Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Manuel Allen, 2018 WR, Corona (Centennial), CA (OFFERED)
Comments
-
Listing championships by decades makes UW's success look evenly distributed but not sustainable. In reality the conference championships have come in bursts.Tequilla said:
What's your standards?Nurple said:
You're right but until we win at high level of constantly conference championship or better we are gonna hardcorehusky all over this shit .Do you really think the blue bloods do it the way they're supposed to do it.Tequilla said:
You don't have to do that to be competing at a high level ... we do it the way you're supposed to ... our problem is that we don't get enough of our A targets as I'd like.Nurple said:We can bitch all we want but blue bloods gonna blue blood. It's fucked up for those kids but when your basically corporate football your infallible.One day I hope UW can do this but I maybe wishful thinking.
Starting in the 1920's, the number of conference championships that we've either won outright or shared the title for by decade as follows:
1920s: 1
1930s: 1
1940s: 0
1950s: 1
1960s: 2
1970s: 1
1980s: 2
1990s: 4
2000s: 1
2010s: 1
Total: 14
Over that time period, we finished 2nd in the conference 18 different times.
That's not saying that we can't win at a consistently high level, but there's reason to be tempered about our success and knowing that we're always going to be going uphill against the LA schools. Just as a point of reference, over this time period, the number of conference/division titles by the LA schools:
USC: 40
UCLA: 19
1937-1958: None
1959-1963: 3
1964-1976: none
1977-1981: 3
1982-1989: none
1990-1995: 4
1996-2015: Dreck other than one magical season in 2000
2016-?: ?
Looks to me like we might be in the early stages of a run of championships. -
FremontTroll said:
Listing championships by decades makes UW's success look evenly distributed but not sustainable. In reality the conference championships have come in bursts.Tequilla said:
What's your standards?Nurple said:
You're right but until we win at high level of constantly conference championship or better we are gonna hardcorehusky all over this shit .Do you really think the blue bloods do it the way they're supposed to do it.Tequilla said:
You don't have to do that to be competing at a high level ... we do it the way you're supposed to ... our problem is that we don't get enough of our A targets as I'd like.Nurple said:We can bitch all we want but blue bloods gonna blue blood. It's fucked up for those kids but when your basically corporate football your infallible.One day I hope UW can do this but I maybe wishful thinking.
Starting in the 1920's, the number of conference championships that we've either won outright or shared the title for by decade as follows:
1920s: 1
1930s: 1
1940s: 0
1950s: 1
1960s: 2
1970s: 1
1980s: 2
1990s: 4
2000s: 1
2010s: 1
Total: 14
Over that time period, we finished 2nd in the conference 18 different times.
That's not saying that we can't win at a consistently high level, but there's reason to be tempered about our success and knowing that we're always going to be going uphill against the LA schools. Just as a point of reference, over this time period, the number of conference/division titles by the LA schools:
USC: 40
UCLA: 19
1937-1958: None
1959-1963: 3
1964-1976: none
1977-1981: 3
1982-1989: none
1990-1995: 4
1996-2015: Dreck other than one magical season in 2000
2016-?: ?
Looks to me like we might be in the early stages of a run of championships.
-
In general, they are inconsequential to the numbers that I've produced ... but at this point in time, you have to win your division first to win the conference championship.dnc said:
Why would you count division titles?Tequilla said:
What's your standards?Nurple said:
You're right but until we win at high level of constantly conference championship or better we are gonna hardcorehusky all over this shit .Do you really think the blue bloods do it the way they're supposed to do it.Tequilla said:
You don't have to do that to be competing at a high level ... we do it the way you're supposed to ... our problem is that we don't get enough of our A targets as I'd like.Nurple said:We can bitch all we want but blue bloods gonna blue blood. It's fucked up for those kids but when your basically corporate football your infallible.One day I hope UW can do this but I maybe wishful thinking.
Starting in the 1920's, the number of conference championships that we've either won outright or shared the title for by decade as follows:
1920s: 1
1930s: 1
1940s: 0
1950s: 1
1960s: 2
1970s: 1
1980s: 2
1990s: 4
2000s: 1
2010s: 1
Total: 14
Over that time period, we finished 2nd in the conference 18 different times.
That's not saying that we can't win at a consistently high level, but there's reason to be tempered about our success and knowing that we're always going to be going uphill against the LA schools. Just as a point of reference, over this time period, the number of conference/division titles by the LA schools:
USC: 40
UCLA: 19
My expectations for Pete are probably somewhere in the range of Pete winning the North 5 out of 10 years and then winning the conference 2 or 3 out of the 5 times he plays for the title game. -
Or 1919DerekJohnson said:
don't forget 1916Tequilla said:
What's your standards?Nurple said:
You're right but until we win at high level of constantly conference championship or better we are gonna hardcorehusky all over this shit .Do you really think the blue bloods do it the way they're supposed to do it.Tequilla said:
You don't have to do that to be competing at a high level ... we do it the way you're supposed to ... our problem is that we don't get enough of our A targets as I'd like.Nurple said:We can bitch all we want but blue bloods gonna blue blood. It's fucked up for those kids but when your basically corporate football your infallible.One day I hope UW can do this but I maybe wishful thinking.
