Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

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

Rank the 1990, 1992, 2000, and 2016 UW teams

2»

Comments

  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 43,526 Standard Supporter
    edited June 2017
    dnc said:

    The 2016 team would blow a 21 point 4th quarter lead to the 2000 team. Anyone that puts 2016 ahead of them doesn't know shit about football.

    2016 was better at HC, overall coaching staff and every position except QB and kicker.

    2016 was better at passing, catching, running, blocking, stopping the run, stopping the pass, returning kicks and punts.

    2000 was better at field goals and coming back late in the game.

    2016 would put 2000 away before halftime.

    Tui would not be enough.
    1984 would kick both their asses and then laugh about it.

  • AtomicDawgAtomicDawg Member Posts: 7,042 Standard Supporter

    2000
    1990
    2016
    1992

    1992 only scored three points against a good, but not great Arizona defense, got clobbered by Cougit losers, and lost three games. They're a disappointment and last.

    2016's schedule was too weak.

    2000 probably had the least talent, but they won the Rose Bowl, beat Miami, and only lost once.

    2000 had more talent than people recognize. CW had NFL talent, and so did Vontoure. Pharms could've stayed in the league a while.

    Fucking Neu and his "Built for Prison" program derailed a lot of that.
    That secondary was legit. Daniels pharms and Triplett were all good too. They seemed to fall apart for a few weeks after williams was hurt though.
  • TTJTTJ Member Posts: 4,797
    The '90 and '84 teams were both excellent. Both came within a whisker of being national champs. '16 wasn't quite at that level, but '17 should be. The '00 team was merely good, but with huge heart.
  • chuckchuck Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 10,925 Swaye's Wigwam
    Thinking about this again...i think id rank 2000 ahead of 92. That 92 team showed very little heart or toughness in the pullman snow and just looked slow against michigan. I know there were extenuating circumstances but that was not a top 10 team at the end of the year.
  • DooglesDoogles Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 12,545 Founders Club

    dnc said:

    The 2016 team would blow a 21 point 4th quarter lead to the 2000 team. Anyone that puts 2016 ahead of them doesn't know shit about football.

    2016 was better at HC, overall coaching staff and every position except QB and kicker.

    2016 was better at passing, catching, running, blocking, stopping the run, stopping the pass, returning kicks and punts.

    2000 was better at field goals and coming back late in the game.

    2016 would put 2000 away before halftime.

    Tui would not be enough.
    Phillip Buchanon
    Vernon Carey
    Najeh Davenport
    Ken Dorsey
    Jamal Green
    Andre Johnson
    William Joseph
    Damione Lewis
    Bryant Mckinnie
    Dan Morgan
    Santana Moss
    Clinton Portis
    Ed Reed
    Mike Rumph
    Jeremy Shockey
    Jonathan Vilma
    Reggie Wayne
    DJ Williams

    If only there was some example of a team that was much better than that 2000 team that they beat.
    Yeah but Joey Harrington.
  • TierbsHsotBoobsTierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680

    dnc said:

    The 2016 team would blow a 21 point 4th quarter lead to the 2000 team. Anyone that puts 2016 ahead of them doesn't know shit about football.

    2016 was better at HC, overall coaching staff and every position except QB and kicker.

    2016 was better at passing, catching, running, blocking, stopping the run, stopping the pass, returning kicks and punts.

    2000 was better at field goals and coming back late in the game.

    2016 would put 2000 away before halftime.

    Tui would not be enough.
    1984 would kick both their asses and then laugh about it.

    1984 wasn't even the best team in the Pac-10.
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,614

    dnc said:

    The 2016 team would blow a 21 point 4th quarter lead to the 2000 team. Anyone that puts 2016 ahead of them doesn't know shit about football.

    2016 was better at HC, overall coaching staff and every position except QB and kicker.

    2016 was better at passing, catching, running, blocking, stopping the run, stopping the pass, returning kicks and punts.

    2000 was better at field goals and coming back late in the game.

    2016 would put 2000 away before halftime.

    Tui would not be enough.
    1984 would kick both their asses and then laugh about it.

    What part of

    08
    84
    16
    90
    00
    92

    didn't you understand?

  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,614
    TTJ said:

    The '90 and '84 teams were both excellent. Both came within a whisker of being national champs. '16 wasn't quite at that level, but '17 should be. The '00 team was merely good, but with huge heart.

    True, but 90 has by far the worst loss of any of the teams on that list. That's why they're below 84 and 16 for me.

    That UCLA game in 90 was probably the most costly loss of my lifetime.
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,614

    2000
    1990
    2016
    1992

    1992 only scored three points against a good, but not great Arizona defense, got clobbered by Cougit losers, and lost three games. They're a disappointment and last.

    2016's schedule was too weak.

    2000 probably had the least talent, but they won the Rose Bowl, beat Miami, and only lost once.

    2000 had more talent than people recognize. CW had NFL talent, and so did Vontoure. Pharms could've stayed in the league a while.

    Fucking Neu and his "Built for Prison" program derailed a lot of that.
    Probably true about CW and AV. That's still a lot less talent than 2016 had in the secondary though.

    And if we're going by who started the season rather than who ended it that gives 2016 Mathis and Azeem and a noodle armed Jake rather than a broken noodle armed Jake.

    Cakewalk.
  • GladstoneGladstone Member Posts: 16,419
    dnc said:

    TTJ said:

    The '90 and '84 teams were both excellent. Both came within a whisker of being national champs. '16 wasn't quite at that level, but '17 should be. The '00 team was merely good, but with huge heart.

    True, but 90 has by far the worst loss of any of the teams on that list. That's why they're below 84 and 16 for me.

    That UCLA game in 90 was probably the most costly loss of my lifetime.
    Ugh. Good idea for a thread though. See you there.
  • SoutherndawgSoutherndawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 8,279 Founders Club

    1990 - Almost as good as the '91 team.
    1992 - Pre-BJH fiasco they were good. Post? Not so much.

    2016 and 2000 were about equal.

    It would be hard to say 2000 > 2016, but Marques was just really hard to beat. If you put Marques on the 2016 team, it's possible no one beats them.

    That 2000 team wasn't even that good. The 2016 team was a great team, but talent is way lower than the '90 and '92 teams. A clutch QB and some depth and 2016 would've been a truly great team.

    The voice of reason. Cheers.
Sign In or Register to comment.