You guys are an 8 or 9 win team this year at best which is why preseason rankings are dumb.
Last year you got pushed around by Bama and USC. Bama I get, USC not so much. Your D was beyond stacked last year but the O was a liability. This year is a decent defense with the offense still being a liability. Next year both will be a liability.
It was a great one year run. The Seattle Times piece in 12 years will be great.
This poast had potential, but you need to pay attention to your prose. Two "greats" in the last two lines kinda screwed it up. If you'd used "epic" or something, it would have been better.
Nothing about UW football has been epic for a long long time.
4 teams made the playoff in 2016 out of roughly 120. Remove skull from cunt 47
You guys are an 8 or 9 win team this year at best which is why preseason rankings are dumb.
Last year you got pushed around by Bama and USC. Bama I get, USC not so much. Your D was beyond stacked last year but the O was a liability. This year is a decent defense with the offense still being a liability. Next year both will be a liability.
It was a great one year run. The Seattle Times piece in 12 years will be great.
This poast had potential, but you need to pay attention to your prose. Two "greats" in the last two lines kinda screwed it up. If you'd used "epic" or something, it would have been better.
Nothing about UW football has been epic for a long long time.
4 teams made the playoff in 2016 out of roughly 120. Remove skull from cunt 47
You guys are an 8 or 9 win team this year at best which is why preseason rankings are dumb.
Last year you got pushed around by Bama and USC. Bama I get, USC not so much. Your D was beyond stacked last year but the O was a liability. This year is a decent defense with the offense still being a liability. Next year both will be a liability.
It was a great one year run. The Seattle Times piece in 12 years will be great.
This poast had potential, but you need to pay attention to your prose. Two "greats" in the last two lines kinda screwed it up. If you'd used "epic" or something, it would have been better.
Nothing about UW football has been epic for a long long time.
4 teams made the playoff in 2016 out of roughly 120. Remove skull from cunt 47
You guys are an 8 or 9 win team this year at best which is why preseason rankings are dumb.
Last year you got pushed around by Bama and USC. Bama I get, USC not so much. Your D was beyond stacked last year but the O was a liability. This year is a decent defense with the offense still being a liability. Next year both will be a liability.
It was a great one year run. The Seattle Times piece in 12 years will be great.
This poast had potential, but you need to pay attention to your prose. Two "greats" in the last two lines kinda screwed it up. If you'd used "epic" or something, it would have been better.
Nothing about UW football has been epic for a long long time.
4 teams made the playoff in 2016 out of roughly 120. Remove skull from cunt 47
You guys are an 8 or 9 win team this year at best which is why preseason rankings are dumb.
Last year you got pushed around by Bama and USC. Bama I get, USC not so much. Your D was beyond stacked last year but the O was a liability. This year is a decent defense with the offense still being a liability. Next year both will be a liability.
It was a great one year run. The Seattle Times piece in 12 years will be great.
@dnc told me Washington fields a championship caliber team once every 25-30 years. 2046 is going to be special.
UW is far from a fraud. When both starting corners weren't hurt this defense was as good as anyone in the country....maybe the best. The main problem is under center. Put McSorley in there and this team is undefeated and #3 in the cuntry. Oh, and the PacChamp vs USC is epic. UW wins by 10.
With Browning, well, you're looking at it...a holiday bowl team.
UW is far from a fraud. When both starting corners weren't hurt this defense was as good as anyone in the country....maybe the best. The main problem is under center. Put McSorley in there and this team is undefeated and #3 in the cuntry. Oh, and the PacChamp vs USC is epic. UW wins by 10.
With Browning, well, you're looking at it...a holiday bowl team.
Bryant ain't terrible but at 5'7" he gets picked by the tall receivers. Cost us some pts against Stanford for sure.
Bryant is my favorite corner. What he lacks in height he makes up for in rrun support, bubble screens...anything behind the LOS
UW deserves it. They have now choked in 4 big games. Even James had his losses to UCLA that bedeviled the Dawgs in the 80's and 90's, but unlike James, Peterson hasn't yet won "the big game" and gotten over the hump of getting his players to execute at a high level against the toughest teams. Last year, it was SC and Alabama, this year it's a fired up ASU and a workman-like, fairly solid Stanford team with a better game plan.
The Dawgs are good, not great. To be great, you have to win the big, important games and they haven't done that yet.
UW deserves it. They have now choked in 4 big games. Even James had his losses to UCLA that bedeviled the Dawgs in the 80's and 90's, but unlike James, Peterson hasn't yet won "the big game" and gotten over the hump of getting his players to execute at a high level against the toughest teams. Last year, it was SC and Alabama, this year it's a fired up ASU and a workman-like, fairly solid incredibly mediocre, gimpy one-horse Stanford team with a better game plan and QB that doesn't shit himself at the first sign of resistance.
The Dawgs are good, not great. To be great, you have to win the big, important games and they haven't done that yet.
FTFY. You don't lose to San Diego State and beat 1-7 Oregon State by 1 poont and get to wear the "fairly solid" badge.
Okay, Cuog, here it is: You're a fucking moron. Love ran well the entire game, despite a bum ankle. Everyone saw his runs, as well as his limping off the field to get help from the trainers. That mother fucker blasted through the holes and around the corner very well, changed direction and accelerated at about 90% of his normal self. Love's effort and game, in and of themselves, were fucking amazing for a guy with an injured ankle.
Drooling morons like you keep repeating shit that didn't happen just to talk shit, while demonstrating your complete ignorance of reality. Prototypical fucking Cuog bullshit, from a loser from a loser school and loser program. The Cuogs could win the NC and their stupid fucking fans like you would still be complete fucking losers because you make shit up out of whole cloth due to your ignorance, want of acceptance, and desire to count in places you don't.
Fuck off and die.
Ahh, this made my day. You sound like @Tequilla sending me a "Fuck Off!!!!!" PM. Kudos to you for having the balls to say it TO MY FACE!!
But pray tell: what did I make up? Did Love have a flat tire or not? If your D were that elite, keeping him at under 150 shouldn't be a problem, especially since you weren't facing any kind of competent passing attack.
Don't try and complicate it for obfuscation purposes fuck face: the guy came in with a bad ankle, he fucked it up more during the game, and you benefitted from it. He wasn't 100% and he had to sit a lot. If he's 100% maybe the game isn't even close.
You obviously weren't listening the NASCAR network announcers, Creep. They said 75% of Bryce Love is still better than almost any other back in the country. So basically he was 75%, which is still C+ Bryce Love and therefore it doesn't matter if he's 75% or 100% because he's the greatest Stanford back since Christian McCaffrey.
The #1 defense should be able to contain him when it doesn't have to worry about a big air game. Or so I'm told. And he had to sit for key stretches. It's ugly. Don't try and put lipstick on it.
I was making fun of the script from the announcers and not trying to put lipstick on a pig. The Defense had a bad game on the road against a mediocre team on the road. Funny thing is giving up 30 pts once in the while in the PAC shouldn't be that big of a deal; plenty of great teams have given that up and still won. But it's death sentence when your offense is "differently-abled" and that's the root issue here. UW should have been up 21- 7 at half and been able to win a 35- 30 type game.
We've heard the argument that this defense, despite losing 3 guys to the draft, was "better" than last year's. I think that's a very relative conclusion, and not true. We are not as good on the back end, nor at LB, IMO, and the Buck position has not produced pressure like we saw with Psalm, even though his pressure was typically misdirected, out-of-whack, and ineffective. The DL has played well, and the LBs seem faster, but not as sure-handed when tackling as last year, and not hitting anyone very hard, compared to the last couple years.
The low scoring numbers have also been a little deceiving, because we haven't played against as many good QBs as last year. Rosen was gone after 1.5 quarters, Burmeister was a no-show, and Cal's & OSU's QBs were sub-par at best. Great scoring #'s against those anemic offenses does not indicate a D that's "better than last year" IMO.
