It's a blackeye for Billy Dough Hobert, IMO
Comments
-
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.alumni94 said:I often find it humorous that QB post career blow up to 300+ and offensive linemen go lose to under 220.
-
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.HillsboroDuck said:
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.creepycoug said: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.
By your own standard the WRs were better than the RBs.
Your standard is correct. -
Agree about the OL, and mostly agree about BJH.creepycoug said:
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.HillsboroDuck said:
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.creepycoug said: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.
By your own standard the WRs were better than the RBs.
Your standard is correct.
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.HillsboroDuck said:
Agree about the OL, and mostly agree about BJH.creepycoug said:
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.HillsboroDuck said:
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.creepycoug said: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.
By your own standard the WRs were better than the RBs.
Your standard is correct.
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.
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 DUBcreepycoug said:
Fair enough. The whole team was good.HillsboroDuck said:
Agree about the OL, and mostly agree about BJH.creepycoug said:
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.HillsboroDuck said:
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.creepycoug said: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.
By your own standard the WRs were better than the RBs.
Your standard is correct.
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.
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.
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.RaceBannon said:
Interesting point on the history of receivers at the DUBcreepycoug said:
Fair enough. The whole team was good.HillsboroDuck said:
Agree about the OL, and mostly agree about BJH.creepycoug said:
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.HillsboroDuck said:
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.creepycoug said: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.
By your own standard the WRs were better than the RBs.
Your standard is correct.
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.
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.
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
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. -
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.RaceBannon said: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
Senior John Ross was better but Mario had a better career. -
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 pointHillsboroDuck said: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.
-
When you go 350, you can lose 26lbs by taking a shit.HillsboroDuck said: -
He's probably doing keto and he probably lost about 20lbs of water weight.MikeDamone said:
When you go 350, you can lose 26lbs by taking a shit.HillsboroDuck said: -
UW_Doog_Bot said:
He's probably doing keto and he probably lost about 20lbs of water weight.MikeDamone said:
When you go 350, you can lose 26lbs by taking a shit.HillsboroDuck said:
