Ronnie Lott

creepycoug

"They thought they were more than they really are."

Discussing UW.

Go ahead and argue with him.

Global

They bought into what Sark was smoking, which is a rich blend of Sarkish....

topdawgnc

What is the context around this statement?

TierbsHsotBoobs

Lather, rinse, repeat.

DerekJohnson

The same program that brought you Jake Locker acknowledging that the team might have been "overconfident" going into Oregon game... coming off a 4-9 season!

creepycoug

topdawgnc said:

What is the context around this statement?

Just that dumb weekly Pac 12 show with the Weez, the Asian Ryan Seacrest and Lott. When they got to UW, Lott pointed out that he was concerned that Washington might throw in the towel at this point because of extreme disappointment w/ how the seasons has played out, and his point is they still have a lot to play for because they were never going to be an elite team with legit. BCS aspirations. The idea being not to jump off a bridge for going 7-6 because that's probably who we were all along and maybe not that bad of a result given who we REALLY are.

He's just saying, "hey, Washington, chill out, you were never going to be that good this year."

I tend to agree with him. Some lucky breaks here and there might have put us in a position now where we'd be running around with our cocks in the air thinking we're world beaters until we played the next real team to come crashing down to earth. We don't have the quality or depth on either LOS to realistically expect more than what we've been given.

Take Oregon game for example. Most of my Doog buddies (95% of them) walked away thinking a break here or there UW's way and UW wins. Reality is we were dominated on both LOS, they easily left 14, arguably 21 pts. on the board, and we played over our heads at home because it's them. In hind sight, we have learned that Oregon is an inconsistent and sometimes sloppy team, and they still could have walked out of our stadium easily scoring 50+, and that's w/o Mamba and w/o Huff for a good % of the game. That's Lott's point. We're just not that good.

TierbsHsotBoobs

creepycoug said:

topdawgnc said:

What is the context around this statement?

Just that dumb weekly Pac 12 show with the Weez, the Asian Ryan Seacrest and Lott. When they got to UW, Lott pointed out that he was concerned that Washington might throw in the towel at this point because of extreme disappointment w/ how the seasons has played out, and his point is they still have a lot to play for because they were never going to be an elite team with legit. BCS aspirations. The idea being not to jump off a bridge for going 7-6 because that's probably who we were all along and maybe not that bad of a result given who we REALLY are.

He's just saying, "hey, Washington, chill out, you were never going to be that good this year."

I tend to agree with him. Some lucky breaks here and there might have put us in a position now where we'd be running around with our cocks in the air thinking we're world beaters until we played the next real team to come crashing down to earth. We don't have the quality or depth on either LOS to realistically expect more than what we've been given.

Take Oregon game for example. Most of my Doog buddies (95% of them) walked away thinking a break here or there UW's way and UW wins. Reality is we were dominated on both LOS, they easily left 14, arguably 21 pts. on the board, and we played over our heads at home because it's them. In hind sight, we have learned that Oregon is an inconsistent and sometimes sloppy team, and they still could have walked out of our stadium easily scoring 50+, and that's w/o Mamba and w/o Huff for a good % of the game. That's Lott's point. We're just not that good.

I still wish Neuheisel had punched him for saying that though.

CuntWaffle

Tell Ronnie Lott to fill out a coaching job application if he fucking thinks he knows so much about football.

topdawgnc

creepycoug said:

topdawgnc said:

What is the context around this statement?

Just that dumb weekly Pac 12 show with the Weez, the Asian Ryan Seacrest and Lott. When they got to UW, Lott pointed out that he was concerned that Washington might throw in the towel at this point because of extreme disappointment w/ how the seasons has played out, and his point is they still have a lot to play for because they were never going to be an elite team with legit. BCS aspirations. The idea being not to jump off a bridge for going 7-6 because that's probably who we were all along and maybe not that bad of a result given who we REALLY are.

He's just saying, "hey, Washington, chill out, you were never going to be that good this year."

I tend to agree with him. Some lucky breaks here and there might have put us in a position now where we'd be running around with our cocks in the air thinking we're world beaters until we played the next real team to come crashing down to earth. We don't have the quality or depth on either LOS to realistically expect more than what we've been given.