Starting in the 1920's, the number of conference championships that we've either won outright or shared the title for by decade as follows:
1920s: 1
1930s: 1
1940s: 0
1950s: 1
1960s: 2
1970s: 1
1980s: 2
1990s: 4
2000s: 1
2010s: 1
Total: 14
Over that time period, we finished 2nd in the conference 18 different times.
That's not saying that we can't win at a consistently high level, but there's reason to be tempered about our success and knowing that we're always going to be going uphill against the LA schools. Just as a point of reference, over this time period, the number of conference/division titles by the LA schools:
USC: 40
UCLA: 19 -
What it definitely tells me is that IF we have the right coach in place, we can definitely win at a high level ...FremontTroll said:
Listing championships by decades makes UW's success look evenly distributed but not sustainable. In reality the conference championships have come in bursts.Tequilla said:
What's your standards?Nurple said:
You're right but until we win at high level of constantly conference championship or better we are gonna hardcorehusky all over this shit .Do you really think the blue bloods do it the way they're supposed to do it.Tequilla said:
You don't have to do that to be competing at a high level ... we do it the way you're supposed to ... our problem is that we don't get enough of our A targets as I'd like.Nurple said:We can bitch all we want but blue bloods gonna blue blood. It's fucked up for those kids but when your basically corporate football your infallible.One day I hope UW can do this but I maybe wishful thinking.
Starting in the 1920's, the number of conference championships that we've either won outright or shared the title for by decade as follows:
1920s: 1
1930s: 1
1940s: 0
1950s: 1
1960s: 2
1970s: 1
1980s: 2
1990s: 4
2000s: 1
2010s: 1
Total: 14
Over that time period, we finished 2nd in the conference 18 different times.
That's not saying that we can't win at a consistently high level, but there's reason to be tempered about our success and knowing that we're always going to be going uphill against the LA schools. Just as a point of reference, over this time period, the number of conference/division titles by the LA schools:
USC: 40
UCLA: 19
1937-1958: None
1959-1963: 3
1964-1976: none
1977-1981: 3
1982-1989: none
1990-1995: 4
1996-2015: Dreck other than one magical season in 2000
2016-?: ?
Looks to me like we might be in the early stages of a run of championships.
But unlike a school like USC where you can have corpses like Ted Tollner or John Robinson (his 2nd tenure) in charge, we really need just about everything lined up working well for us to be competitive at the highest levels. -
I'd be disappointed if Pete only wins the conference two years out of ten. That might be doogalistic, but 3 out 10 is my minimum expectation. And winning the north 6 or 7 times out of 10.Tequilla said:
In general, they are inconsequential to the numbers that I've produced ... but at this point in time, you have to win your division first to win the conference championship.dnc said:
Why would you count division titles?Tequilla said:
What's your standards?Nurple said:
You're right but until we win at high level of constantly conference championship or better we are gonna hardcorehusky all over this shit .Do you really think the blue bloods do it the way they're supposed to do it.Tequilla said:
You don't have to do that to be competing at a high level ... we do it the way you're supposed to ... our problem is that we don't get enough of our A targets as I'd like.Nurple said:We can bitch all we want but blue bloods gonna blue blood. It's fucked up for those kids but when your basically corporate football your infallible.One day I hope UW can do this but I maybe wishful thinking.
Starting in the 1920's, the number of conference championships that we've either won outright or shared the title for by decade as follows:
1920s: 1
1930s: 1
1940s: 0
1950s: 1
1960s: 2
1970s: 1
1980s: 2
1990s: 4
2000s: 1
2010s: 1
Total: 14
Over that time period, we finished 2nd in the conference 18 different times.
That's not saying that we can't win at a consistently high level, but there's reason to be tempered about our success and knowing that we're always going to be going uphill against the LA schools. Just as a point of reference, over this time period, the number of conference/division titles by the LA schools:
USC: 40
UCLA: 19
My expectations for Pete are probably somewhere in the range of Pete winning the North 5 out of 10 years and then winning the conference 2 or 3 out of the 5 times he plays for the title game. -
This kid was all UW before committing to SC. Maybe our staff wasnt very high on him?
-
I think we thought we were dialed in on Ozzy and Spiker, so we dropped back a bit. We would've never beat USC for him.Ice_Holmvik said:This kid was all UW before committing to SC. Maybe our staff wasnt very high on him?
I bet USC told him to look around.
He's good... but he's not AMAZING. -
I can think of 4 players on the west coast that we have a legit shot at that I'd like more than him. Osborne, Spiker, Chase Williams, Mike Wilson. I just don't think he is like those guys.Ice_Holmvik said:This kid was all UW before committing to SC. Maybe our staff wasnt very high on him?
-
So, synthesizing a few things you've* said I have your west coast WR bored looking like this:Dennis_DeYoung said:
I think we thought we were dialed in on Ozzy and Spiker, so we dropped back a bit. We would've never beat USC for him.Ice_Holmvik said:This kid was all UW before committing to SC. Maybe our staff wasnt very high on him?
I bet USC told him to look around.
He's good... but he's not AMAZING.
1. Jalen Hall (going to USC)
2/3. Osbourne/Spiker (not sure how you have them ordered)
4. Michael Wilson
5. Chase Williams
Is Allen number six, or are there others who slot above him?
*Some of that may have come from Coker, but I always just assume you two share a TBS brain.
