Home› Hardcore Husky Board

Howdy, Stranger!

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

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

Dante Pettis is HUNG

jhfstyle24jhfstyle24 Member Posts: 3,255
in Hardcore Husky Board
out to dry by Brownsocks
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
«1

Comments

  • haiehaie Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 21,766 Swaye's Wigwam
    Let’s be honest, he left a lot to be desired as a pure #1 receiver. Great player overall, though. We just needed Bryant or someone to be the #1.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • puppylove_sugarsteelpuppylove_sugarsteel Member Posts: 9,133
    edited March 2018
    haie said:

    Let’s be honest, he left a lot to be desired as a pure #1 receiver. Great player overall, though. We just needed Bryant or someone to be the #1.

    If Bryant is your #1 we in trouble...need a burner who can stretch field and attack ball in air. I like Bynum...not a burner, but a true WR. I think he makes a move.

    Bryant is a big WR basically, but hardly a #1. Need 2-3 WR's to help browning. We saw how shitty we were with Pennis out ( and Bryant at TE)
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleBazePurpleBaze Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 29,870 Founders Club
    haie said:

    Let’s be honest, he left a lot to be desired as a pure #1 receiver. Great player overall, though. We just needed Bryant or someone to be the #1.

    *Quite honestly
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • haiehaie Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 21,766 Swaye's Wigwam
    puppylove_sugarsteel said:

    haie said:

    Let’s be honest, he left a lot to be desired as a pure #1 receiver. Great player overall, though. We just needed Bryant or someone to be the #1.

    If Bryant is your #1 we in trouble...need a burner who can stretch field and attack ball in air. I like Bynum...not a burner, but a true WR. I think he makes a move.

    Bryant is a big WR basically, but hardly a #1. Need 2-3 WR's to help browning. We saw how shitty we were with Pennis out ( and Bryant at TE)
    He was pretty much our #1 against Cal before he got hurt.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • puppylove_sugarsteelpuppylove_sugarsteel Member Posts: 9,133
    haie said:

    Let’s be honest, he left a lot to be desired as a pure #1 receiver. Great player overall, though. We just needed Bryant or someone to be the #1.

    Who are you talking about? Bryant?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • puppylove_sugarsteelpuppylove_sugarsteel Member Posts: 9,133
    edited March 2018
    haie said:

    puppylove_sugarsteel said:

    haie said:

    Let’s be honest, he left a lot to be desired as a pure #1 receiver. Great player overall, though. We just needed Bryant or someone to be the #1.

    If Bryant is your #1 we in trouble...need a burner who can stretch field and attack ball in air. I like Bynum...not a burner, but a true WR. I think he makes a move.

    Bryant is a big WR basically, but hardly a #1. Need 2-3 WR's to help browning. We saw how shitty we were with Pennis out ( and Bryant at TE)
    He was pretty much our #1 against Cal before he got hurt.
    And that's a huge problem. Can't win the pac12 with a TE as a #1 receiver. Need at least 1WR, hopefully 2 with more catches than Bryant.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TTJTTJ Member Posts: 4,798
    haie said:

    Let’s be honest, he left a lot to be desired as a pure #1 receiver. Great player overall, though. We just needed Bryant or someone to be the #1.

    I didn’t see that at all. Pettis was terrific, when someone could get the ball to him.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jhfstyle24jhfstyle24 Member Posts: 3,255
    edited March 2018
    haie said:

    Let’s be honest, he left a lot to be desired as a pure #1 receiver. Great player overall, though. We just needed Bryant or someone to be the #1.

    a) He was fantastic
    b) Jake Browning was his QB
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • whatshouldicareaboutwhatshouldicareabout Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 12,728 Swaye's Wigwam
    puppylove_sugarsteel said:

    haie said:

    puppylove_sugarsteel said:

    haie said:

    Let’s be honest, he left a lot to be desired as a pure #1 receiver. Great player overall, though. We just needed Bryant or someone to be the #1.

    If Bryant is your #1 we in trouble...need a burner who can stretch field and attack ball in air. I like Bynum...not a burner, but a true WR. I think he makes a move.

    Bryant is a big WR basically, but hardly a #1. Need 2-3 WR's to help browning. We saw how shitty we were with Pennis out ( and Bryant at TE)
    He was pretty much our #1 against Cal before he got hurt.
    And that's a huge problem. Can't win the pac12 with a TE as a #1 receiver. Need at least 1WR, hopefully 2 with more catches than Bryant.
    Stanford has probably done that 2 or 3 times in the last decade. I know for sure when Ertz was there in 2013.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FireCohenFireCohen Member Posts: 21,823
    edited March 2018
    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    Jake Browning is fucking terrible.

    So you saying that water is wet. Thanks for the update
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • huskyhooliganhuskyhooligan Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 5,409 Swaye's Wigwam
    More Wildcat and handing the ball off. I bet McGrew has a better arm.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CFetters_Nacho_LoverCFetters_Nacho_Lover Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 30,246 Founders Club
    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    Jake Browning is fucking terrible.

    All that being said, Jake Browning sucks.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Ice_HolmvikIce_Holmvik Member Posts: 2,912
    PurpleBaze said:

    haie said:

    Let’s be honest, he left a lot to be desired as a pure #1 receiver. Great player overall, though. We just needed Bryant or someone to be the #1.

    *Quite honestly
    I honestly don't disagree.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • puppylove_sugarsteelpuppylove_sugarsteel Member Posts: 9,133
    edited March 2018
    whlinder said:

    We beat Miami, won the Rose Bowl and popped off with significantly worse WRs than Dante Pettis.

    We had Justin Robbins, pat Reddick and a 6-3 whitey todd elstrom . Was a better receiving corps than last year by far. Get facts straight linder. You have no clue who Justin Robbins is do you. I bet 90% of you bonio's here do...hint, played with Jerramy Stevens in high school...

    Edit: would have been Mario Bailey good had he not got hurt washed out as a freshman
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,691
    puppylove_sugarsteel said:

    whlinder said:

    We beat Miami, won the Rose Bowl and popped off with significantly worse WRs than Dante Pettis.

    We had Justin Robbins, pat Reddick and a 6-3 whitey todd elstrom . Was a better receiving corps than last year by far. Get facts straight linder. You have no clue who Justin Robbins is do you. I bet 90% of you bonio's here do...hint, played with Jerramy Stevens in high school...

    Edit: would have been Mario Bailey good had he not got hurt washed out as a freshman
    2000s receiving corps might have been better if you count Stevens. No single WR on that team was half as good as Pettis.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • whlinderwhlinder Member Posts: 4,739 Standard Supporter
    puppylove_sugarsteel said:

    whlinder said:

    We beat Miami, won the Rose Bowl and popped off with significantly worse WRs than Dante Pettis.

    We had Justin Robbins, pat Reddick and a 6-3 whitey todd elstrom . Was a better receiving corps than last year by far. Get facts straight linder. You have no clue who Justin Robbins is do you. I bet 90% of you bonio's here do...hint, played with Jerramy Stevens in high school...

    Edit: would have been Mario Bailey good had he not got hurt washed out as a freshman
    I went to every home game that year. Pettis better than all of them. Elstrom was ok, a nice possession WR, brought his lunch pail and hard hat to practice every day, the kind of guy you’d want your daughter to date, but not as physically talented.
    Robbins was fine but not Dante Pettis. Come on son.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.