Take Oregon game for example. Most of my Doog buddies (95% of them) walked away thinking a break here or there UW's way and UW wins. Reality is we were dominated on both LOS, they easily left 14, arguably 21 pts. on the board, and we played over our heads at home because it's them. In hind sight, we have learned that Oregon is an inconsistent and sometimes sloppy team, and they still could have walked out of our stadium easily scoring 50+, and that's w/o Mamba and w/o Huff for a good % of the game. That's Lott's point. We're just not that good.

My thought ...

Sark's just not that good.

He cost UW the Stanford, ASU and UCLA game.

None of those loses are on the kids (I like to call'em kids). It was Sark being out coached, and/or unprepared.

Stanford proved to me there is some damn good talent there.

Price included.

puppylove_sugarsteel

Im watching Ronnie Lott now. He's a fumbling bumbling idiot. Ricky has to interject every time he opens his mouth, just to help him complete a sentence. PAINFUL to watch.. Every team thinks they are better than they are. That's the primary job of a head coach, to get his team to believe they ARE the best in the country, or their respective conference. UDUB had the potential to be the best team in the conference this year. Sark just found a way to fuck it up. Talent was there. Next year is all in, SS is coming back with his tail between his cuntlips.

greenblood

topdawgnc said:

creepycoug said:

topdawgnc said:

What is the context around this statement?

Just that dumb weekly Pac 12 show with the Weez, the Asian Ryan Seacrest and Lott. When they got to UW, Lott pointed out that he was concerned that Washington might throw in the towel at this point because of extreme disappointment w/ how the seasons has played out, and his point is they still have a lot to play for because they were never going to be an elite team with legit. BCS aspirations. The idea being not to jump off a bridge for going 7-6 because that's probably who we were all along and maybe not that bad of a result given who we REALLY are.

He's just saying, "hey, Washington, chill out, you were never going to be that good this year."

I tend to agree with him. Some lucky breaks here and there might have put us in a position now where we'd be running around with our cocks in the air thinking we're world beaters until we played the next real team to come crashing down to earth. We don't have the quality or depth on either LOS to realistically expect more than what we've been given.

Take Oregon game for example. Most of my Doog buddies (95% of them) walked away thinking a break here or there UW's way and UW wins. Reality is we were dominated on both LOS, they easily left 14, arguably 21 pts. on the board, and we played over our heads at home because it's them. In hind sight, we have learned that Oregon is an inconsistent and sometimes sloppy team, and they still could have walked out of our stadium easily scoring 50+, and that's w/o Mamba and w/o Huff for a good % of the game. That's Lott's point. We're just not that good.

My thought ...

Sark's just not that good.

He cost UW the Stanford, ASU and UCLA game.

None of those loses are on the kids (I like to call'em kids). It was Sark being out coached, and/or unprepared.

Stanford proved to me there is some damn good talent there.

Price included.

You can blame Sark for losing every game, because he's had 5 years to recruit and develop the talent needed to be a BCS contender. Now just for individual game sake:

Shaw could just as easily be blamed for the UW/Stanford game being as close as it was, as for Sark blowing it. That was arguable one of Shaw's worst performances as a head coach.

I would blame Sark for getting raped by ASU, but losing in general, not so much. This was the one game I felt Price played awfully shitty, and the defense opened the flood gates. Combine that with poor clock management, and abandoning the run, you get a plunger.

UCLA? meh. I don't think anybody expected to win that game, and this lack of expectation alone is reason enough to fire Sark. The game went how I pictured it would. Had Price not gotten hurt, it might have been closer. Why Sark didn't try any designed runs, or rollout option passes with Miles is beyond me. The fact that he took away the only advantage the backup quarterback had in turning him into a pocket passer was insane at best.

topdawgnc

greenblood said:

topdawgnc said:

creepycoug said:

topdawgnc said:

What is the context around this statement?

Just that dumb weekly Pac 12 show with the Weez, the Asian Ryan Seacrest and Lott. When they got to UW, Lott pointed out that he was concerned that Washington might throw in the towel at this point because of extreme disappointment w/ how the seasons has played out, and his point is they still have a lot to play for because they were never going to be an elite team with legit. BCS aspirations. The idea being not to jump off a bridge for going 7-6 because that's probably who we were all along and maybe not that bad of a result given who we REALLY are.

He's just saying, "hey, Washington, chill out, you were never going to be that good this year."

I tend to agree with him. Some lucky breaks here and there might have put us in a position now where we'd be running around with our cocks in the air thinking we're world beaters until we played the next real team to come crashing down to earth. We don't have the quality or depth on either LOS to realistically expect more than what we've been given.

Take Oregon game for example. Most of my Doog buddies (95% of them) walked away thinking a break here or there UW's way and UW wins. Reality is we were dominated on both LOS, they easily left 14, arguably 21 pts. on the board, and we played over our heads at home because it's them. In hind sight, we have learned that Oregon is an inconsistent and sometimes sloppy team, and they still could have walked out of our stadium easily scoring 50+, and that's w/o Mamba and w/o Huff for a good % of the game. That's Lott's point. We're just not that good.

My thought ...

Sark's just not that good.

He cost UW the Stanford, ASU and UCLA game.

None of those loses are on the kids (I like to call'em kids). It was Sark being out coached, and/or unprepared.

Stanford proved to me there is some damn good talent there.

Price included.

You can blame Sark for losing every game, because he's had 5 years to recruit and develop the talent needed to be a BCS contender. Now just for individual game sake:

Shaw could just as easily be blamed for the UW/Stanford game being as close as it was, as for Sark blowing it. That was arguable one of Shaw's worst performances as a head coach.

I would blame Sark for getting raped by ASU, but losing in general, not so much. This was the one game I felt Price played awfully shitty, and the defense opened the flood gates. Combine that with poor clock management, and abandoning the run, you get a plunger.

UCLA? meh. I don't think anybody expected to win that game, and this lack of expectation alone is reason enough to fire Sark. The game went how I pictured it would. Had Price not gotten hurt, it might have been closer. Why Sark didn't try any designed runs, or rollout option passes with Miles is beyond me. The fact that he took away the only advantage the backup quarterback had in turning him into a pocket passer was insane at best.

I think you validated my argument ... but yet wrapped it in dispute.

Is this some sort of duck jedi mind bullshit ...

MisterEm

topdawgnc said:

greenblood said:

topdawgnc said:

creepycoug said:

topdawgnc said:

What is the context around this statement?

Just that dumb weekly Pac 12 show with the Weez, the Asian Ryan Seacrest and Lott. When they got to UW, Lott pointed out that he was concerned that Washington might throw in the towel at this point because of extreme disappointment w/ how the seasons has played out, and his point is they still have a lot to play for because they were never going to be an elite team with legit. BCS aspirations. The idea being not to jump off a bridge for going 7-6 because that's probably who we were all along and maybe not that bad of a result given who we REALLY are.

He's just saying, "hey, Washington, chill out, you were never going to be that good this year."

I tend to agree with him. Some lucky breaks here and there might have put us in a position now where we'd be running around with our cocks in the air thinking we're world beaters until we played the next real team to come crashing down to earth. We don't have the quality or depth on either LOS to realistically expect more than what we've been given.

Take Oregon game for example. Most of my Doog buddies (95% of them) walked away thinking a break here or there UW's way and UW wins. Reality is we were dominated on both LOS, they easily left 14, arguably 21 pts. on the board, and we played over our heads at home because it's them. In hind sight, we have learned that Oregon is an inconsistent and sometimes sloppy team, and they still could have walked out of our stadium easily scoring 50+, and that's w/o Mamba and w/o Huff for a good % of the game. That's Lott's point. We're just not that good.

My thought ...

Sark's just not that good.

He cost UW the Stanford, ASU and UCLA game.

None of those loses are on the kids (I like to call'em kids). It was Sark being out coached, and/or unprepared.

Stanford proved to me there is some damn good talent there.

Price included.

You can blame Sark for losing every game, because he's had 5 years to recruit and develop the talent needed to be a BCS contender. Now just for individual game sake:

Shaw could just as easily be blamed for the UW/Stanford game being as close as it was, as for Sark blowing it. That was arguable one of Shaw's worst performances as a head coach.

I would blame Sark for getting raped by ASU, but losing in general, not so much. This was the one game I felt Price played awfully shitty, and the defense opened the flood gates. Combine that with poor clock management, and abandoning the run, you get a plunger.

UCLA? meh. I don't think anybody expected to win that game, and this lack of expectation alone is reason enough to fire Sark. The game went how I pictured it would. Had Price not gotten hurt, it might have been closer. Why Sark didn't try any designed runs, or rollout option passes with Miles is beyond me. The fact that he took away the only advantage the backup quarterback had in turning him into a pocket passer was insane at best.

I think you validated my argument ... but yet wrapped it in dispute.

Is this some sort of duck jedi mind bullshit ...

Patented F3 logic.

greenblood

topdawgnc said:

greenblood said:

topdawgnc said:

creepycoug said:

topdawgnc said:

What is the context around this statement?

Just that dumb weekly Pac 12 show with the Weez, the Asian Ryan Seacrest and Lott. When they got to UW, Lott pointed out that he was concerned that Washington might throw in the towel at this point because of extreme disappointment w/ how the seasons has played out, and his point is they still have a lot to play for because they were never going to be an elite team with legit. BCS aspirations. The idea being not to jump off a bridge for going 7-6 because that's probably who we were all along and maybe not that bad of a result given who we REALLY are.

He's just saying, "hey, Washington, chill out, you were never going to be that good this year."

I tend to agree with him. Some lucky breaks here and there might have put us in a position now where we'd be running around with our cocks in the air thinking we're world beaters until we played the next real team to come crashing down to earth. We don't have the quality or depth on either LOS to realistically expect more than what we've been given.

Take Oregon game for example. Most of my Doog buddies (95% of them) walked away thinking a break here or there UW's way and UW wins. Reality is we were dominated on both LOS, they easily left 14, arguably 21 pts. on the board, and we played over our heads at home because it's them. In hind sight, we have learned that Oregon is an inconsistent and sometimes sloppy team, and they still could have walked out of our stadium easily scoring 50+, and that's w/o Mamba and w/o Huff for a good % of the game. That's Lott's point. We're just not that good.

My thought ...

Sark's just not that good.

He cost UW the Stanford, ASU and UCLA game.

None of those loses are on the kids (I like to call'em kids). It was Sark being out coached, and/or unprepared.

Stanford proved to me there is some damn good talent there.

Price included.

You can blame Sark for losing every game, because he's had 5 years to recruit and develop the talent needed to be a BCS contender. Now just for individual game sake:

Shaw could just as easily be blamed for the UW/Stanford game being as close as it was, as for Sark blowing it. That was arguable one of Shaw's worst performances as a head coach.

I would blame Sark for getting raped by ASU, but losing in general, not so much. This was the one game I felt Price played awfully shitty, and the defense opened the flood gates. Combine that with poor clock management, and abandoning the run, you get a plunger.

UCLA? meh. I don't think anybody expected to win that game, and this lack of expectation alone is reason enough to fire Sark. The game went how I pictured it would. Had Price not gotten hurt, it might have been closer. Why Sark didn't try any designed runs, or rollout option passes with Miles is beyond me. The fact that he took away the only advantage the backup quarterback had in turning him into a pocket passer was insane at best.

I think you validated my argument ... but yet wrapped it in dispute.

Is this some sort of duck jedi mind bullshit ...

I think sark is a below average gameday coach, but an even worse recruiter. The rank is there, but year after year it's completely unbalanced.

creepycoug

topdawgnc said:

creepycoug said:

topdawgnc said:

What is the context around this statement?

Just that dumb weekly Pac 12 show with the Weez, the Asian Ryan Seacrest and Lott. When they got to UW, Lott pointed out that he was concerned that Washington might throw in the towel at this point because of extreme disappointment w/ how the seasons has played out, and his point is they still have a lot to play for because they were never going to be an elite team with legit. BCS aspirations. The idea being not to jump off a bridge for going 7-6 because that's probably who we were all along and maybe not that bad of a result given who we REALLY are.

He's just saying, "hey, Washington, chill out, you were never going to be that good this year."

I tend to agree with him. Some lucky breaks here and there might have put us in a position now where we'd be running around with our cocks in the air thinking we're world beaters until we played the next real team to come crashing down to earth. We don't have the quality or depth on either LOS to realistically expect more than what we've been given.

Take Oregon game for example. Most of my Doog buddies (95% of them) walked away thinking a break here or there UW's way and UW wins. Reality is we were dominated on both LOS, they easily left 14, arguably 21 pts. on the board, and we played over our heads at home because it's them. In hind sight, we have learned that Oregon is an inconsistent and sometimes sloppy team, and they still could have walked out of our stadium easily scoring 50+, and that's w/o Mamba and w/o Huff for a good % of the game. That's Lott's point. We're just not that good.

My thought ...

Sark's just not that good.

He cost UW the Stanford, ASU and UCLA game.

None of those loses are on the kids (I like to call'em kids). It was Sark being out coached, and/or unprepared.

Stanford proved to me there is some damn good talent there.

Price included.

Don't disagree entirely. However, what I saw against Oregon was that we lacked both both the ability and depth on the LOS to compete w/o getting more lucky breaks than is reasonable to expect.

Ask me to square that with how they played Furd on the road and how Oregon played Furd on the road, and I can't. It's a funny game ... sometimes you play over your head and sometimes you underachieve.

But one thing is fairly clear to me: we aren't good enough or deep enough on the LOS, O or D, to expect to be an elite contender.

That's ultimately on the coach, but I think we're talking game prep and management in this thread.

creepycoug

puppylove_sugarsteel said:

Im watching Ronnie Lott now. He's a fumbling bumbling idiot. Ricky has to interject every time he opens his mouth, just to help him complete a sentence. PAINFUL to watch.. Every team thinks they are better than they are. That's the primary job of a head coach, to get his team to believe they ARE the best in the country, or their respective conference. UDUB had the potential to be the best team in the conference this year. Sark just found a way to fuck it up. Talent was there. Next year is all in, SS is coming back with his tail between his cuntlips.

No, they did not. They don't have the talent or depth on the LOS, either side, to reasonably expect that result, w/ or w/o Don James.

Don't kid yourself. One of Sark's biggest fuck ups has been an inability to bring in quality beef.

Sorry.

creepycoug

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

creepycoug said:

topdawgnc said:

What is the context around this statement?

Just that dumb weekly Pac 12 show with the Weez, the Asian Ryan Seacrest and Lott. When they got to UW, Lott pointed out that he was concerned that Washington might throw in the towel at this point because of extreme disappointment w/ how the seasons has played out, and his point is they still have a lot to play for because they were never going to be an elite team with legit. BCS aspirations. The idea being not to jump off a bridge for going 7-6 because that's probably who we were all along and maybe not that bad of a result given who we REALLY are.

He's just saying, "hey, Washington, chill out, you were never going to be that good this year."

I tend to agree with him. Some lucky breaks here and there might have put us in a position now where we'd be running around with our cocks in the air thinking we're world beaters until we played the next real team to come crashing down to earth. We don't have the quality or depth on either LOS to realistically expect more than what we've been given.

Take Oregon game for example. Most of my Doog buddies (95% of them) walked away thinking a break here or there UW's way and UW wins. Reality is we were dominated on both LOS, they easily left 14, arguably 21 pts. on the board, and we played over our heads at home because it's them. In hind sight, we have learned that Oregon is an inconsistent and sometimes sloppy team, and they still could have walked out of our stadium easily scoring 50+, and that's w/o Mamba and w/o Huff for a good % of the game. That's Lott's point. We're just not that good.

I still wish Neuheisel had punched him for saying that though.

I didn't hate the Weez at all like so many Husky fans do, but I would pay good $$ to watch sweet cheeks take a swing at Lott. Even an old punchy Lott would absolutely de-shit the Weez in any kind of physical altercation. I'd watch it with pop corn.

[Deleted User]

DerekJohnson said:

The same program that brought you Jake Locker acknowledging that the team might have been "overconfident" going into Oregon game... coming off a 4-9 season!

Chris Polk said the same thing after the BYU loss in 2010 coming off of a 5-7 season. It's sad how entitled these guys feel despite never accomplishing anything.

creepycoug

puppylove_sugarsteel said:

Im watching Ronnie Lott now. He's a fumbling bumbling idiot. Ricky has to interject every time he opens his mouth, just to help him complete a sentence. PAINFUL to watch.. Every team thinks they are better than they are. That's the primary job of a head coach, to get his team to believe they ARE the best in the country, or their respective conference. UDUB had the potential to be the best team in the conference this year. Sark just found a way to fuck it up. Talent was there. Next year is all in, SS is coming back with his tail between his cuntlips.

true of almost all former players. jake plummer was/is just as bad on that show.

truth is, Brock Huard and, to a lesser extent, Ed Cunningham, are the exceptions. Most ex-players can't articulate.