Coaches and Scouts view on UW
Comments
-
Define "more talented team". Because we've beaten plenty of teams under Pete that had more blue chip recruits on their roster or were ranked higher than we were.digits said:This is how I feel about the entire UW program under Petersen: "I think they should be better than they're playing. They dominate teams they are better than, but when it comes to teams that are as talented or more talented, they struggle some."
UW should be running the table versus conference opponents because the Pac 12 fucking sucks, but we? aren't.
The only game I've seen us win versus a more talented team under Petersen is 2015 @ SC (And let us not forget that included the Sark factor).
2016 vs SC, 'Bama, Auburn, Penn St., tOSU... I believe all those games were winnable, but Petersen didn't have the team, coaches included, prepared well enough for what was necessary to win. It's on the head coach.
The "more talented" narrative seems to be applied retroactively. -
That, and the scout/coach was specifically evaluating the o-line in regards to dominating lesser talent and struggling against better competition.dnc said:
Define "more talented team". Because we've beaten plenty of teams under Pete that had more blue chip recruits on their roster or were ranked higher than we were.digits said:This is how I feel about the entire UW program under Petersen: "I think they should be better than they're playing. They dominate teams they are better than, but when it comes to teams that are as talented or more talented, they struggle some."
UW should be running the table versus conference opponents because the Pac 12 fucking sucks, but we? aren't.
The only game I've seen us win versus a more talented team under Petersen is 2015 @ SC (And let us not forget that included the Sark factor).
2016 vs SC, 'Bama, Auburn, Penn St., tOSU... I believe all those games were winnable, but Petersen didn't have the team, coaches included, prepared well enough for what was necessary to win. It's on the head coach.
The "more talented" narrative seems to be applied retroactively.
-
A lot of good takes in here.
I think the team is going to struggle early on in the year as the offense/Eason get going and the defense breaks in a bunch of new starters.
I'm curious to see our run game, because Salvon can't run between the tackles, but at the same time teams can't play 10 in the box because we have a QB that can throw the ball more than 15 yards now. Our pass offense can't help but be more explosive with Skinny's arm and a healthy Bryant. Its on Pete and Hamdan to push the playcalling forward and play to our stengths too.
Our D is going to be insane by the end of the year, but early on I think we will give up more big plays than in years past, especially in the run game. God help us if Wellington gets hurt.
If you look at Bill Connelly's stats, they show just how bland we have been over the past 2 years; methodical but not explosive. That's a recipe to beat dreck Pac-12 teams but look overmatched against quality competition. I'm anxious for us to take the next step. -
Basically, I define more talented as what you listed above: Teams with more blue chip recruits on their roster or were ranked higher than we were. Regarding the latter, in 16 games played against higher ranked opponents under Petersen, here are the instances when UW beat a higher ranked team:dnc said:
Define "more talented team". Because we've beaten plenty of teams under Pete that had more blue chip recruits on their roster or were ranked higher than we were.digits said:This is how I feel about the entire UW program under Petersen: "I think they should be better than they're playing. They dominate teams they are better than, but when it comes to teams that are as talented or more talented, they struggle some."
UW should be running the table versus conference opponents because the Pac 12 fucking sucks, but we? aren't.
The only game I've seen us win versus a more talented team under Petersen is 2015 @ SC (And let us not forget that included the Sark factor).
2016 vs SC, 'Bama, Auburn, Penn St., tOSU... I believe all those games were winnable, but Petersen didn't have the team, coaches included, prepared well enough for what was necessary to win. It's on the head coach.
The "more talented" narrative seems to be applied retroactively.
1. 2015 unranked UW @ 17th ranked SC
2. 2015 unranked UW vs 23rd ranked Wazzu
3. 2016 10th ranked UW vs 7th Stanford
4. 2017 15th ranked UW vs 14 ranked Wazzu
5. 2018 16th ranked UW @ 8th ranked Wazzu -
I doubt 5-11 versus higher ranked teams is particularly bad, but I don't really know what a normal baseline would be.digits said:
Basically, I define more talented as what you listed above: Teams with more blue chip recruits on their roster or were ranked higher than we were. Regarding the latter, in 16 games played against higher ranked opponents under Petersen, here are the instances when UW beat a higher ranked team:dnc said:
Define "more talented team". Because we've beaten plenty of teams under Pete that had more blue chip recruits on their roster or were ranked higher than we were.digits said:This is how I feel about the entire UW program under Petersen: "I think they should be better than they're playing. They dominate teams they are better than, but when it comes to teams that are as talented or more talented, they struggle some."
UW should be running the table versus conference opponents because the Pac 12 fucking sucks, but we? aren't.
The only game I've seen us win versus a more talented team under Petersen is 2015 @ SC (And let us not forget that included the Sark factor).
2016 vs SC, 'Bama, Auburn, Penn St., tOSU... I believe all those games were winnable, but Petersen didn't have the team, coaches included, prepared well enough for what was necessary to win. It's on the head coach.
The "more talented" narrative seems to be applied retroactively.
1. 2015 unranked UW @ 17th ranked SC
2. 2015 unranked UW vs 23rd ranked Wazzu
3. 2016 10th ranked UW vs 7th Stanford
4. 2017 15th ranked UW vs 14 ranked Wazzu
5. 2018 16th ranked UW @ 8th ranked Wazzu
I guess the bigger issue is we've played 16 games against higher ranked teams in the past 5 years.
Hopefully that number is more like 5-8 in the next 5. -
3 out of the 5 games were Wazzu. So, yeah. Don't get me wrong, I think Petersen is the guy, but he hasn't produced many upsets (Sans SC) while @ UW and I don't think that can really be argued.dnc said:
I doubt 5-11 versus higher ranked teams is particularly bad, but I don't really know what a normal baseline would be.digits said:
Basically, I define more talented as what you listed above: Teams with more blue chip recruits on their roster or were ranked higher than we were. Regarding the latter, in 16 games played against higher ranked opponents under Petersen, here are the instances when UW beat a higher ranked team:dnc said:
Define "more talented team". Because we've beaten plenty of teams under Pete that had more blue chip recruits on their roster or were ranked higher than we were.digits said:This is how I feel about the entire UW program under Petersen: "I think they should be better than they're playing. They dominate teams they are better than, but when it comes to teams that are as talented or more talented, they struggle some."
UW should be running the table versus conference opponents because the Pac 12 fucking sucks, but we? aren't.
The only game I've seen us win versus a more talented team under Petersen is 2015 @ SC (And let us not forget that included the Sark factor).
2016 vs SC, 'Bama, Auburn, Penn St., tOSU... I believe all those games were winnable, but Petersen didn't have the team, coaches included, prepared well enough for what was necessary to win. It's on the head coach.
The "more talented" narrative seems to be applied retroactively.
1. 2015 unranked UW @ 17th ranked SC
2. 2015 unranked UW vs 23rd ranked Wazzu
3. 2016 10th ranked UW vs 7th Stanford
4. 2017 15th ranked UW vs 14 ranked Wazzu
5. 2018 16th ranked UW @ 8th ranked Wazzu
I guess the bigger issue is we've played 16 games against higher ranked teams in the past 5 years.
Hopefully that number is more like 5-8 in the next 5. -
No question.digits said:
3 out of the 5 games were Wazzu. So, yeah. Don't get me wrong, I think Petersen is the guy, but he hasn't produced many upsets (Sans SC) while @ UW and I don't think that can really be argued.dnc said:
I doubt 5-11 versus higher ranked teams is particularly bad, but I don't really know what a normal baseline would be.digits said:
Basically, I define more talented as what you listed above: Teams with more blue chip recruits on their roster or were ranked higher than we were. Regarding the latter, in 16 games played against higher ranked opponents under Petersen, here are the instances when UW beat a higher ranked team:dnc said:
Define "more talented team". Because we've beaten plenty of teams under Pete that had more blue chip recruits on their roster or were ranked higher than we were.digits said:This is how I feel about the entire UW program under Petersen: "I think they should be better than they're playing. They dominate teams they are better than, but when it comes to teams that are as talented or more talented, they struggle some."
UW should be running the table versus conference opponents because the Pac 12 fucking sucks, but we? aren't.
The only game I've seen us win versus a more talented team under Petersen is 2015 @ SC (And let us not forget that included the Sark factor).
2016 vs SC, 'Bama, Auburn, Penn St., tOSU... I believe all those games were winnable, but Petersen didn't have the team, coaches included, prepared well enough for what was necessary to win. It's on the head coach.
The "more talented" narrative seems to be applied retroactively.
1. 2015 unranked UW @ 17th ranked SC
2. 2015 unranked UW vs 23rd ranked Wazzu
3. 2016 10th ranked UW vs 7th Stanford
4. 2017 15th ranked UW vs 14 ranked Wazzu
5. 2018 16th ranked UW @ 8th ranked Wazzu
I guess the bigger issue is we've played 16 games against higher ranked teams in the past 5 years.
Hopefully that number is more like 5-8 in the next 5. -
The line about methodical but not explosive reminds me of how our? defense plays. We? make offenses work their way down the field a little bit at a time while increasing the potential for the D to create turnovers. If we? can’t create explosive plays on offense with Skinny, we’ll? never do it running Petermen’s offense.Woof said:A lot of good takes in here.
I think the team is going to struggle early on in the year as the offense/Eason get going and the defense breaks in a bunch of new starters.
I'm curious to see our run game, because Salvon can't run between the tackles, but at the same time teams can't play 10 in the box because we have a QB that can throw the ball more than 15 yards now. Our pass offense can't help but be more explosive with Skinny's arm and a healthy Bryant. Its on Pete and Hamdan to push the playcalling forward and play to our stengths too.
Our D is going to be insane by the end of the year, but early on I think we will give up more big plays than in years past, especially in the run game. God help us if Wellington gets hurt.
If you look at Bill Connelly's stats, they show just how bland we have been over the past 2 years; methodical but not explosive. That's a recipe to beat dreck Pac-12 teams but look overmatched against quality competition. I'm anxious for us to take the next step. -
Yes, it's true for both O and D. Unfortunately we didn't force a lot of turnovers on D last year. That led to a lot of 8 play 31 yard drives that end in a punt for both offense and defense. I can see why neutral observers think we are a boring team to watch.CFetters_Nacho_Lover said:
The line about methodical but not explosive reminds me of how our? defense plays. We? make offenses work their way down the field a little bit at a time while increasing the potential for the D to create turnovers. If we? can’t create explosive plays on offense with Skinny, we’ll? never do it running Petermen’s offense.Woof said:A lot of good takes in here.
I think the team is going to struggle early on in the year as the offense/Eason get going and the defense breaks in a bunch of new starters.
I'm curious to see our run game, because Salvon can't run between the tackles, but at the same time teams can't play 10 in the box because we have a QB that can throw the ball more than 15 yards now. Our pass offense can't help but be more explosive with Skinny's arm and a healthy Bryant. Its on Pete and Hamdan to push the playcalling forward and play to our stengths too.
Our D is going to be insane by the end of the year, but early on I think we will give up more big plays than in years past, especially in the run game. God help us if Wellington gets hurt.
If you look at Bill Connelly's stats, they show just how bland we have been over the past 2 years; methodical but not explosive. That's a recipe to beat dreck Pac-12 teams but look overmatched against quality competition. I'm anxious for us to take the next step.
This is the beginning of the third era of UW football under Pete. We started with Sark's guys, then did Boise 2.0, and now we are combining great scheme and coaching with superior athletes virtually across the board. This should be a recipe for dominating the Pac, but QB play and youth are the question marks right now. -
Bread said:
Pretty sure these were from talking to NFL scouts and national writers. Local reporters and coaches don't say shit like that.
It's hard to upset teams when you're the favorite (especially the last 3 years)... UW has essentially entered the lovely territory of most wins = who cares, you should've won, every loss = seppuku is less painfuldigits said:
3 out of the 5 games were Wazzu. So, yeah. Don't get me wrong, I think Petersen is the guy, but he hasn't produced many upsets (Sans SC) while @ UW and I don't think that can really be argued.dnc said:
I doubt 5-11 versus higher ranked teams is particularly bad, but I don't really know what a normal baseline would be.digits said:
Basically, I define more talented as what you listed above: Teams with more blue chip recruits on their roster or were ranked higher than we were. Regarding the latter, in 16 games played against higher ranked opponents under Petersen, here are the instances when UW beat a higher ranked team:dnc said:
Define "more talented team". Because we've beaten plenty of teams under Pete that had more blue chip recruits on their roster or were ranked higher than we were.digits said:This is how I feel about the entire UW program under Petersen: "I think they should be better than they're playing. They dominate teams they are better than, but when it comes to teams that are as talented or more talented, they struggle some."
UW should be running the table versus conference opponents because the Pac 12 fucking sucks, but we? aren't.
The only game I've seen us win versus a more talented team under Petersen is 2015 @ SC (And let us not forget that included the Sark factor).
2016 vs SC, 'Bama, Auburn, Penn St., tOSU... I believe all those games were winnable, but Petersen didn't have the team, coaches included, prepared well enough for what was necessary to win. It's on the head coach.
The "more talented" narrative seems to be applied retroactively.
1. 2015 unranked UW @ 17th ranked SC
2. 2015 unranked UW vs 23rd ranked Wazzu
3. 2016 10th ranked UW vs 7th Stanford
4. 2017 15th ranked UW vs 14 ranked Wazzu
5. 2018 16th ranked UW @ 8th ranked Wazzu
I guess the bigger issue is we've played 16 games against higher ranked teams in the past 5 years.
Hopefully that number is more like 5-8 in the next 5.
