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

Peterson's shrinking balls a growing concern?

1…457910…13

Comments

  • dflea
    dflea Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 7,287 Swaye's Wigwam
    Mosster47 said:

    RaceBannon said:

    Mosster47 said:

    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    Mosster47 said:

    RaceBannon said:

    What if Petersen came to Washington specifically because he doesn't have balls and knew this was a D 1 payday where no one actually gives a shit about winning big?

    Chew on that

    He didn't want the Oregon job because there would be expectations.

    That's an interesting poont.
    So Cristoball should be gone after going for less than 10 wins this year with a soft as charmin schedule then right?
    Not what I was saying at all and Oregon was a different program in 2012 than it was in 2017. Slingblade shit all over the mattress.

    What I am saying is Oregon was coming off of three conference titles in four years, NC game, multi BCS games, and had a sure fire playoff roster when Petersen was offered the job and said no because he didn't want to have to live up to the expectations.

    Then a few years later he takes over a UW program that hasn't won in ages and the fan base had mostly lost interest.

    If Cristobal isn't pushing for the playoffs in November of his fifth year the fan base is going to be fucking livid. UW's fan base isn't going to really care because there has only been one good season in the last 20.

    Race has a point. Peterman turned down the Ferrari for a Toyota Camry.
    Pete made the playoffs his third year. Giving Cristobal 5 hardly shows tuffer expectations

    Oregon is a piece of shit not a Ferrari. Hope this helps
    Cute, but you know that isn't true. If you lose in Eugene this year you've already lost the war again.
    Ferrari has about one zillion world championships. Oregon has one zillion fewer than that.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Swaye
    Swaye Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 41,741 Founders Club
    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    YellowSnow said:

    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    YellowSnow said:

    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    YellowSnow said:

    Sometimes in football it's better to be lucky than good. The glorious 2016 campaign was almost over before it started, but Jake got lucky and tore up the script in OT to beat Arizona. What if the ball bounces our way one more time against Auburn and we convert one of those red zone opportunities into 7 more pts? Would Jake somehow be a better QB because he got lucky and we won? Would the program somehow be a better place because we finally got the marque non-con win?

    We have a chance at a truly special season. No. Yes.

    Edited: I do actually think Jake might be a better QB with that win. It might have gotten that monkey of "not good enough to win it big" off of his back. Now it's ingrained.
    Yes, we did have a chance to do something truly speshial. It was a coin flip game that didn't work out. So be it.

    Speaking of risk taking: scheduling games like this is the very definition of taking risks for the bigger reward.
    The why it didn't work out is important though. It's not because we had some flukey football shit happen or something with a high level of variance. It's because Jake performed in a manner that consistently sabotaged the success of the rest of the team.

    I can accept a loss to a good team on some statistical randomness. It's a lot tougher to accept a game we should have won by all of the football play except at one position.

    ex. the random bounce of an out of character fumble vs. the super in character throwing a pick straight to the defense
    Look, UWDB, I don't disagree with any of your poonts here. The oft stated cliché around (shout out to @Dennis_DeYoung ) is that Pete is doing about 95% really well here and 5% FS. The shitty QB play from a 4 year starter is in the 5% and it's fair game to criticize Pete on this. I suppose I've just reached the point of bashing Browning fatigue and would rather just change the subject when it comes up. I still think a Pac title is well within reach weather Jake or Jake starts and I'd rather focus on the 95% that makes me happy.
    Like I said, I'm tired of Jake being the scapegoat too. Winners win. This team SHOULD win the Pac12 regardless of Jake. No excuses.

    Jakes bad but he's not some next level of bad that torpedoes the rest of the talent on the team. If he is that bad and you are allowing him to torpedo the whole team then that's not on Jake that's on the coaches.

    That means you are higher than 5% FS. That means I really do start to wonder if Petermen can win a Natty here which in turn leads to the question, are you willing to have a "good" coach that can win against inferior talent but can't win it big at UW? If I told you we can win the Pac12 1/3 years and occasionally a NY6 but nothing more is that good enough?

    Don't twist, I'm not there yet but if Jake/coaching fucks our season again and we lose the North I'm going to be wondering at these things.
    This is a lot of words to say Jake sucks ass, but Pete picked him, so Pete's a fucking loser.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Swaye
    Swaye Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 41,741 Founders Club
    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    Swaye said:

    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    YellowSnow said:

    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    YellowSnow said:

    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    YellowSnow said:

    Sometimes in football it's better to be lucky than good. The glorious 2016 campaign was almost over before it started, but Jake got lucky and tore up the script in OT to beat Arizona. What if the ball bounces our way one more time against Auburn and we convert one of those red zone opportunities into 7 more pts? Would Jake somehow be a better QB because he got lucky and we won? Would the program somehow be a better place because we finally got the marque non-con win?

    We have a chance at a truly special season. No. Yes.

    Edited: I do actually think Jake might be a better QB with that win. It might have gotten that monkey of "not good enough to win it big" off of his back. Now it's ingrained.
    Yes, we did have a chance to do something truly speshial. It was a coin flip game that didn't work out. So be it.

    Speaking of risk taking: scheduling games like this is the very definition of taking risks for the bigger reward.
    The why it didn't work out is important though. It's not because we had some flukey football shit happen or something with a high level of variance. It's because Jake performed in a manner that consistently sabotaged the success of the rest of the team.

    I can accept a loss to a good team on some statistical randomness. It's a lot tougher to accept a game we should have won by all of the football play except at one position.

    ex. the random bounce of an out of character fumble vs. the super in character throwing a pick straight to the defense
    Look, UWDB, I don't disagree with any of your poonts here. The oft stated cliché around (shout out to @Dennis_DeYoung ) is that Pete is doing about 95% really well here and 5% FS. The shitty QB play from a 4 year starter is in the 5% and it's fair game to criticize Pete on this. I suppose I've just reached the point of bashing Browning fatigue and would rather just change the subject when it comes up. I still think a Pac title is well within reach weather Jake or Jake starts and I'd rather focus on the 95% that makes me happy.
    Like I said, I'm tired of Jake being the scapegoat too. Winners win. This team SHOULD win the Pac12 regardless of Jake. No excuses.

    Jakes bad but he's not some next level of bad that torpedoes the rest of the talent on the team. If he is that bad and you are allowing him to torpedo the whole team then that's not on Jake that's on the coaches.

    That means you are higher than 5% FS. That means I really do start to wonder if Petermen can win a Natty here which in turn leads to the question, are you willing to have a "good" coach that can win against inferior talent but can't win it big at UW? If I told you we can win the Pac12 1/3 years and occasionally a NY6 but nothing more is that good enough?

    Don't twist, I'm not there yet but if Jake/coaching fucks our season again and we lose the North I'm going to be wondering at these things.
    This is a lot of words to say Jake sucks ass, but Pete picked him, so Pete's a fucking loser.
    I never claimed to be as eloquent as the redman.


    I laffed.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • whuggy
    whuggy Member Posts: 2,088
    topdawgnc said:

    RaceBannon said:

    Agree

    Petersen should be fired for that explanation

    Dumb it down and get a player in there

    Simplicity wins.

    Unless you're a coach who believes his own press clippings.
    Simplicity wins if you got Alabama, OSU, Georgia, USC, Clemson talent. Cmon man if you think we're beating that level of team with vanilla off tackle stuff then that's just FS. Yeah Pete needs to simplify things but also a little more creativity would go a long way with this offense. I'm not talking 15 trick plays a game but Jesus pay the money for a high quality OC and let him do his thing. Until Pete lets go of his stranglehold on the offense this program will always bump the glass ceiling.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Tequilla
    Tequilla Member Posts: 20,213
    I hear the offense underperformed last year and have so far this year ...

    What are the expectations?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Gladstone
    Gladstone Member Posts: 16,425
    Squirt said:

    Here's what Pete said about Jake Browning during the first episode of this season's Chris Petersen Show:

    “I mean, he just does so many things… I think a lot of people, if they knew what was going on with our offense, and the things that he checks, the plays he checks in and out. And you know, they just see him throw the ball. That’s one little aspect, one big aspect of the game that he does. But he’s changing protections for us, he’s changing routes, he’s changing runs. Now, he’s very directed on how to do that. It’s not just pulling things out of the air. But a lot of guys can’t handle this much in college, and he can. And so he’s phenomenal. He’s tough. There’s nobody who works harder. He’s what we’re all about.

    "Can he better? Yeah. Can everybody on this roster get better? Yes, we think they have an upside. He just happens to play that position that’s under this microscope, that is just going to be picked apart. Hey, that’s the nature of being in the arena. And fortunately for us, he’s tough enough to handle anything that anybody can throw at him and just pay attention to what he needs to focus on.”

    Pete's interview should enrage people on multiple levels:

    1. Pete tacitly admits that his offense is so complicated that few quarterbacks can do it, and he's willing to overlook mediocre arm talent if the dude can run such a complex offense.

    2. Jake Browning has authority to change and check out of run plays.

    3. Pete thinks Browning is tough.

    4. Pete thinks Browning is an OKG.

    That's the only thing he got right. Browning is a choking, sniveling fag but he's a tough SOB.

    Everything else makes me want to kill everyone. Metaphorically speaking.

    Fuck this offense.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • FireCohen
    FireCohen Member Posts: 21,823
    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    Swaye said:

    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    YellowSnow said:

    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    YellowSnow said:

    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    YellowSnow said:

    Sometimes in football it's better to be lucky than good. The glorious 2016 campaign was almost over before it started, but Jake got lucky and tore up the script in OT to beat Arizona. What if the ball bounces our way one more time against Auburn and we convert one of those red zone opportunities into 7 more pts? Would Jake somehow be a better QB because he got lucky and we won? Would the program somehow be a better place because we finally got the marque non-con win?

    We have a chance at a truly special season. No. Yes.

    Edited: I do actually think Jake might be a better QB with that win. It might have gotten that monkey of "not good enough to win it big" off of his back. Now it's ingrained.
    Yes, we did have a chance to do something truly speshial. It was a coin flip game that didn't work out. So be it.

    Speaking of risk taking: scheduling games like this is the very definition of taking risks for the bigger reward.
    The why it didn't work out is important though. It's not because we had some flukey football shit happen or something with a high level of variance. It's because Jake performed in a manner that consistently sabotaged the success of the rest of the team.

    I can accept a loss to a good team on some statistical randomness. It's a lot tougher to accept a game we should have won by all of the football play except at one position.

    ex. the random bounce of an out of character fumble vs. the super in character throwing a pick straight to the defense
    Look, UWDB, I don't disagree with any of your poonts here. The oft stated cliché around (shout out to @Dennis_DeYoung ) is that Pete is doing about 95% really well here and 5% FS. The shitty QB play from a 4 year starter is in the 5% and it's fair game to criticize Pete on this. I suppose I've just reached the point of bashing Browning fatigue and would rather just change the subject when it comes up. I still think a Pac title is well within reach weather Jake or Jake starts and I'd rather focus on the 95% that makes me happy.
    Like I said, I'm tired of Jake being the scapegoat too. Winners win. This team SHOULD win the Pac12 regardless of Jake. No excuses.

    Jakes bad but he's not some next level of bad that torpedoes the rest of the talent on the team. If he is that bad and you are allowing him to torpedo the whole team then that's not on Jake that's on the coaches.

    That means you are higher than 5% FS. That means I really do start to wonder if Petermen can win a Natty here which in turn leads to the question, are you willing to have a "good" coach that can win against inferior talent but can't win it big at UW? If I told you we can win the Pac12 1/3 years and occasionally a NY6 but nothing more is that good enough?

    Don't twist, I'm not there yet but if Jake/coaching fucks our season again and we lose the North I'm going to be wondering at these things.
    This is a lot of words to say Jake sucks ass, but Pete picked him, so Pete's a fucking loser.
    I never claimed to be as eloquent as the redman.


    “And his dick flaccid” wasedited out from that quote
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • topdawgnc
    topdawgnc Member Posts: 7,839
    whuggy said:

    topdawgnc said:

    RaceBannon said:

    Agree

    Petersen should be fired for that explanation

    Dumb it down and get a player in there

    Simplicity wins.

    Unless you're a coach who believes his own press clippings.
    Simplicity wins if you got Alabama, OSU, Georgia, USC, Clemson talent. Cmon man if you think we're beating that level of team with vanilla off tackle stuff then that's just FS. Yeah Pete needs to simplify things but also a little more creativity would go a long way with this offense. I'm not talking 15 trick plays a game but Jesus pay the money for a high quality OC and let him do his thing. Until Pete lets go of his stranglehold on the offense this program will always bump the glass ceiling.
    Totally agree dude.

    Option from the three against a tested and proven DL is genius stuff.

    And the QB draw from the three ... fucking brilliant.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • topdawgnc
    topdawgnc Member Posts: 7,839
    Tequilla said:

    I hear the offense underperformed last year and have so far this year ...

    What are the expectations?

    Maybe score in the red zone ...

    I don't know...

    Call me crazy.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter