Peterson's shrinking balls a growing concern?
Comments
-
Simple for me. Create an offense that gives your playmakers some room to operate. Pete's offense, IMO, does a terrible job at that. Also have an offense that's difficult to play against. It's just so fucking vanilla. James was pretty conservative but ran multiple counter shit. I don't know if I've ever seen any misdirection in watching 5 years of Petersen.Tequilla said:I hear the offense underperformed last year and have so far this year ...
What are the expectations? -
I was coached, red zone scoring was all about heart and desire to beat the man across from you. Has that changed?topdawgnc said:
Maybe score in the red zone ...Tequilla said:I hear the offense underperformed last year and have so far this year ...
What are the expectations?
I don't know...
Call me crazy. -
UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.YellowSnow said:
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.UW_Doog_Bot said:
We have a chance at a truly special season. No. Yes.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?
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.
Speaking of risk taking: scheduling games like this is the very definition of taking risks for the bigger reward.
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
-
Normally you would have a point OBK but Furd has not proven they can win at UW. Even in 2014 it was a struggle
-
Getting them at home this year may be the difference maker this season.PostGameOrangeSlices said:Normally you would have a point OBK but Furd has not proven they can win at UW. Even in 2014 it was a struggle
-
In the past 26 years, UW has won the Pac 7.6% of the time. In the past 4 years, we've won it 25% of the time. Last I checked we haven't lost a Pac game yet this season and if we can not step on our dicks and get by Stanford at home we have a good shot at winning another. So 40% of the time since Pete's arrival.
-
Beat Utah is the first, don't step on your dick test.YellowSnow said:In the past 26 years, UW has won the Pac 7.6% of the time. In the past 4 years, we've won it 25% of the time. Last I checked we haven't lost a Pac game yet this season and if we can not step on our dicks and get by Stanford at home we have a good shot at winning another. So 40% of the time since Pete's arrival.
-
If we can beat Utah - not a given by any stretch of the imagination - we'll have a little breathing room. We'll be ready for Herm the next week.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Beat Utah is the first, don't step on your dick test.YellowSnow said:In the past 26 years, UW has won the Pac 7.6% of the time. In the past 4 years, we've won it 25% of the time. Last I checked we haven't lost a Pac game yet this season and if we can not step on our dicks and get by Stanford at home we have a good shot at winning another. So 40% of the time since Pete's arrival.
-
I think we'll get a real sense when Jake struggles (which he will) and the game is in doubt. It's coming...soon.
But will Petersen give Haener some meaningful snaps? -
Yeah. Can just see us in the future against Clemson on their four, fourth and goal and we need a touchdown. Alright Ahmedyou follow McGary off tackle. Genius. This place would melt down.topdawgnc said:
Totally agree dude.whuggy said:
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.topdawgnc said:
Simplicity wins.RaceBannon said:Agree
Petersen should be fired for that explanation
Dumb it down and get a player in there
Unless you're a coach who believes his own press clippings.
Option from the three against a tested and proven DL is genius stuff.
And the QB draw from the three ... fucking brilliant.
