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

It's a blackeye for Billy Dough Hobert, IMO

135

Comments

  • dflea
    dflea Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 7,287 Swaye's Wigwam
    Avatarsare4fags said:

    dflea said:

    Avatarsare4fags 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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 116,050 Founders Club
    M's shooting for .500

    Still
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 116,050 Founders Club
    We always lose to Cal


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HillsboroDuck
    HillsboroDuck Member Posts: 9,186
    creepycoug said:

    Avatarsare4fags 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
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • creepycoug
    creepycoug Member Posts: 24,411
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HillsboroDuck
    HillsboroDuck Member Posts: 9,186
    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.

    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter