Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
PM to would be Doogs
Comments
-
No, it did not. But there was less continuity from 2000- 01 and there was from 2016- 18. After 2018 there was ton of pessimism that we were never going to get over the hump and be truly elite.RoadDawg55 said:
17 and 18 didn’t tarnish anything. Did 2001 to the end of Rick’s tenure tarnish 2000 for you?YellowSnow said:
I suspect a lot of our? recency bias creeps (no pun intended @creepycoug ) into the 2000 vs 2016 debate. If you poll this bored at the end of the 2016 season, I'd wager a solid majority still consider the 2016 squad to have been better than 2000.dnc said:
If they played 10 times the o/u is 5 2016 blowouts and 5 2000 squeekerspawz said:
poont of order: I'm talking the under on whatever percentage of gaymes you think would be a blowoutdnc said:
A already covered Tui versus Browning.UW_Doog_Bot said:
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressurednc said:
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.creepycoug said:
It's not an irrational take. But you are glossing over a lot of good O lineman on the 2000 team, a great QB who had a few more tricks in his bag than pitching the ball, and the effects of a talented, mean and aggressive defense on a QB who couldn't keep his pants clean under pressure (from far lesser opponents), and the 2000 defense would have supplied some.godawgst said:
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.creepycoug said:
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.RoadDawg55 said:
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.dnc said:
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.YellowSnow said:
At the end of the day both 2000 and 2016 were legit top 4 teams in the country. And they could only play the teams on the schedule. Ricky got Purdue in Pasadena and won. Toothy got Satan in Atlanta and lost. On a neutral field it’s probably a coin flip between the two squads IMO.creepycoug said:
This to say about that.YellowSnow said:
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.PostGameOrangeSlices said:LebamDawg said:
Pete lost a Rose BowelDerekJohnson said:
Neuheisel won a Rose BowlUW_Doog_Bot said:
Helfrich won a rosebowel...Doog_de_Jour said:
I’m still sipping my Cosmopolitan here at Club LIPO. And I’m not going to ask for my bar tab until after the final game.guntlove said:
Me.GreenRiverGatorz said:Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Jimmy's not a head coach. And JonDon will be a fucking anchor around this program. But I didn't want to piss in anybody's cornflakes last week... it was cool watching everyone doog out. This place was super fun. I wish I was wrong about Jimmy, but I'm not.
Mario won a rosebowel...
and a Fiesta Bowel
and a Peach Bowel
and a Something Else Bowel somewhere in Arizona
and he did all that in 6 years
To be fair, UW almost every year under Pete could've beaten that Purdue team
Sure, over the long haul, Pete is probably a better guy to have around. Rick had a little Dennis Erickson in him. They come in hot, and then their vices as men eventually start showing up on the field.
But results are results. The Rose Bowl has been, forever, the measuring stick of a great season at Washington. That is, until Oregon started winning them.
So just give me the season that Pete had that was as successful as the one Rick had in 2000. That 2000 team won big games. I don't think Pete had one win as significant as Rick's over the 2000 Miami team, and that game was a great display of coaching. He absolutely had Washington ready to play. I was there.
And it was a damn good team. They had a great O line that could run block on anybody, an NFL TE who could block and catch, and a QB who shit turds bigger than Jake's best. Anthony Vontoure starts in any Jimmy Lake D backfield, and Akbar and Williams probably do too. Same with Larry Tripplett. Nevermind Purdue. I'd take Rick N. and that 2000 Husky team against Pete's best and like my chances. They won a Rose Bowl. They played who they were asked to play and won. I only have to play the "what if Rick played Buck" game if you guys have to play the "What if Pete played 2000 Miami" game. Pete shits his pants in that game IMO; Rick was up for the challenge and outcoached Butch Davis.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Marques fakes the dive, goes down the line sees Victor and Bierra ready to take him down for a 3 yard loss and if he tries to pitch it to the rb, Budda is ready to tackle him for a 5 yard loss.
The 2016 team blows out the 2000 team easily.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
2000 was clutch because Tui was clutch. 2016 was not because Browning was Brownsox.
Tha's why I said 2000 wins any close game but 2016 wins the blowouts.
But add in the disappointments of 2017- 18 combined with the Brownsocks regression, Rapp sitting out the Rose Bowl, Pete losing the fire in his belly, etc, and folks start to feel differently. I think some of that 2017- 18 taint tarnished the legacy of 2016 which was a really great football team. Everyone ended up hating Browing, whereas Tui is one of our most beloved players of all time. -
2000 beat 1 team they weren't supposed to beat- i.e., Miami. One of our all time great wins. It's one data point though. What other game on the schedule were they underdogs in?UW_Doog_Bot said:
2000 team beat teams they weren't supposed to and 2016 lost to the two teams more talented than them they played.YellowSnow said:
I suspect a lot of our? recency bias creeps (no pun intended @creepycoug ) into the 2000 vs 2016 debate. If you poll this bored at the end of the 2016 season, I'd wager a solid majority still consider the 2016 squad to have been better than 2000.dnc said:
If they played 10 times the o/u is 5 2016 blowouts and 5 2000 squeekerspawz said:
poont of order: I'm talking the under on whatever percentage of gaymes you think would be a blowoutdnc said:
A already covered Tui versus Browning.UW_Doog_Bot said:
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressurednc said:
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.creepycoug said:
It's not an irrational take. But you are glossing over a lot of good O lineman on the 2000 team, a great QB who had a few more tricks in his bag than pitching the ball, and the effects of a talented, mean and aggressive defense on a QB who couldn't keep his pants clean under pressure (from far lesser opponents), and the 2000 defense would have supplied some.godawgst said:
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.creepycoug said:
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.RoadDawg55 said:
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.dnc said:
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.YellowSnow said:
At the end of the day both 2000 and 2016 were legit top 4 teams in the country. And they could only play the teams on the schedule. Ricky got Purdue in Pasadena and won. Toothy got Satan in Atlanta and lost. On a neutral field it’s probably a coin flip between the two squads IMO.creepycoug said:
This to say about that.YellowSnow said:
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.PostGameOrangeSlices said:LebamDawg said:
Pete lost a Rose BowelDerekJohnson said:
Neuheisel won a Rose BowlUW_Doog_Bot said:
Helfrich won a rosebowel...Doog_de_Jour said:
I’m still sipping my Cosmopolitan here at Club LIPO. And I’m not going to ask for my bar tab until after the final game.guntlove said:
Me.GreenRiverGatorz said:Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Jimmy's not a head coach. And JonDon will be a fucking anchor around this program. But I didn't want to piss in anybody's cornflakes last week... it was cool watching everyone doog out. This place was super fun. I wish I was wrong about Jimmy, but I'm not.
Mario won a rosebowel...
and a Fiesta Bowel
and a Peach Bowel
and a Something Else Bowel somewhere in Arizona
and he did all that in 6 years
To be fair, UW almost every year under Pete could've beaten that Purdue team
Sure, over the long haul, Pete is probably a better guy to have around. Rick had a little Dennis Erickson in him. They come in hot, and then their vices as men eventually start showing up on the field.
But results are results. The Rose Bowl has been, forever, the measuring stick of a great season at Washington. That is, until Oregon started winning them.
So just give me the season that Pete had that was as successful as the one Rick had in 2000. That 2000 team won big games. I don't think Pete had one win as significant as Rick's over the 2000 Miami team, and that game was a great display of coaching. He absolutely had Washington ready to play. I was there.
And it was a damn good team. They had a great O line that could run block on anybody, an NFL TE who could block and catch, and a QB who shit turds bigger than Jake's best. Anthony Vontoure starts in any Jimmy Lake D backfield, and Akbar and Williams probably do too. Same with Larry Tripplett. Nevermind Purdue. I'd take Rick N. and that 2000 Husky team against Pete's best and like my chances. They won a Rose Bowl. They played who they were asked to play and won. I only have to play the "what if Rick played Buck" game if you guys have to play the "What if Pete played 2000 Miami" game. Pete shits his pants in that game IMO; Rick was up for the challenge and outcoached Butch Davis.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Marques fakes the dive, goes down the line sees Victor and Bierra ready to take him down for a 3 yard loss and if he tries to pitch it to the rb, Budda is ready to tackle him for a 5 yard loss.
The 2016 team blows out the 2000 team easily.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
2000 was clutch because Tui was clutch. 2016 was not because Browning was Brownsox.
Tha's why I said 2000 wins any close game but 2016 wins the blowouts.
But add in the disappointments of 2017- 18 combined with the Brownsocks regression, Rapp sitting out the Rose Bowl, Pete losing the fire in his belly, etc, and folks start to feel differently. I think some of that 2017- 18 taint tarnished the legacy of 2016 which was a really great football team. Everyone ended up hating Browing, whereas Tui is one of our most beloved players of all time.
I mostly agree with @dnc and not because I'm scared of being bullied. I'd give the favorable odds to 2000 but not by a lot.
2000 totally capable of pulling out games against superior talent.
2016 could beat teams they were more talented than. Don't forget they also came really close to losing to Utah. -
Critical poont of comparison. People here, apparently, have forgotten what a fucking warrior Tui was. I haven't.dnc said:
A already covered Tui versus Browning.UW_Doog_Bot said:
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressurednc said:
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.creepycoug said:
It's not an irrational take. But you are glossing over a lot of good O lineman on the 2000 team, a great QB who had a few more tricks in his bag than pitching the ball, and the effects of a talented, mean and aggressive defense on a QB who couldn't keep his pants clean under pressure (from far lesser opponents), and the 2000 defense would have supplied some.godawgst said:
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.creepycoug said:
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.RoadDawg55 said:
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.dnc said:
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.YellowSnow said:
At the end of the day both 2000 and 2016 were legit top 4 teams in the country. And they could only play the teams on the schedule. Ricky got Purdue in Pasadena and won. Toothy got Satan in Atlanta and lost. On a neutral field it’s probably a coin flip between the two squads IMO.creepycoug said:
This to say about that.YellowSnow said:
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.PostGameOrangeSlices said:LebamDawg said:
Pete lost a Rose BowelDerekJohnson said:
Neuheisel won a Rose BowlUW_Doog_Bot said:
Helfrich won a rosebowel...Doog_de_Jour said:
I’m still sipping my Cosmopolitan here at Club LIPO. And I’m not going to ask for my bar tab until after the final game.guntlove said:
Me.GreenRiverGatorz said:Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Jimmy's not a head coach. And JonDon will be a fucking anchor around this program. But I didn't want to piss in anybody's cornflakes last week... it was cool watching everyone doog out. This place was super fun. I wish I was wrong about Jimmy, but I'm not.
Mario won a rosebowel...
and a Fiesta Bowel
and a Peach Bowel
and a Something Else Bowel somewhere in Arizona
and he did all that in 6 years
To be fair, UW almost every year under Pete could've beaten that Purdue team
Sure, over the long haul, Pete is probably a better guy to have around. Rick had a little Dennis Erickson in him. They come in hot, and then their vices as men eventually start showing up on the field.
But results are results. The Rose Bowl has been, forever, the measuring stick of a great season at Washington. That is, until Oregon started winning them.
So just give me the season that Pete had that was as successful as the one Rick had in 2000. That 2000 team won big games. I don't think Pete had one win as significant as Rick's over the 2000 Miami team, and that game was a great display of coaching. He absolutely had Washington ready to play. I was there.
And it was a damn good team. They had a great O line that could run block on anybody, an NFL TE who could block and catch, and a QB who shit turds bigger than Jake's best. Anthony Vontoure starts in any Jimmy Lake D backfield, and Akbar and Williams probably do too. Same with Larry Tripplett. Nevermind Purdue. I'd take Rick N. and that 2000 Husky team against Pete's best and like my chances. They won a Rose Bowl. They played who they were asked to play and won. I only have to play the "what if Rick played Buck" game if you guys have to play the "What if Pete played 2000 Miami" game. Pete shits his pants in that game IMO; Rick was up for the challenge and outcoached Butch Davis.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Marques fakes the dive, goes down the line sees Victor and Bierra ready to take him down for a 3 yard loss and if he tries to pitch it to the rb, Budda is ready to tackle him for a 5 yard loss.
The 2016 team blows out the 2000 team easily.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
2000 was clutch because Tui was clutch. 2016 was not because Browning was Brownsox.
Tha's why I said 2000 wins any close game but 2016 wins the blowouts.
Also underestimating the 2000 defense. Intimidating bunch.
Look, if I'm being honest, I give 2016 a pass on Bama, even though Bama has had better teams. But losing to SC at home is another matter. I think we? give SC too much credit at times and always default to assuming they have superior fire power. W lost that game because Brownsocks tripped over his shoelaces doing his retarded scramble dance at PRECISELY the worst times. Going back to my 'most important position' rationale.UW_Doog_Bot said:
2000 team beat teams they weren't supposed to and 2016 lost to the two teams more talented than them they played.YellowSnow said:
I suspect a lot of our? recency bias creeps (no pun intended @creepycoug ) into the 2000 vs 2016 debate. If you poll this bored at the end of the 2016 season, I'd wager a solid majority still consider the 2016 squad to have been better than 2000.dnc said:
If they played 10 times the o/u is 5 2016 blowouts and 5 2000 squeekerspawz said:
poont of order: I'm talking the under on whatever percentage of gaymes you think would be a blowoutdnc said:
A already covered Tui versus Browning.UW_Doog_Bot said:
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressurednc said:
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.creepycoug said:
It's not an irrational take. But you are glossing over a lot of good O lineman on the 2000 team, a great QB who had a few more tricks in his bag than pitching the ball, and the effects of a talented, mean and aggressive defense on a QB who couldn't keep his pants clean under pressure (from far lesser opponents), and the 2000 defense would have supplied some.godawgst said:
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.creepycoug said:
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.RoadDawg55 said:
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.dnc said:
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.YellowSnow said:
At the end of the day both 2000 and 2016 were legit top 4 teams in the country. And they could only play the teams on the schedule. Ricky got Purdue in Pasadena and won. Toothy got Satan in Atlanta and lost. On a neutral field it’s probably a coin flip between the two squads IMO.creepycoug said:
This to say about that.YellowSnow said:
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.PostGameOrangeSlices said:LebamDawg said:
Pete lost a Rose BowelDerekJohnson said:
Neuheisel won a Rose BowlUW_Doog_Bot said:
Helfrich won a rosebowel...Doog_de_Jour said:
I’m still sipping my Cosmopolitan here at Club LIPO. And I’m not going to ask for my bar tab until after the final game.guntlove said:
Me.GreenRiverGatorz said:Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Jimmy's not a head coach. And JonDon will be a fucking anchor around this program. But I didn't want to piss in anybody's cornflakes last week... it was cool watching everyone doog out. This place was super fun. I wish I was wrong about Jimmy, but I'm not.
