Can someone insert that pic of dipshit opera singer catching a td but doing his dance of the sugar plum ferries and magically floating out of bounds while not getting one foot down. that’s my response to Eason wasn’t that good.
A wise man once said you’re only as good as the sum of your parts or some shit like that. Play puka, Bynum, and spiker and shits different.
Eason wasnt that great. You cant take one play by a dipshit WR and say it makes up for the terrible interceptions, sub par field vision, late throws, and poor leadership. He was a talented arm that flashed his potential at times and that's about it for his 1 year at UW. Great QBs make the mediocre guys around them look good
I’ll never let facts get in the way of a Ballz double down. So here I go.
Eason has amazing arm strength and the personality that appeals to a bunch of alpha primadona wr’s.
Imagine what will happen when Eason has multiple nfl level wr’s to throw to and an nfl quality line.
He’ll be the next thomb Brady.
Alright, so I originally thought I made a great case but was proved wrong. Fuck you. This whole doubling down thing is tough when you realize you might be wrong. I’ll always admire Ballz ability to think he was always right. I don’t posses that trait.
Eason has all the arm talent in the world
He has never proven to be able to throw consistently well under pressure
What do you think he’s going to have to do in the NFL?
Am I Ballz trippiling down? Play for a team with a good line and amazing wr’s.
Other answer, be placed in a simplistic style O that allows him to sling like a gun slinger with his hand making jerk off motions while backed by an amazing fucking D.
Does any nfl team run a simple o?
Teams with elite OLs still get blitzed hard and can only hang on for so long
One thing I will give Eason credit for— he was nails in big games. I know there weren’t a ton, but he balled against Oregon, USC, and the Apple Cup.
Did you miss the video that showed him misreading multiple would-be walk-in TDs in that game?
Did you miss the last six seasons of Pete's offense? Take away John Ross and Gaskin -- how does the offense look?
My original point was Pete didn't play the best WRs. Simple fact.
With Fuller and Baciella in the starting lineup, Eason performed far better than Browning did in '18, and did it with a weaker OL and without Gaskin.
Browning sucked after Ross left and got worse when Pettis left and he was stuck with Fuller and Baciella.
Did he really though? It sure looked like "same shut, different dude" to me last year. Again, great qbs make shitty guys look good. Great QBs don't use shitty guys to make excuses for their losing efforts
Did you miss the last six seasons of Pete's offense? Take away John Ross and Gaskin -- how does the offense look?
My original point was Pete didn't play the best WRs. Simple fact.
With Fuller and Baciella in the starting lineup, Eason performed far better than Browning did in '18, and did it with a weaker OL and without Gaskin.
Browning sucked after Ross left and got worse when Pettis left and he was stuck with Fuller and Baciella.
Let's start with the bolded part: Did he really, though? Just looking at the pure stats, they appear to me pretty much the same player, with Eason having a substantial edge in TDs due to being able to get the ball into tight windows in the red zone better, a slight edge in INTs, but Browning leading in every other stat by a little bit. Browning beats Eason on yards per attempt by half a yard. Another difference that you have to dig deeper to get to is when you factor in rushing stats. Browning 4 TDs to Eason's 2, which is a bit of a bullshit statistic for QBs, as these are typically QB sneaks and whatnot, but you also see the important bit: Browning had nearly twice as many "rushes" in 2018 as Eason, and he averaged positive yardage over those rushes. Eason averaged a loss of a yard and a half. Both took almost identical number of sacks (23 Browning/21 Eason). That's "Run In Circles Backward Browning" managing to average a 1.5 yard gain over 86 carries, four of which ended in the end zone. If I had to guess, that's a whole lot of first downs Browning is picking up with his legs that Eason just isn't. Moving the sticks may not score TDs, but it keeps the ball out of the opponent's hands, and a win is a win.
Put it all together, and it equals 10 wins vs. 8, 8 conference wins vs. 4. You can say that Browning had Gaskin, but Eason had Hunter Bryant (missed most of '18), Puka, Spiker, Bynum (possibly the best receiver down the stretch), and Fuller and Opera were seniors with more experience than in '18. Browning had to play Utah and Oregon on the road--Oregon without Gaskin or Ahmed--and had both beaten were it not for PetersenFS. Browning had to play at Auburn and Ohio State. Eason had Hawaii at home and Boise in Vegas.
All this, but your overall point is correct: The UW offense has been so broken under Petersen, that I don't think a QB's performance in said offense is a good predictor of what they'll do in the pros. I think Browning has a brain and legs that are more suited to the modern pro game, I think Eason has a top-5 arm. I don't think either were or are shoe-ins for success at that level. People love to shit on Browning on this site, which is whatever, but it's only fair to hold him to the same standards as every other quarterback that this offense has broken. Love him or hate him, cringe at his trademark moments (and there were many) or not, Browning was an above average college quarterback, and definitely the most successful at Washington running Petersen's offense. That's not a good measuring stick for how another quarterback will do at the next level, though, because that offense was so broken.
Did you miss the last six seasons of Pete's offense? Take away John Ross and Gaskin -- how does the offense look?
My original point was Pete didn't play the best WRs. Simple fact.
With Fuller and Baciella in the starting lineup, Eason performed far better than Browning did in '18, and did it with a weaker OL and without Gaskin.
Browning sucked after Ross left and got worse when Pettis left and he was stuck with Fuller and Baciella.
Let's start with the bolded part: Did he really, though? Just looking at the pure stats, they appear to me pretty much the same player, with Eason having a substantial edge in TDs due to being able to get the ball into tight windows in the red zone better, a slight edge in INTs, but Browning leading in every other stat by a little bit. Browning beats Eason on yards per attempt by half a yard. Another difference that you have to dig deeper to get to is when you factor in rushing stats. Browning 4 TDs to Eason's 2, which is a bit of a bullshit statistic for QBs, as these are typically QB sneaks and whatnot, but you also see the important bit: Browning had nearly twice as many "rushes" in 2018 as Eason, and he averaged positive yardage over those rushes. Eason averaged a loss of a yard and a half. Both took almost identical number of sacks (23 Browning/21 Eason). That's "Run In Circles Backward Browning" managing to average a 1.5 yard gain over 86 carries, four of which ended in the end zone. If I had to guess, that's a whole lot of first downs Browning is picking up with his legs that Eason just isn't. Moving the sticks may not score TDs, but it keeps the ball out of the opponent's hands, and a win is a win.
Put it all together, and it equals 10 wins vs. 8, 8 conference wins vs. 4. You can say that Browning had Gaskin, but Eason had Hunter Bryant (missed most of '18), Puka, Spiker, Bynum (possibly the best receiver down the stretch), and Fuller and Opera were seniors with more experience than in '18. Browning had to play Utah and Oregon on the road--Oregon without Gaskin or Ahmed--and had both beaten were it not for PetersenFS. Browning had to play at Auburn and Ohio State. Eason had Hawaii at home and Boise in Vegas.
All this, but your overall point is correct: The UW offense has been so broken under Petersen, that I don't think a QB's performance in said offense is a good predictor of what they'll do in the pros. I think Browning has a brain and legs that are more suited to the modern pro game, I think Eason has a top-5 arm. I don't think either were or are shoe-ins for success at that level. People love to shit on Browning on this site, which is whatever, but it's only fair to hold him to the same standards as every other quarterback that this offense has broken. Love him or hate him, cringe at his trademark moments (and there were many) or not, Browning was an above average college quarterback, and definitely the most successful at Washington running Petersen's offense. That's not a good measuring stick for how another quarterback will do at the next level, though, because that offense was so broken.
Eason’s play while pressured and being immobile was a hinderance on offense last year. He wasn’t the only problem and it is hard to judge to some extent because Pete’s offense sucked, but he also played a full year at Georgia.
We didn’t lose vs Cal, Oregon, and Stanford because of him. He played pretty well vs Oregon. He didn’t play great vs Cal, but the WR’s dropped a bunch of passes and the Baccallia play in the end zone. Stanford was bad all around. Eason a part of that.
His turnovers vs Utah did probably cost us the game. He sucked vs Colorado. Didn’t lose it by himself, but not too far from it.
We won, but he had the worst game of any opposing QB vs Oregon State. It was mostly an up and down season for him with it slightly skewing towards bad.
I agree with 1-39, that he really wasn’t any better than Browning. No mental gymnastics. Production is production.
Eason’s play while pressured and being immobile was a hinderance on offense last year. He wasn’t the only problem and it is hard to judge to some extent because Pete’s offense sucked, but he also played a full year at Georgia.
We didn’t lose vs Cal, Oregon, and Stanford because of him. He played pretty well vs Oregon. He didn’t play great vs Cal, but the WR’s dropped a bunch of passes and the Baccallia play in the end zone. Stanford was bad all around. Eason a part of that.
His turnovers vs Utah did probably cost us the game. He sucked vs Colorado. Didn’t lose it by himself, but not too far from it.
We won, but he had the worst game of any opposing QB vs Oregon State. It was mostly an up and down season for him with it slightly skewing towards bad.
I agree with 1-39, that he really wasn’t any better than Browning. No mental gymnastics. Production is production.
His failures were probably just less spectacular than Browning's were.
Looking forward to all these Eason haters falling silent this fall.
I hope like hell he kills it in the NFL.
I’d be absolutely shocked if he does though.
Slightly more athletic Locker with no athleticism. He’s not going to do well.
If he lands on a team that wants to run the ball a lot and needs a quarterback to occasionally take the Ruth of a defense and run play action, he'll probably be fine. Minnesota. Buffalo. Tennessee. San Francisco. Those would be pretty good spots for him.
If he lands on a team that wants to play modern offense like New England, he's probably screwed.
Every quarterback is a system quarterback. And that's probably why the duel between Haener and Eason went on so long.
Did you miss the last six seasons of Pete's offense? Take away John Ross and Gaskin -- how does the offense look?
My original point was Pete didn't play the best WRs. Simple fact.
With Fuller and Baciella in the starting lineup, Eason performed far better than Browning did in '18, and did it with a weaker OL and without Gaskin.
Browning sucked after Ross left and got worse when Pettis left and he was stuck with Fuller and Baciella.
Let's start with the bolded part: Did he really, though? Just looking at the pure stats, they appear to me pretty much the same player, with Eason having a substantial edge in TDs due to being able to get the ball into tight windows in the red zone better, a slight edge in INTs, but Browning leading in every other stat by a little bit. Browning beats Eason on yards per attempt by half a yard. Another difference that you have to dig deeper to get to is when you factor in rushing stats. Browning 4 TDs to Eason's 2, which is a bit of a bullshit statistic for QBs, as these are typically QB sneaks and whatnot, but you also see the important bit: Browning had nearly twice as many "rushes" in 2018 as Eason, and he averaged positive yardage over those rushes. Eason averaged a loss of a yard and a half. Both took almost identical number of sacks (23 Browning/21 Eason). That's "Run In Circles Backward Browning" managing to average a 1.5 yard gain over 86 carries, four of which ended in the end zone. If I had to guess, that's a whole lot of first downs Browning is picking up with his legs that Eason just isn't. Moving the sticks may not score TDs, but it keeps the ball out of the opponent's hands, and a win is a win.
Put it all together, and it equals 10 wins vs. 8, 8 conference wins vs. 4. You can say that Browning had Gaskin, but Eason had Hunter Bryant (missed most of '18), Puka, Spiker, Bynum (possibly the best receiver down the stretch), and Fuller and Opera were seniors with more experience than in '18. Browning had to play Utah and Oregon on the road--Oregon without Gaskin or Ahmed--and had both beaten were it not for PetersenFS. Browning had to play at Auburn and Ohio State. Eason had Hawaii at home and Boise in Vegas.
All this, but your overall point is correct: The UW offense has been so broken under Petersen, that I don't think a QB's performance in said offense is a good predictor of what they'll do in the pros. I think Browning has a brain and legs that are more suited to the modern pro game, I think Eason has a top-5 arm. I don't think either were or are shoe-ins for success at that level. People love to shit on Browning on this site, which is whatever, but it's only fair to hold him to the same standards as every other quarterback that this offense has broken. Love him or hate him, cringe at his trademark moments (and there were many) or not, Browning was an above average college quarterback, and definitely the most successful at Washington running Petersen's offense. That's not a good measuring stick for how another quarterback will do at the next level, though, because that offense was so broken.
Eason wasn't perfect but he was by far the best QB on the roster. In year 6 the QB competition shouldn't include Jake Haener. Absent a turn around with fundamentals, scheme, and play calling, the offense will be worse. If you didn't like Skinny, you'll hate Sirmon or Morris.
Recruit the best players. Play the best players.
There shouldn't be stark talent differences from position to position, year after. I've never seen a team with such disparity as the Huskies.
Did you miss the last six seasons of Pete's offense? Take away John Ross and Gaskin -- how does the offense look?
My original point was Pete didn't play the best WRs. Simple fact.
With Fuller and Baciella in the starting lineup, Eason performed far better than Browning did in '18, and did it with a weaker OL and without Gaskin.
Browning sucked after Ross left and got worse when Pettis left and he was stuck with Fuller and Baciella.
Let's start with the bolded part: Did he really, though? Just looking at the pure stats, they appear to me pretty much the same player, with Eason having a substantial edge in TDs due to being able to get the ball into tight windows in the red zone better, a slight edge in INTs, but Browning leading in every other stat by a little bit. Browning beats Eason on yards per attempt by half a yard. Another difference that you have to dig deeper to get to is when you factor in rushing stats. Browning 4 TDs to Eason's 2, which is a bit of a bullshit statistic for QBs, as these are typically QB sneaks and whatnot, but you also see the important bit: Browning had nearly twice as many "rushes" in 2018 as Eason, and he averaged positive yardage over those rushes. Eason averaged a loss of a yard and a half. Both took almost identical number of sacks (23 Browning/21 Eason). That's "Run In Circles Backward Browning" managing to average a 1.5 yard gain over 86 carries, four of which ended in the end zone. If I had to guess, that's a whole lot of first downs Browning is picking up with his legs that Eason just isn't. Moving the sticks may not score TDs, but it keeps the ball out of the opponent's hands, and a win is a win.
Put it all together, and it equals 10 wins vs. 8, 8 conference wins vs. 4. You can say that Browning had Gaskin, but Eason had Hunter Bryant (missed most of '18), Puka, Spiker, Bynum (possibly the best receiver down the stretch), and Fuller and Opera were seniors with more experience than in '18. Browning had to play Utah and Oregon on the road--Oregon without Gaskin or Ahmed--and had both beaten were it not for PetersenFS. Browning had to play at Auburn and Ohio State. Eason had Hawaii at home and Boise in Vegas.
All this, but your overall point is correct: The UW offense has been so broken under Petersen, that I don't think a QB's performance in said offense is a good predictor of what they'll do in the pros. I think Browning has a brain and legs that are more suited to the modern pro game, I think Eason has a top-5 arm. I don't think either were or are shoe-ins for success at that level. People love to shit on Browning on this site, which is whatever, but it's only fair to hold him to the same standards as every other quarterback that this offense has broken. Love him or hate him, cringe at his trademark moments (and there were many) or not, Browning was an above average college quarterback, and definitely the most successful at Washington running Petersen's offense. That's not a good measuring stick for how another quarterback will do at the next level, though, because that offense was so broken.
Eason wasn't perfect but he was by far the best QB on the roster. In year 6 the QB competition shouldn't include Jake Haener. Absent a turn around with fundamentals, scheme, and play calling, the offense will be worse. If you didn't like Skinny, you'll hate Sirmon or Morris.
Recruit the best players. Play the best players.
There shouldn't be stark talent differences from position to position, year after. I've never seen a team with such disparity as the Huskies.
I know I’ll hate Sirmon. I’ve prepared myself to hate Morris. I still wish we had Eason. That doesn’t make him a good college QB.
Can someone insert that pic of dipshit opera singer catching a td but doing his dance of the sugar plum ferries and magically floating out of bounds while not getting one foot down. that’s my response to Eason wasn’t that good.
A wise man once said you’re only as good as the sum of your parts or some shit like that. Play puka, Bynum, and spiker and shits different.
Watching Eason live once in Corvallis, it's clear that his release is sloth like. But He makes up for it by throwing late.
Comments
My original point was Pete didn't play the best WRs. Simple fact.
With Fuller and Baciella in the starting lineup, Eason performed far better than Browning did in '18, and did it with a weaker OL and without Gaskin.
Browning sucked after Ross left and got worse when Pettis left and he was stuck with Fuller and Baciella.
I’d be absolutely shocked if he does though.
Slightly more athletic Locker with no athleticism. He’s not going to do well.
You @Edwin_Bambino , not the ‘vid
fyfmfe
Put it all together, and it equals 10 wins vs. 8, 8 conference wins vs. 4. You can say that Browning had Gaskin, but Eason had Hunter Bryant (missed most of '18), Puka, Spiker, Bynum (possibly the best receiver down the stretch), and Fuller and Opera were seniors with more experience than in '18. Browning had to play Utah and Oregon on the road--Oregon without Gaskin or Ahmed--and had both beaten were it not for PetersenFS. Browning had to play at Auburn and Ohio State. Eason had Hawaii at home and Boise in Vegas.
All this, but your overall point is correct: The UW offense has been so broken under Petersen, that I don't think a QB's performance in said offense is a good predictor of what they'll do in the pros. I think Browning has a brain and legs that are more suited to the modern pro game, I think Eason has a top-5 arm. I don't think either were or are shoe-ins for success at that level. People love to shit on Browning on this site, which is whatever, but it's only fair to hold him to the same standards as every other quarterback that this offense has broken. Love him or hate him, cringe at his trademark moments (and there were many) or not, Browning was an above average college quarterback, and definitely the most successful at Washington running Petersen's offense. That's not a good measuring stick for how another quarterback will do at the next level, though, because that offense was so broken.
We didn’t lose vs Cal, Oregon, and Stanford because of him. He played pretty well vs Oregon. He didn’t play great vs Cal, but the WR’s dropped a bunch of passes and the Baccallia play in the end zone. Stanford was bad all around. Eason a part of that.
His turnovers vs Utah did probably cost us the game. He sucked vs Colorado. Didn’t lose it by himself, but not too far from it.
We won, but he had the worst game of any opposing QB vs Oregon State. It was mostly an up and down season for him with it slightly skewing towards bad.
I agree with 1-39, that he really wasn’t any better than Browning. No mental gymnastics. Production is production.
If he lands on a team that wants to play modern offense like New England, he's probably screwed.
Every quarterback is a system quarterback. And that's probably why the duel between Haener and Eason went on so long.
Recruit the best players. Play the best players.
There shouldn't be stark talent differences from position to position, year after. I've never seen a team with such disparity as the Huskies.