Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Show your support for what this community means to you:


Choose a Donation Amount
Username (required for credit)



Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. If you dare criticize Jimmy Lake, you won't last long.

It's a blackeye for Billy Dough Hobert, IMO

2

Comments

  • dfleadflea Posts: 4,700
    Butler Cabin Supporter 2500 Comments 250 Answers Fifth Anniversary

    dflea said:

    dflea said:

    I'm not ok with shit talking Billy Joe because he's the Husky QB that doesn't lose.

    350 though.

    Wow.

    I guess somebody had to take snaps behind that Great Oline, flanked by Stud receivers and Monster TEs. Oh and lets not talk about what was waiting on the sidelines impatiently waiting for their turn to go out there.

    I'm hearing Jake Browning won a lot of games at QB and broke records or something.

    Lets not let time ever change perspective.

    EVER
    Billy Joe didn't lose. That's what I'm hearing.

    Actually your problem is eyesight and Football IQ.
    So he lost?

    No - that was you.

    Fuck off.
    RaceBannoncreepycougbackthepack
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Posts: 43,734
    Swaye's Wigwam 25000 Comments 250 Answers Sixth Anniversary
    M's shooting for .500

    Still
    UWhuskytskeetLebamDawgbackthepack
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Posts: 43,734
    Swaye's Wigwam 25000 Comments 250 Answers Sixth Anniversary
    We always lose to Cal


    creepycougYellowSnowbackthepack
  • HillsboroDuckHillsboroDuck Posts: 9,011
    5000 Comments 250 Answers Sixth Anniversary 500 Awesomes

    dflea said:

    I'm not ok with shit talking Billy Joe because he's the Husky QB that doesn't lose.

    350 though.

    Wow.

    I guess somebody had to take snaps behind that Great Oline, flanked by Stud receivers and Monster TEs. Oh and lets not talk about what was waiting on the sidelines impatiently waiting for their turn to go out there.

    I'm hearing Jake Browning won a lot of games at QB and broke records or something.

    Lets not let time ever change perspective.

    EVER
    Yeah, not sure I agree with all of that ... at ... all.

    First, he had very good TEs. Sure. The WRs, eh. Good, or very good, system guys. You make it sound like Smif chuckin' it up to TJ and Ochocinco at OSU. BJH did not have that kind of WR talent. Stipulated on the O line, and a very good running game to lean on too.

    BJH was a prototype NFL QB. Size, arm, mobility. People seem to forget that. The kid had a rocket for an arm and could play.

    IMO, the least impressive position on that '91 offense was the WR corp. As fondly as people like to remember MB, and I understand why, he wasn't an all-world WR or he would have had at least a cup of coffee in the NFL.

    You severely underestimate Hobert.

    91 WRs >>>> 91 RBs. At least the two starting wide outs got drafted. The third string RB was a monster but he didn’t take any meaningful snaps in 91.
  • creepycougcreepycoug Posts: 11,310
    10000 Comments 250 Answers Fifth Anniversary 500 Awesomes
    I don't know. Beano and Berry were good RBs. Hard runners, and both (not just Bryant) with speed. That running game was prodigious, though the line helped. Always does.

    The WRs were no better ... not from a talent standpoint. No way. They were good; Bailey was more than good. In the spirit of the original comment, which puts a lot of the credit on them and less on the QB, they were not that good. I've seen WR corps that made average QBs look good. Miami had such a corp. in '91. Dudes could make catches a lot of receivers can't make. The Washington WRs weren't like that. Hobert needed to be good, and he was.

    Aside from the talent/execution standpoint, the other thing about Hobert, which has been touched upon, was that he was the straw that stirred the drink. Nails as a leader. Tell me you wouldn't go to war with that guy. I loved him. I remember watching him at the King Bowl with Puyallup and knowing what a star he would be at the next level. Too bad he couldn't reign himself in and have an NFL career. He certainly had the tools for it.
  • HillsboroDuckHillsboroDuck Posts: 9,011
    5000 Comments 250 Answers Sixth Anniversary 500 Awesomes

    I don't know. Beano and Berry were good RBs. Hard runners, and both (not just Bryant) with speed. That running game was prodigious, though the line helped. Always does.

    The WRs were no better ... not from a talent standpoint. No way. They were good; Bailey was more than good. In the spirit of the original comment, which puts a lot of the credit on them and less on the QB, they were not that good. I've seen WR corps that made average QBs look good. Miami had such a corp. in '91. Dudes could make catches a lot of receivers can't make. The Washington WRs weren't like that. Hobert needed to be good, and he was.

    Aside from the talent/execution standpoint, the other thing about Hobert, which has been touched upon, was that he was the straw that stirred the drink. Nails as a leader. Tell me you wouldn't go to war with that guy. I loved him. I remember watching him at the King Bowl with Puyallup and knowing what a star he would be at the next level. Too bad he couldn't reign himself in and have an NFL career. He certainly had the tools for it.

    Fuck man you can't say Bailey is overrated here because he didn't play in the pros and then hype the RBs who didn't even get drafted.

    By your own standard the WRs were better than the RBs.

    Your standard is correct.
  • HillsboroDuckHillsboroDuck Posts: 9,011
    5000 Comments 250 Answers Sixth Anniversary 500 Awesomes
    alumni94 said:

    I often find it humorous that QB post career blow up to 300+ and offensive linemen go lose to under 220.

    This is a pretty great point. We need to get a pic of BJH and Ed Cunningham together and see if random football fans could pick out who was QB and who was WHITE CENTER.
    GrundleStiltzkin
  • creepycougcreepycoug Posts: 11,310
    10000 Comments 250 Answers Fifth Anniversary 500 Awesomes

    I don't know. Beano and Berry were good RBs. Hard runners, and both (not just Bryant) with speed. That running game was prodigious, though the line helped. Always does.

    The WRs were no better ... not from a talent standpoint. No way. They were good; Bailey was more than good. In the spirit of the original comment, which puts a lot of the credit on them and less on the QB, they were not that good. I've seen WR corps that made average QBs look good. Miami had such a corp. in '91. Dudes could make catches a lot of receivers can't make. The Washington WRs weren't like that. Hobert needed to be good, and he was.

    Aside from the talent/execution standpoint, the other thing about Hobert, which has been touched upon, was that he was the straw that stirred the drink. Nails as a leader. Tell me you wouldn't go to war with that guy. I loved him. I remember watching him at the King Bowl with Puyallup and knowing what a star he would be at the next level. Too bad he couldn't reign himself in and have an NFL career. He certainly had the tools for it.

    Fuck man you can't say Bailey is overrated here because he didn't play in the pros and then hype the RBs who didn't even get drafted.

    By your own standard the WRs were better than the RBs.

    Your standard is correct.
    Not really saying he was overrated. Saying he and Orlando McKay aren't the, or a primary, reason Hobert was a great QB. I think Jonathan Smith was a good college QB, but throwing to TJ Houshmandzadeh and Chad Johnson made him great. That's not the dynamic that existed on the '91 team. Hobert gets as much credit as any position group on the offense, save for maybe the O line, which was the real star of that team outside of the Empterman.
    Alexis
  • HillsboroDuckHillsboroDuck Posts: 9,011
    5000 Comments 250 Answers Sixth Anniversary 500 Awesomes
    edited March 28

    I don't know. Beano and Berry were good RBs. Hard runners, and both (not just Bryant) with speed. That running game was prodigious, though the line helped. Always does.

    The WRs were no better ... not from a talent standpoint. No way. They were good; Bailey was more than good. In the spirit of the original comment, which puts a lot of the credit on them and less on the QB, they were not that good. I've seen WR corps that made average QBs look good. Miami had such a corp. in '91. Dudes could make catches a lot of receivers can't make. The Washington WRs weren't like that. Hobert needed to be good, and he was.

    Aside from the talent/execution standpoint, the other thing about Hobert, which has been touched upon, was that he was the straw that stirred the drink. Nails as a leader. Tell me you wouldn't go to war with that guy. I loved him. I remember watching him at the King Bowl with Puyallup and knowing what a star he would be at the next level. Too bad he couldn't reign himself in and have an NFL career. He certainly had the tools for it.

    Fuck man you can't say Bailey is overrated here because he didn't play in the pros and then hype the RBs who didn't even get drafted.

    By your own standard the WRs were better than the RBs.

    Your standard is correct.
    Not really saying he was overrated. Saying he and Orlando McKay aren't the, or a primary, reason Hobert was a great QB. I think Jonathan Smith was a good college QB, but throwing to TJ Houshmandzadeh and Chad Johnson made him great. That's not the dynamic that existed on the '91 team. Hobert gets as much credit as any position group on the offense, save for maybe the O line, which was the real star of that team outside of the Empterman.
    Agree about the OL, and mostly agree about BJH.

    That defense was pretty nails across the bored though, it wasn't just Stan.

    My contention was with the point that the WRs were somehow the weak link of the offense. They were pretty damn good. Maybe five or six UW teams in my lifetime have had a better pair of receivers than Bailey and McCay. Probably 15 UW teams in my lifetime have had a better pair of RBs than Beno and Barry.
  • creepycougcreepycoug Posts: 11,310
    10000 Comments 250 Answers Fifth Anniversary 500 Awesomes

    I don't know. Beano and Berry were good RBs. Hard runners, and both (not just Bryant) with speed. That running game was prodigious, though the line helped. Always does.

    The WRs were no better ... not from a talent standpoint. No way. They were good; Bailey was more than good. In the spirit of the original comment, which puts a lot of the credit on them and less on the QB, they were not that good. I've seen WR corps that made average QBs look good. Miami had such a corp. in '91. Dudes could make catches a lot of receivers can't make. The Washington WRs weren't like that. Hobert needed to be good, and he was.

    Aside from the talent/execution standpoint, the other thing about Hobert, which has been touched upon, was that he was the straw that stirred the drink. Nails as a leader. Tell me you wouldn't go to war with that guy. I loved him. I remember watching him at the King Bowl with Puyallup and knowing what a star he would be at the next level. Too bad he couldn't reign himself in and have an NFL career. He certainly had the tools for it.

    Fuck man you can't say Bailey is overrated here because he didn't play in the pros and then hype the RBs who didn't even get drafted.

    By your own standard the WRs were better than the RBs.

    Your standard is correct.
    Not really saying he was overrated. Saying he and Orlando McKay aren't the, or a primary, reason Hobert was a great QB. I think Jonathan Smith was a good college QB, but throwing to TJ Houshmandzadeh and Chad Johnson made him great. That's not the dynamic that existed on the '91 team. Hobert gets as much credit as any position group on the offense, save for maybe the O line, which was the real star of that team outside of the Empterman.
    Agree about the OL, and mostly agree about BJH.

    That defense was pretty nails across the bored though, it wasn't just Stan.

    My contention was with the point that the WRs were somehow the weak link of the offense. They were pretty damn good. Maybe five or six UW teams in my lifetime have had a better pair of receivers than Bailey and McCay. Probably 15 UW teams in my lifetime have had a better pair of RBs than Beno and Barry.
    Fair enough. The whole team was good.

    But the fact Bailey and McKay stand that high in the pantheon of UW WRs really, to me, just emphasizes the fact that WR hasn't been a position of historical strength for Washington. But Washington has produced some great RBs. There may be no Washington WR who is the equivalent to his position as, say, Corey Dillon. Maybe Reggie, who was probably the most gifted to ever do it at Washington.
    HillsboroDuckbackthepack
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Posts: 43,734
    Swaye's Wigwam 25000 Comments 250 Answers Sixth Anniversary

    I don't know. Beano and Berry were good RBs. Hard runners, and both (not just Bryant) with speed. That running game was prodigious, though the line helped. Always does.

    The WRs were no better ... not from a talent standpoint. No way. They were good; Bailey was more than good. In the spirit of the original comment, which puts a lot of the credit on them and less on the QB, they were not that good. I've seen WR corps that made average QBs look good. Miami had such a corp. in '91. Dudes could make catches a lot of receivers can't make. The Washington WRs weren't like that. Hobert needed to be good, and he was.

    Aside from the talent/execution standpoint, the other thing about Hobert, which has been touched upon, was that he was the straw that stirred the drink. Nails as a leader. Tell me you wouldn't go to war with that guy. I loved him. I remember watching him at the King Bowl with Puyallup and knowing what a star he would be at the next level. Too bad he couldn't reign himself in and have an NFL career. He certainly had the tools for it.

    Fuck man you can't say Bailey is overrated here because he didn't play in the pros and then hype the RBs who didn't even get drafted.

    By your own standard the WRs were better than the RBs.

    Your standard is correct.
    Not really saying he was overrated. Saying he and Orlando McKay aren't the, or a primary, reason Hobert was a great QB. I think Jonathan Smith was a good college QB, but throwing to TJ Houshmandzadeh and Chad Johnson made him great. That's not the dynamic that existed on the '91 team. Hobert gets as much credit as any position group on the offense, save for maybe the O line, which was the real star of that team outside of the Empterman.
    Agree about the OL, and mostly agree about BJH.

    That defense was pretty nails across the bored though, it wasn't just Stan.

    My contention was with the point that the WRs were somehow the weak link of the offense. They were pretty damn good. Maybe five or six UW teams in my lifetime have had a better pair of receivers than Bailey and McCay. Probably 15 UW teams in my lifetime have had a better pair of RBs than Beno and Barry.
    Fair enough. The whole team was good.

    But the fact Bailey and McKay stand that high in the pantheon of UW WRs really, to me, just emphasizes the fact that WR hasn't been a position of historical strength for Washington. But Washington has produced some great RBs. There may be no Washington WR who is the equivalent to his position as, say, Corey Dillon. Maybe Reggie, who was probably the most gifted to ever do it at Washington.
    Interesting point on the history of receivers at the DUB

    We have had a plethora of Wes Welker types who didn't duplicate his success in the NFL

    Dave Williams in the 60's was a record setter and All American

    Paul Skansi of Apple Cup fame. Sonny threw to mainly white guys. I used to know their names too.

