I was there in Berkeley. First time I’ve ever seen a Husky team quit. Even the Owen12 team down 45-0 to SC at halftime in the Coliseum (was there, too) didn’t quit - they just sucked and were up against a vastly superior team.
I was at both as well. That Cal game the frats mocked us for hiring Gilby back after the game
I thought that game in th coliseum was 38-0. Just ugly
you're thinking of a different year. Probably 2004.
2003. I understnad that the beatdowns tend to run together, but 2003 was 54-7 in Berkeley, 2004 was 42-12 at UW, 2005 was 56-17 at UW.
I was there in Berkeley. First time I’ve ever seen a Husky team quit. Even the Owen12 team down 45-0 to SC at halftime in the Coliseum (was there, too) didn’t quit - they just sucked and were up against a vastly superior team.
I was at both as well. That Cal game the frats mocked us for hiring Gilby back after the game
I thought that game in th coliseum was 38-0. Just ugly
you're thinking of a different year. Probably 2004.
2003. I understnad that the beatdowns tend to run together, but 2003 was 54-7 in Berkeley, 2004 was 42-12 at UW, 2005 was 56-17 at UW.
I'm sure those three years mean a lot to you
Only 2003. The cathartic victory of 2002 was still fresh and another win wasn't assured. By 2004 it was just expected. 2006 was nice too, when Marshawn beat yoUW on two sprained ankles, but it was tainted by the fact that we? didn't blow the Huskieies out, as we had cum to expect
I was there in Berkeley. First time I’ve ever seen a Husky team quit. Even the Owen12 team down 45-0 to SC at halftime in the Coliseum (was there, too) didn’t quit - they just sucked and were up against a vastly superior team.
I was at both as well. That Cal game the frats mocked us for hiring Gilby back after the game
I thought that game in th coliseum was 38-0. Just ugly
you're thinking of a different year. Probably 2004.
2003. I understnad that the beatdowns tend to run together, but 2003 was 54-7 in Berkeley, 2004 was 42-12 at UW, 2005 was 56-17 at UW.
I'm sure those three years mean a lot to you
Only 2003. The cathartic victory of 2002 was still fresh and another win wasn't assured. By 2004 it was just expected. 2006 was nice too, when Marshawn beat yoUW on two sprained ankles, but it was tainted by the fact that we? didn't blow the Huskieies out, as we had cum to expect
Wilner has had some good picks in the passed- e.g., Trees over us in 2017. But his going with 9-3 just reeks of media knee jerk thinking about breaking in a new QB and a lot of new starters. We've been a 10 win dynasty with way less talent that we're going to be putting out on the field in 2019. I'm fine with calling Stanford as a loss and maybe one other one, but GTFOH with 9-3.
I was there in Berkeley. First time I’ve ever seen a Husky team quit. Even the Owen12 team down 45-0 to SC at halftime in the Coliseum (was there, too) didn’t quit - they just sucked and were up against a vastly superior team.
I was at both as well. That Cal game the frats mocked us for hiring Gilby back after the game
I thought that game in th coliseum was 38-0. Just ugly
you're thinking of a different year. Probably 2004.
2003. I understnad that the beatdowns tend to run together, but 2003 was 54-7 in Berkeley, 2004 was 42-12 at UW, 2005 was 56-17 at UW.
I'm sure those three years mean a lot to you
Only 2003. The cathartic victory of 2002 was still fresh and another win wasn't assured. By 2004 it was just expected. 2006 was nice too, when Marshawn beat yoUW on two sprained ankles, but it was tainted by the fact that we? didn't blow the Huskieies out, as we had cum to expect
I believe you also lost to smilin Carl Bonnell as Tedford slid into mediocrity. A bad win for us as it propped up Ty
Maybe not. I've blocked that decade out after this event
I was there in Berkeley. First time I’ve ever seen a Husky team quit. Even the Owen12 team down 45-0 to SC at halftime in the Coliseum (was there, too) didn’t quit - they just sucked and were up against a vastly superior team.
I was at both as well. That Cal game the frats mocked us for hiring Gilby back after the game
I thought that game in th coliseum was 38-0. Just ugly
you're thinking of a different year. Probably 2004.
2003. I understnad that the beatdowns tend to run together, but 2003 was 54-7 in Berkeley, 2004 was 42-12 at UW, 2005 was 56-17 at UW.
I'm sure those three years mean a lot to you
Only 2003. The cathartic victory of 2002 was still fresh and another win wasn't assured. By 2004 it was just expected. 2006 was nice too, when Marshawn beat yoUW on two sprained ankles, but it was tainted by the fact that we? didn't blow the Huskieies out, as we had cum to expect
I believe you also lost to smilin Carl Bonnell as Tedford slid into mediocrity. A bad win for us as it propped up Ty
Maybe not. I've blocked that decade out after this event
Probably the 2007 game in Seattle where we? lost 37-23. Epic collapse that year after Nate Longshore got injured during the Oregon game, then Tedford trotted his gimpy corpse out game after game because he had no confidence in Kevin Riley after he brainfarted away the OS(U) game, with dissension in the locker room because certain asst. coaches were playing favorites. 5-0 start with a whiff of #1 turns into a 7-6 season. A year I'd like to forget too, with the exception of this priceless tidbit:
Me thinks it’s gonna be another really close game.
Low scoring, I agree. I would predict that UW wins 20-10 or something. Your defense is legit and your path to victory is by forcing a bunch of turnovers imo.
With that said, we have been nearly invincible at home, and I think your offense is going to do almost nothing against our defense.
Pretty much agree with this. I’m not convinced that your defense will be as stout as previous seasons.
Me thinks it’s gonna be another really close game.
Low scoring, I agree. I would predict that UW wins 20-10 or something. Your defense is legit and your path to victory is by forcing a bunch of turnovers imo.
With that said, we have been nearly invincible at home, and I think your offense is going to do almost nothing against our defense.
Pretty much agree with this. I’m not convinced that your defense will be as stout as previous seasons.
Me thinks it’s gonna be another really close game.
Low scoring, I agree. I would predict that UW wins 20-10 or something. Your defense is legit and your path to victory is by forcing a bunch of turnovers imo.
With that said, we have been nearly invincible at home, and I think your offense is going to do almost nothing against our defense.
Pretty much agree with this. I’m not convinced that your defense will be as stout as previous seasons.
Probably not, especially by week two (I think it will be right there by year's end).
But it doesn't have to be as good as it has to stifle your offense.
Me thinks it’s gonna be another really close game.
Low scoring, I agree. I would predict that UW wins 20-10 or something. Your defense is legit and your path to victory is by forcing a bunch of turnovers imo.
With that said, we have been nearly invincible at home, and I think your offense is going to do almost nothing against our defense.
Pretty much agree with this. I’m not convinced that your defense will be as stout as previous seasons.
Probably not, especially by week two (I think it will be right there by year's end).
But it doesn't have to be as good as it has to stifle your offense.
YKIR
It won't be as good in the beginning. It will still probably be the best in the PAC.
Injury depth will be the only thing that might hold it back by the end of the season.
Me thinks it’s gonna be another really close game.
Low scoring, I agree. I would predict that UW wins 20-10 or something. Your defense is legit and your path to victory is by forcing a bunch of turnovers imo.
With that said, we have been nearly invincible at home, and I think your offense is going to do almost nothing against our defense.
Pretty much agree with this. I’m not convinced that your defense will be as stout as previous seasons.
Probably not, especially by week two (I think it will be right there by year's end).
But it doesn't have to be as good as it has to stifle your offense.
YKIR
It won't be as good in the beginning. It will still probably be the best in the PAC.
Injury depth will be the only thing that might hold it back by the end of the season.
Wilner has had some good picks in the passed- e.g., Trees over us in 2017. But his going with 9-3 just reeks of media knee jerk thinking about breaking in a new QB and a lot of new starters. We've been a 10 win dynasty with way less talent that we're going to be putting out on the field in 2019. I'm fine with calling Stanford as a loss and maybe one other one, but GTFOH with 9-3.
On Softy he explained it as he feels the huskies have stagnated.
Haven’t been back to the playoffs. Haven’t won the NY6 games. Losses have increased.
Pretty much ignoring that it was all done with lesser talent and recruiting classes are vastly better.
Wilner has had some good picks in the passed- e.g., Trees over us in 2017. But his going with 9-3 just reeks of media knee jerk thinking about breaking in a new QB and a lot of new starters. We've been a 10 win dynasty with way less talent that we're going to be putting out on the field in 2019. I'm fine with calling Stanford as a loss and maybe one other one, but GTFOH with 9-3.
On Softy he explained it as he feels the huskies have stagnated.
Haven’t been back to the playoffs. Haven’t won the NY6 games. Losses have increased.
Pretty much ignoring that it was all done with lesser talent and recruiting classes are vastly better.
Wilner has had some good picks in the passed- e.g., Trees over us in 2017. But his going with 9-3 just reeks of media knee jerk thinking about breaking in a new QB and a lot of new starters. We've been a 10 win dynasty with way less talent that we're going to be putting out on the field in 2019. I'm fine with calling Stanford as a loss and maybe one other one, but GTFOH with 9-3.
On Softy he explained it as he feels the huskies have stagnated.
Haven’t been back to the playoffs. Haven’t won the NY6 games. Losses have increased.
Pretty much ignoring that it was all done with lesser talent and recruiting classes are vastly better.
To echo @Tequilla it just such a lazy ass take by Wilner to say we've "stagnated". Either TBSing matters or it doesn't. The evidence suggests that it very much matters in terms of making it to the CFP year after year and beating Urbs and Dabo in NY6 games. Pete caught lightning in the bottle in 2016 and we had a great run, but 2017 and 2018 are probably more realistic for Washington 1.0 level talent. Washington 2.0 is 27 blue chips on our team that are true freshman or red shirt freshman.
Wilner has had some good picks in the passed- e.g., Trees over us in 2017. But his going with 9-3 just reeks of media knee jerk thinking about breaking in a new QB and a lot of new starters. We've been a 10 win dynasty with way less talent that we're going to be putting out on the field in 2019. I'm fine with calling Stanford as a loss and maybe one other one, but GTFOH with 9-3.
On Softy he explained it as he feels the huskies have stagnated.
Haven’t been back to the playoffs. Haven’t won the NY6 games. Losses have increased.
Pretty much ignoring that it was all done with lesser talent and recruiting classes are vastly better.
To echo @Tequilla it just such a lazy ass take by Wilner to say we've "stagnated". Either TBSing matters or it doesn't. The evidence suggests that it very much matters in terms of making it to the CFP year after year and beating Urbs and Dabo in NY6 games. Pete caught lightning in the bottle in 2016 and we had a great run, but 2017 and 2018 are probably more realistic for Washington 1.0 level talent. Washington 2.0 is 27 blue chips on our team that are true freshman or red shirt freshman.
He has dumb point until we win a meaningful game, it maybe lazy but he has a pont. Win to prove them wrong
Wilner has had some good picks in the passed- e.g., Trees over us in 2017. But his going with 9-3 just reeks of media knee jerk thinking about breaking in a new QB and a lot of new starters. We've been a 10 win dynasty with way less talent that we're going to be putting out on the field in 2019. I'm fine with calling Stanford as a loss and maybe one other one, but GTFOH with 9-3.
On Softy he explained it as he feels the huskies have stagnated.
Haven’t been back to the playoffs. Haven’t won the NY6 games. Losses have increased.
Pretty much ignoring that it was all done with lesser talent and recruiting classes are vastly better.
To echo @Tequilla it just such a lazy ass take by Wilner to say we've "stagnated". Either TBSing matters or it doesn't. The evidence suggests that it very much matters in terms of making it to the CFP year after year and beating Urbs and Dabo in NY6 games. Pete caught lightning in the bottle in 2016 and we had a great run, but 2017 and 2018 are probably more realistic for Washington 1.0 level talent. Washington 2.0 is 27 blue chips on our team that are true freshman or red shirt freshman.
He has dumb point until we win a meaningful game, it maybe lazy but he has a pont. Win to prove them wrong
Agree wholeheartedly. It's # @FirePete whacko cult until he wins a meaningful bowl game over a top tier opponent. But Pete has show strong signs that he's committed to getting over the hump, however, painful the journey may be at times. We're going no one way or another by 2021 if the Cult of TBS was right or not.
Wilner has had some good picks in the passed- e.g., Trees over us in 2017. But his going with 9-3 just reeks of media knee jerk thinking about breaking in a new QB and a lot of new starters. We've been a 10 win dynasty with way less talent that we're going to be putting out on the field in 2019. I'm fine with calling Stanford as a loss and maybe one other one, but GTFOH with 9-3.
On Softy he explained it as he feels the huskies have stagnated.
Haven’t been back to the playoffs. Haven’t won the NY6 games. Losses have increased.
Pretty much ignoring that it was all done with lesser talent and recruiting classes are vastly better.
To echo @Tequilla it just such a lazy ass take by Wilner to say we've "stagnated". Either TBSing matters or it doesn't. The evidence suggests that it very much matters in terms of making it to the CFP year after year and beating Urbs and Dabo in NY6 games. Pete caught lightning in the bottle in 2016 and we had a great run, but 2017 and 2018 are probably more realistic for Washington 1.0 level talent. Washington 2.0 is 27 blue chips on our team that are true freshman or red shirt freshman.
He has dumb point until we win a meaningful game, it maybe lazy but he has a pont. Win to prove them wrong
Agree wholeheartedly. It's # @FirePete whacko cult until he wins a meaningful bowl game over a top tier opponent. But Pete has show strong signs that he's committed to getting over the hump, however, painful the journey may be at times. We're going no one way or another by 2021 if the Cult of TBS was right or not.
the numbers say we are close. Hopefully this is the year
Comments
Maybe not. I've blocked that decade out after this event
But it doesn't have to be as good as it has to stifle your offense.
YKIR
Injury depth will be the only thing that might hold it back by the end of the season.
Haven’t been back to the playoffs. Haven’t won the NY6 games. Losses have increased.
Pretty much ignoring that it was all done with lesser talent and recruiting classes are vastly better.