
4) Should anybody lose their QB, what team is best positioned to still win big with a backup QB in play ...
There's no question that UW would have to change their offense a bit with Magna Carta at the controls. I wouldn't want to see an offense where Magna was throwing more than 20 to 25 times at most. This would become a heavy run first team relying on play action passing to be successful. But by and large we have the running backs to be able to run the ball 50 times per game. Our OL has the potential to take another leap this offseason to be able to be the kind of OL that can run the ball when everybody knows it is coming ... and add that to our heavy 2 TE sets and you have a decent recipe there. We will have bigger receiving options to allow Magna to execute that play action game by creating easier chain moving throws. But the key is the defense in that as Softy pointed out yesterday UW was the only team in college football last year to not allow 30 points in a game. The onus then moves to the defense to control the game and limit scoring ... which they are capable of taking on that responsibility and keeping teams into the 14-24 point range on a consistent basis.
If that scenario plays out, while I personally don't think Magna is anything more than average P12 QB, I do think that he has the kind of weapons around him on offense to be able to get into the 20's on a consistent basis. And if we're in the 20's ... that will give us a chance to win a lot of games still.
We used backup quarterbacks in 2014 and 2015 and sucked ass.
They won't even let KJ throw the ball.
The 2017 team has significantly better talent around the roster than the 2014 or 2015 teams ...
I'm sorry, but you're assuming I read your posts.
But you have no problem responding or judging based on what you don't read by assuming ... that's plain idiotic
Comments
1. Darnold
2. Herbert
No one else matters.