    The White Guys of Rick's Rose Bowl team led by Chris Juergens along with a couple of brothers @WilburHooksHands and Justin Robins who had great talent but got hurt

    I think Reggie Williams may be the GOAT. I don't recall a lot of superstars under James at wide out. Lot of tailbacks.

    Reggie is hurt by the era he played in. Missed the Rose Bowl, was there for the decline into the dark Duckade. We all want to forget

    But he was a special talent
    backthepackdflea
  • HillsboroDuckHillsboroDuck Posts: 9,011
    5000 Comments 250 Answers Sixth Anniversary 500 Awesomes

    I don't know. Beano and Berry were good RBs. Hard runners, and both (not just Bryant) with speed. That running game was prodigious, though the line helped. Always does.

    The WRs were no better ... not from a talent standpoint. No way. They were good; Bailey was more than good. In the spirit of the original comment, which puts a lot of the credit on them and less on the QB, they were not that good. I've seen WR corps that made average QBs look good. Miami had such a corp. in '91. Dudes could make catches a lot of receivers can't make. The Washington WRs weren't like that. Hobert needed to be good, and he was.

    Aside from the talent/execution standpoint, the other thing about Hobert, which has been touched upon, was that he was the straw that stirred the drink. Nails as a leader. Tell me you wouldn't go to war with that guy. I loved him. I remember watching him at the King Bowl with Puyallup and knowing what a star he would be at the next level. Too bad he couldn't reign himself in and have an NFL career. He certainly had the tools for it.

    Fuck man you can't say Bailey is overrated here because he didn't play in the pros and then hype the RBs who didn't even get drafted.

    By your own standard the WRs were better than the RBs.

    Your standard is correct.
    Not really saying he was overrated. Saying he and Orlando McKay aren't the, or a primary, reason Hobert was a great QB. I think Jonathan Smith was a good college QB, but throwing to TJ Houshmandzadeh and Chad Johnson made him great. That's not the dynamic that existed on the '91 team. Hobert gets as much credit as any position group on the offense, save for maybe the O line, which was the real star of that team outside of the Empterman.
    Agree about the OL, and mostly agree about BJH.

    That defense was pretty nails across the bored though, it wasn't just Stan.

    My contention was with the point that the WRs were somehow the weak link of the offense. They were pretty damn good. Maybe five or six UW teams in my lifetime have had a better pair of receivers than Bailey and McCay. Probably 15 UW teams in my lifetime have had a better pair of RBs than Beno and Barry.
    Fair enough. The whole team was good.

    But the fact Bailey and McKay stand that high in the pantheon of UW WRs really, to me, just emphasizes the fact that WR hasn't been a position of historical strength for Washington. But Washington has produced some great RBs. There may be no Washington WR who is the equivalent to his position as, say, Corey Dillon. Maybe Reggie, who was probably the most gifted to ever do it at Washington.
    Interesting point on the history of receivers at the DUB

    We have had a plethora of Wes Welker types who didn't duplicate his success in the NFL

    Dave Williams in the 60's was a record setter and All American

    Paul Skansi of Apple Cup fame. Sonny threw to mainly white guys. I used to know their names too.

    The White Guys of Rick's Rose Bowl team led by Chris Juergens along with a couple of brothers @WilburHooksHands and Justin Robins who had great talent but got hurt

    I think Reggie Williams may be the GOAT. I don't recall a lot of superstars under James at wide out. Lot of tailbacks.

    Reggie is hurt by the era he played in. Missed the Rose Bowl, was there for the decline into the dark Duckade. We all want to forget

    But he was a special talent
    Reggie's the GOAT rather easily. Second is either Bailey, Ross or Pathon.

    WR has definitely not been a position of UW historical strength, though we have put plenty of guys into the NFL. No real stars though, not even Reggie.

    Dante might breakthrough. We'll see.
    dflea
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Posts: 43,734
    Swaye's Wigwam 25000 Comments 250 Answers Sixth Anniversary
    I'm a Mario Bailey guy so I put him second

    First really but Reggie is better. Reggie in 91 would have been illegal

    Heisman
    HillsboroDuckdfleabackthepackSarkingham
  • HillsboroDuckHillsboroDuck Posts: 9,011
    5000 Comments 250 Answers Sixth Anniversary 500 Awesomes
    edited March 28

    I'm a Mario Bailey guy so I put him second

    First really but Reggie is better. Reggie in 91 would have been illegal

    Heisman

    Big Mario Bailey guy here as well. IIRC he was a first team All American so yeah he should be #2 rather easily.

    Senior John Ross was better but Mario had a better career.
    RaceBannonbackthepackDooglesSarkingham
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Posts: 43,734
    Swaye's Wigwam 25000 Comments 250 Answers Sixth Anniversary

    Senior John Ross was kind of the WR equivalent of Corey Dillon. One year unlike any other. Not the career to make him the GOAT though.

    Good point

    HillsboroDuck
Sign In or Register to comment.