Petersen's Presser
Comments
-
DNC got it. Pretty sure you did too but you like to pretend to be dense when it suits you.RaceBannon said:
Do you have a point?FremontTroll said:
Do you think the game may have changed since 1984?RaceBannon said:Let me put it this way - the 84 defense won a game when the offense had 3 first downs
That's a great defense.
We don't have one. We have a scheme
Intellectual football on both sides of the ball makes for a soft fucking losing shit team
College football underwent many massive sea changes over the decades. The game is completely different than it was 15 years ago let alone 34. You can't compare statistics across eras instead you should compare to peers- 2018 teams and recent UW teams.
Ultimately, despite being saddled by an offense that can't stay on the field and despite not having much fumble luck (causing fumbles is a skill. recovering is luck) this defense will end up very close to the lauded 2016 and 2017 units.
2016 allowed 4.5 yards per play. 2017 4.4 ypp. 2018 4.5 thus far ties for 10th in the nation.
It might not be an all time great D as it obviously lacks an edge rusher but its very good- good enough to compete for a national championship. And would look better with a functional offense. -
What’s a DNC?!!FremontTroll said:
DNC got it. Pretty sure you did too but you like to pretend to be dense when it suits you.RaceBannon said:
Do you have a point?FremontTroll said:
Do you think the game may have changed since 1984?RaceBannon said:Let me put it this way - the 84 defense won a game when the offense had 3 first downs
That's a great defense.
We don't have one. We have a scheme
Intellectual football on both sides of the ball makes for a soft fucking losing shit team
College football underwent many massive sea changes over the decades. The game is completely different than it was 15 years ago let alone 34. You can't compare statistics across eras instead you should compare to peers- 2018 teams and recent UW teams.
Ultimately, despite being saddled by an offense that can't stay on the field and despite not having much fumble luck (causing fumbles is a skill. recovering is luck) this defense will end up very close to the lauded 2016 and 2017 units.
2016 allowed 4.5 yards per play. 2017 4.4 ypp. 2018 4.5 thus far ties for 10th in the nation.
It might not be an all time great D as it obviously lacks an edge rusher but its very good- good enough to compete for a national championship. And would look better with a functional offense. -
Race a tequila fluffer?? I call bullshit.. haha. You may have a read a sentence or two of his novella's. You made tequila's year though! Your validation will have him beaming through Christmas. His co-workers will notice his strut in the office with his chin held high!RaceBannon said: -
This type of reasoning and facts is not welcomed at HH. It's too logical!!!FremontTroll said:
DNC got it. Pretty sure you did too but you like to pretend to be dense when it suits you.RaceBannon said:
Do you have a point?FremontTroll said:
Do you think the game may have changed since 1984?RaceBannon said:Let me put it this way - the 84 defense won a game when the offense had 3 first downs
That's a great defense.
We don't have one. We have a scheme
Intellectual football on both sides of the ball makes for a soft fucking losing shit team
College football underwent many massive sea changes over the decades. The game is completely different than it was 15 years ago let alone 34. You can't compare statistics across eras instead you should compare to peers- 2018 teams and recent UW teams.
Ultimately, despite being saddled by an offense that can't stay on the field and despite not having much fumble luck (causing fumbles is a skill. recovering is luck) this defense will end up very close to the lauded 2016 and 2017 units.
2016 allowed 4.5 yards per play. 2017 4.4 ypp. 2018 4.5 thus far ties for 10th in the nation.
It might not be an all time great D as it obviously lacks an edge rusher but its very good- good enough to compete for a national championship. And would look better with a functional offense. -
Is yards per game the proper “stat for losers” to compare these defenses? How do total yards, scoring, and 3rd down conversions compare?FremontTroll said:
DNC got it. Pretty sure you did too but you like to pretend to be dense when it suits you.RaceBannon said:
Do you have a point?FremontTroll said:
Do you think the game may have changed since 1984?RaceBannon said:Let me put it this way - the 84 defense won a game when the offense had 3 first downs
That's a great defense.
We don't have one. We have a scheme
Intellectual football on both sides of the ball makes for a soft fucking losing shit team
College football underwent many massive sea changes over the decades. The game is completely different than it was 15 years ago let alone 34. You can't compare statistics across eras instead you should compare to peers- 2018 teams and recent UW teams.
Ultimately, despite being saddled by an offense that can't stay on the field and despite not having much fumble luck (causing fumbles is a skill. recovering is luck) this defense will end up very close to the lauded 2016 and 2017 units.
2016 allowed 4.5 yards per play. 2017 4.4 ypp. 2018 4.5 thus far ties for 10th in the nation.
It might not be an all time great D as it obviously lacks an edge rusher but its very good- good enough to compete for a national championship. And would look better with a functional offense.
The 2018 defense seems to bend more and is on the field more than the two prior years squads, but this may be because the offense isn’t. With the offense scoring as many Husky TDs for themselves as for the opponent last game, it may be cerebral to keep the defense on the field.
I agree the defense is not the problem, but Pete’s neutering seems to have affected the defense too.
-
Stats remain for losers. Hasn't changed
-
Pete agrees with you.RaceBannon said:Stats remain for losers. Hasn't changed
-
It’s a venereal disease that can’t be cured with a VD shot.salemcoog said:
What’s a DNC?!!FremontTroll said:
DNC got it. Pretty sure you did too but you like to pretend to be dense when it suits you.RaceBannon said:
Do you have a point?FremontTroll said:
Do you think the game may have changed since 1984?RaceBannon said:Let me put it this way - the 84 defense won a game when the offense had 3 first downs
That's a great defense.
We don't have one. We have a scheme
Intellectual football on both sides of the ball makes for a soft fucking losing shit team
College football underwent many massive sea changes over the decades. The game is completely different than it was 15 years ago let alone 34. You can't compare statistics across eras instead you should compare to peers- 2018 teams and recent UW teams.
Ultimately, despite being saddled by an offense that can't stay on the field and despite not having much fumble luck (causing fumbles is a skill. recovering is luck) this defense will end up very close to the lauded 2016 and 2017 units.
2016 allowed 4.5 yards per play. 2017 4.4 ypp. 2018 4.5 thus far ties for 10th in the nation.
It might not be an all time great D as it obviously lacks an edge rusher but its very good- good enough to compete for a national championship. And would look better with a functional offense. -
I'll try one more time then I give up. With THIS anemic offense you need a defense that can HELP OUT the offense as much as possible. Bend and break scheme that lets the other team drive down the field and create long fields for the offense is the worst possible scheme to complement THIS offense. The scheme should be much more oriented to trying to create short fields for THIS offense. It is a good defense. They are the strength of the team. The passive scheme though is not a good fit
in trying to maximize opportunity for this abortion of an offense. I can't figure out any other way to say it. The whole point is for the stronger part of the team to do it's best to make things easier for the weaker parts of the team. Just like it was Petersen's job to make that kick easier for Henry. Or you can just believe in the tooth fairy and think Hamdan and Browning and Petersen are going to magically figure things out in the next 4 or 5 games. -
If the defense were taking risks resulting in more negative plays but also more big plays allowed you'd probably be complaining that with THIS offense we can't afford to give up big plays and we need to minimize downside.whuggy said:I'll try one more time then I give up. With THIS anemic offense you need a defense that can HELP OUT the offense as much as possible. Bend and break scheme that lets the other team drive down the field and create long fields for the offense is the worst possible scheme to complement THIS offense. The scheme should be much more oriented to trying to create short fields for THIS offense. It is a good defense. They are the strength of the team. The passive scheme though is not a good fit
in trying to maximize opportunity for this abortion of an offense. I can't figure out any other way to say it. The whole point is for the stronger part of the team to do it's best to make things easier for the weaker parts of the team. Just like it was Petersen's job to make that kick easier for Henry. Or you can just believe in the tooth fairy and think Hamdan and Browning and Petersen are going to magically figure things out in the next 4 or 5 games.
The bottom line is 10 points scored is not enough.
