Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

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

The truth must be told.

2»

Comments

  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781

    We could have a defense as good as either of these teams. We nearly did in 2016 and within a couple years we could have a comparable group, especially if we get some better edge pressure (Latu, Smalls, Tryon, etc.). Not quite the depth as has been pointed out.

    On the offensive side it's probably a different story. Just because each team has a generational talent at QB plus insane RBs, and WRs.

    UW's ceiling is probably getting to this game and losing by 14-17 points.

    "Could. Nearly. Couple of years. Comparable. If. Not quite. Different. Generational. "

    You serious Clark?
    Each of these defenses tonight are good to give up 40+ points. Nobody is throwing a shutout. UW can give up 40 just as well as anyone.
    Christ.

    Doogs gonna doog.

    Uw is so far from this level and it's not even close. Hold cal then pop off
  • DoubleJDawgDoubleJDawg Member Posts: 610

    We are never going to have a full stock of dudes like these teams athletically. We could have a lot of first teamers that fit the bill though. We are going to need a generational talent at an most likely though and it’s possible. Not saying Huard is that guy so don’t twist.

    That being said we made a stupid hire at oc so none of this matters.

    So you're agreeing with me.
    We could have a team close to this athletically in our footprint if
    1) We prioritized recruiting AND coaching in all of our position coaches
    2) We included transfers in our recruitment strategy - at any position at any time
    3) We played the best players based on ability (not practice kiss-ass-ery) regardless of class and let them development- and ran off the shit players to be replaced with new ones

    So basically no margin for error, and in other words Damone is right
    I might go even further as to blaspheme Peterman even more directly and say that Built for Life is antithetical to a real consistent NC contending team

    Built for Life posits that real life is plan A - and at Boise, sure it is as 80-90% of their players will never have a chance to go pro. It also helps to “seal in” crappy players because the program has a mission of producing fine young men and a few pros, and keeping the fine young me in the program is part of the value prop

    At a Clemson or LSU you go there to try to go pro - fuck the broader picture

    If we were serious about football, we could change built for life by offering exited players external access to that program when they are at Montana State or the like. Maybe peterman could produce some TED talks or podcasts they could access. Both goals could definitely be achieved, if we actually cared about football
  • DoubleJDawgDoubleJDawg Member Posts: 610

    We are never going to have a full stock of dudes like these teams athletically. We could have a lot of first teamers that fit the bill though. We are going to need a generational talent at an most likely though and it’s possible. Not saying Huard is that guy so don’t twist.

    That being said we made a stupid hire at oc so none of this matters.

    So you're agreeing with me.
    We could have a team close to this athletically in our footprint if
    1) We prioritized recruiting AND coaching in all of our position coaches
    2) We included transfers in our recruitment strategy - at any position at any time
    3) We played the best players based on ability (not practice kiss-ass-ery) regardless of class and let them development- and ran off the shit players to be replaced with new ones

    So basically no margin for error, and in other words Damone is right
    I might go even further as to blaspheme Peterman even more directly and say that Built for Life is antithetical to a real consistent NC contending team

    Built for Life posits that real life is plan A - and at Boise, sure it is as 80-90% of their players will never have a chance to go pro. It also helps to “seal in” crappy players because the program has a mission of producing fine young men and a few pros, and keeping the fine young me in the program is part of the value prop

    At a Clemson or LSU you go there to try to go pro - fuck the broader picture

    If we were serious about football, we could change built for life by offering exited players external access to that program when they are at Montana State or the like. Maybe peterman could produce some TED talks or podcasts they could access. Both goals could definitely be achieved, if we actually cared about football
    Doesn’t Clemson have a program almost exactly like built for life? It’s just the fun version with a fan base that gives a shit.
    Maybe a built for life that is designed for like 50% of your team (the other 50% is going pro) is a little looser that our built for life designed for the majority of the team Boise style

    I’m sure that fun rather than “its the hardest thing you will ever do” as a brand helps

    I’m fairly certain a Kyler Manu and an Opera Singer would have been counseled on at Clemson too

    Shrug - dunno
  • phineasphineas Member Posts: 4,732
    Just a couple more OKGs guys. Almost there. Trust me.
  • AtomicDawgAtomicDawg Member Posts: 7,046 Standard Supporter

    We are never going to have a full stock of dudes like these teams athletically. We could have a lot of first teamers that fit the bill though. We are going to need a generational talent at an most likely though and it’s possible. Not saying Huard is that guy so don’t twist.

    That being said we made a stupid hire at oc so none of this matters.

    So you're agreeing with me.
    We could have a team close to this athletically in our footprint if
    1) We prioritized recruiting AND coaching in all of our position coaches
    2) We included transfers in our recruitment strategy - at any position at any time
    3) We played the best players based on ability (not practice kiss-ass-ery) regardless of class and let them development- and ran off the shit players to be replaced with new ones

    So basically no margin for error, and in other words Damone is right
    I might go even further as to blaspheme Peterman even more directly and say that Built for Life is antithetical to a real consistent NC contending team

    Built for Life posits that real life is plan A - and at Boise, sure it is as 80-90% of their players will never have a chance to go pro. It also helps to “seal in” crappy players because the program has a mission of producing fine young men and a few pros, and keeping the fine young me in the program is part of the value prop

    At a Clemson or LSU you go there to try to go pro - fuck the broader picture

    If we were serious about football, we could change built for life by offering exited players external access to that program when they are at Montana State or the like. Maybe peterman could produce some TED talks or podcasts they could access. Both goals could definitely be achieved, if we actually cared about football
    Doesn’t Clemson have a program almost exactly like built for life? It’s just the fun version with a fan base that gives a shit.
    Maybe a built for life that is designed for like 50% of your team (the other 50% is going pro) is a little looser that our built for life designed for the majority of the team Boise style

    I’m sure that fun rather than “its the hardest thing you will ever do” as a brand helps

    I’m fairly certain a Kyler Manu and an Opera Singer would have been counseled on at Clemson too

    Shrug - dunno
    Dabo does the same thing only fun. He also throws a ton of religion into it too.

    The big difference is they try to win the games where our genius staff thinks it’s more of a bi product of the system. All hail the system. I thought jimmy was going to understand this and correct it. Problem seems to be that he thinks he is smarter than everyone. Hope he is. But I doubt it.
  • RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,123
    edited January 2020

    We are never going to have a full stock of dudes like these teams athletically. We could have a lot of first teamers that fit the bill though. We are going to need a generational talent at an most likely though and it’s possible. Not saying Huard is that guy so don’t twist.

    That being said we made a stupid hire at oc so none of this matters.

    UW’s formula is a veteran team on the lines with an amazing QB. A natty run will never happen without it. Need a generational QB to bridge the gap. Huard could be that. He’s the doog hope.
  • TTJTTJ Member Posts: 4,797

    UW isn't even close to being a national title contender and if they ever are, it probably won't be in our lifetimes. They weren't 2016 either. Not even close.

    Today? No. Not close.

    But a year ago? UW and LSU would have been evenly matched. UW may have been a hair better.

    The point? LSU got a lot better in a hurry. It can be done.
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    TTJ said:

    UW isn't even close to being a national title contender and if they ever are, it probably won't be in our lifetimes. They weren't 2016 either. Not even close.

    Today? No. Not close.

    But a year ago? UW and LSU would have been evenly matched. UW may have been a hair better.

    The point? LSU got a lot better in a hurry. It can be done.
    Lol. LSU got better. UW got worse. That's my point. It can be done, but not here.

    Hth
Sign In or Register to comment.