Stats are for losers.
All that being said Jake Browning Sucks it's still a pretty dang good defense. Whether or not it's better or not than last year or if the stats are skewed by cupcakes is superfluous in my estimation. It's still a D that is easily good enough to win PAC championships. We are fortunate as hell to have an evil genius like Kawasaki; fuck the entire offense though except for RB's, TE's and some of the OL pieces. We need better dudes and better coaching.
Not saying the D isn't good. Saying some on these boreds, some stats monkeys and some podcasters have been making that "better than last year" case, albeit to date, before UW had really played anyone of substance. Stanford was a bad outing for the D, overall, but mainly because of a couple key matchups that allowed the tree to seal off the ends and win the high-jump contests on several key third down plays.
The D is still good, but it got exploited in key matchups that I think last year's D would've done a much better job of shutting down.
Even so, to my eyes, the passing offense fucking sucked and the substantial drop-off in the passing game from the loss of Ross is really showing itself at this point in the season.
UW deserves it. They have now choked in 4 big games. Even James had his losses to UCLA that bedeviled the Dawgs in the 80's and 90's, but unlike James, Peterson hasn't yet won "the big game" and gotten over the hump of getting his players to execute at a high level against the toughest teams. Last year, it was SC and Alabama, this year it's a fired up ASU and a workman-like, fairly solid Stanford team with a better game plan.
The Dawgs are good, not great. To be great, you have to win the big, important games and they haven't done that yet.
So 2017 ASU and Stanford count as big games, but 2016 Stanford, Utah, WSU, and Colorado do not? That's some fucking retarded spin.
There's no question that the 2017 iteration of UW has done absolutely nothing impressive other than blow the doors off of some middle rung Pac-12 programs (and even if we were 10-0 right now it would still be true). But this sudden rewrite of history that tries to pretend that we didn't beat anyone worth a damn in 2016 as well, is total nonsense.
Stanford, WSU and Colorado, 2016, were blowouts. No, they weren't "big games" that really challenged UW. Utah was close, but shouldn't have been, but I'll give that one to you as a road game against a decent squad. But clearly the hardest challenges last year were USC (L), which shut down our offense, and at Arizona.
The script this year has us thrashing the parade of the powerful: Cal, UCLA, Oregon State and Colorado, while losing to ASU and Stanford. Show me a big win against a genuinely tough, talented team anywhere in that 4-2 stretch. You can't because it ain't there, but that's not really the point, which is UW's failure to execute at a high level against other high-level teams, or teams that are playing at a high level on any given night. Those "James Type" wins just aren't there.
We were hoping that jake would take that next step in his development, but he didn't hence we suck. His fundamentals are so shitty, I want to kill babushka.
And I want to jump into that avatar of yours.
glad someone is paying attention. I have probably one of the most glorious avatars.
We were hoping that jake would take that next step in his development, but he didn't hence we suck. His fundamentals are so shitty, I want to kill babushka.
And I want to jump into that avatar of yours.
glad someone is paying attention. I have probably one of the most glorious avatars.
I cannot think of a more enjoyable career defining moment from an actress in recent memory tbh
UW deserves it. They have now choked in 4 big games. Even James had his losses to UCLA that bedeviled the Dawgs in the 80's and 90's, but unlike James, Peterson hasn't yet won "the big game" and gotten over the hump of getting his players to execute at a high level against the toughest teams. Last year, it was SC and Alabama, this year it's a fired up ASU and a workman-like, fairly solid Stanford team with a better game plan.
The Dawgs are good, not great. To be great, you have to win the big, important games and they haven't done that yet.
I guess pac 12 titles dont mean anything anymore?
No. When you started calling Oregon failures for winning the conference and not winning their post season games you fell under that umbrella too.
Plus, two conference titles in 26 years is like Illinois good.
UW is far from a fraud. When both starting corners weren't hurt this defense was as good as anyone in the country....maybe the best. The main problem is under center. Put McSorley in there and this team is undefeated and #3 in the cuntry. Oh, and the PacChamp vs USC is epic. UW wins by 10.
With Browning, well, you're looking at it...a holiday bowl team.
UW is far from a fraud. When both starting corners weren't hurt this defense was as good as anyone in the country....maybe the best. The main problem is under center. Put McSorley in there and this team is undefeated and #3 in the cuntry. Oh, and the PacChamp vs USC is epic. UW wins by 10.
With Browning, well, you're looking at it...a holiday bowl team.
Bryant ain't terrible but at 5'7" he gets picked by the tall receivers. Cost us some pts against Stanford for sure.
Bryant is my favorite corner. What he lacks in height he makes up for in rrun support, bubble screens...anything behind the LOS
He’s a liability at corner with a capital L. Bryant belongs mostly on the sideline, rotating in as the nickel or dime.
UW deserves it. They have now choked in 4 big games. Even James had his losses to UCLA that bedeviled the Dawgs in the 80's and 90's, but unlike James, Peterson hasn't yet won "the big game" and gotten over the hump of getting his players to execute at a high level against the toughest teams. Last year, it was SC and Alabama, this year it's a fired up ASU and a workman-like, fairly solid Stanford team with a better game plan.
The Dawgs are good, not great. To be great, you have to win the big, important games and they haven't done that yet.
So 2017 ASU and Stanford count as big games, but 2016 Stanford, Utah, WSU, and Colorado do not? That's some fucking retarded spin.
There's no question that the 2017 iteration of UW has done absolutely nothing impressive other than blow the doors off of some middle rung Pac-12 programs (and even if we were 10-0 right now it would still be true). But this sudden rewrite of history that tries to pretend that we didn't beat anyone worth a damn in 2016 as well, is total nonsense.
Stanford, WSU and Colorado, 2016, were blowouts. No, they weren't "big games" that really challenged UW. Utah was close, but shouldn't have been, but I'll give that one to you as a road game against a decent squad. But clearly the hardest challenges last year were USC (L), which shut down our offense, and at Arizona.
The script this year has us thrashing the parade of the powerful: Cal, UCLA, Oregon State and Colorado, while losing to ASU and Stanford. Show me a big win against a genuinely tough, talented team anywhere in that 4-2 stretch. You can't because it ain't there, but that's not really the point, which is UW's failure to execute at a high level against other high-level teams, or teams that are playing at a high level on any given night. Those "James Type" wins just aren't there.
You are aware both Miller and Murphy were out right? How would last year's defense been better in this game?
UW deserves it. They have now choked in 4 big games. Even James had his losses to UCLA that bedeviled the Dawgs in the 80's and 90's, but unlike James, Peterson hasn't yet won "the big game" and gotten over the hump of getting his players to execute at a high level against the toughest teams. Last year, it was SC and Alabama, this year it's a fired up ASU and a workman-like, fairly solid incredibly mediocre, gimpy one-horse Stanford team with a better game plan and QB that doesn't shit himself at the first sign of resistance.
The Dawgs are good, not great. To be great, you have to win the big, important games and they haven't done that yet.
FTFY. You don't lose to San Diego State and beat 1-7 Oregon State by 1 poont and get to wear the "fairly solid" badge.
On this we agree Creeper. Stanford is a average team this year both on defense and maybe even less than that on offense since they are completely one dimensional
Comments
The D is still good, but it got exploited in key matchups that I think last year's D would've done a much better job of shutting down.
Even so, to my eyes, the passing offense fucking sucked and the substantial drop-off in the passing game from the loss of Ross is really showing itself at this point in the season.
The script this year has us thrashing the parade of the powerful: Cal, UCLA, Oregon State and Colorado, while losing to ASU and Stanford. Show me a big win against a genuinely tough, talented team anywhere in that 4-2 stretch. You can't because it ain't there, but that's not really the point, which is UW's failure to execute at a high level against other high-level teams, or teams that are playing at a high level on any given night. Those "James Type" wins just aren't there.
Plus, two conference titles in 26 years is like Illinois good.