Mario won a rosebowel...
and a Fiesta Bowel
and a Peach Bowel
and a Something Else Bowel somewhere in Arizona
and he did all that in 6 years
To be fair, UW almost every year under Pete could've beaten that Purdue team
Sure, over the long haul, Pete is probably a better guy to have around. Rick had a little Dennis Erickson in him. They come in hot, and then their vices as men eventually start showing up on the field.
But results are results. The Rose Bowl has been, forever, the measuring stick of a great season at Washington. That is, until Oregon started winning them.
So just give me the season that Pete had that was as successful as the one Rick had in 2000. That 2000 team won big games. I don't think Pete had one win as significant as Rick's over the 2000 Miami team, and that game was a great display of coaching. He absolutely had Washington ready to play. I was there.
And it was a damn good team. They had a great O line that could run block on anybody, an NFL TE who could block and catch, and a QB who shit turds bigger than Jake's best. Anthony Vontoure starts in any Jimmy Lake D backfield, and Akbar and Williams probably do too. Same with Larry Tripplett. Nevermind Purdue. I'd take Rick N. and that 2000 Husky team against Pete's best and like my chances. They won a Rose Bowl. They played who they were asked to play and won. I only have to play the "what if Rick played Buck" game if you guys have to play the "What if Pete played 2000 Miami" game. Pete shits his pants in that game IMO; Rick was up for the challenge and outcoached Butch Davis.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Marques fakes the dive, goes down the line sees Victor and Bierra ready to take him down for a 3 yard loss and if he tries to pitch it to the rb, Budda is ready to tackle him for a 5 yard loss.
The 2016 team blows out the 2000 team easily.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
2000 was clutch because Tui was clutch. 2016 was not because Browning was Brownsox.
Tha's why I said 2000 wins any close game but 2016 wins the blowouts.
But add in the disappointments of 2017- 18 combined with the Brownsocks regression, Rapp sitting out the Rose Bowl, Pete losing the fire in his belly, etc, and folks start to feel differently. I think some of that 2017- 18 taint tarnished the legacy of 2016 which was a really great football team. Everyone ended up hating Browing, whereas Tui is one of our most beloved players of all time.
I mostly agree with @dnc and not because I'm scared of being bullied. I'd give the favorable odds to 2000 but not by a lot.
2000 totally capable of pulling out games against superior talent.
2016 could beat teams they were more talented than. Don't forget they also came really close to losing to Utah.
Would could shoulda, sure, but I know just as sure as I'm typing this that Tui not only doesn't do that, but executes those critical plays and throat slits Trooj on that day.
People forget ( @RaceBannon ) that 2000 also beat a very good Beavlet team. I was there for that one too. If there's ever been a better set of WRs on the same team in the P10 I'd like to know who they were. At the end of the season, a lot of people thought Beav was the best team in the country. UW beat the #2 and the #4 teams in the final polls, losing only to the #7 team on the road. -
Ward, you're being awfully hard on the beaver.YellowSnow said:
2000 beat 1 team they weren't supposed to beat- i.e., Miami. One of our all time great wins. It's one data point though. What other game on the schedule were they underdogs in?UW_Doog_Bot said:
2000 team beat teams they weren't supposed to and 2016 lost to the two teams more talented than them they played.YellowSnow said:
I suspect a lot of our? recency bias creeps (no pun intended @creepycoug ) into the 2000 vs 2016 debate. If you poll this bored at the end of the 2016 season, I'd wager a solid majority still consider the 2016 squad to have been better than 2000.dnc said:
If they played 10 times the o/u is 5 2016 blowouts and 5 2000 squeekerspawz said:
poont of order: I'm talking the under on whatever percentage of gaymes you think would be a blowoutdnc said:
A already covered Tui versus Browning.UW_Doog_Bot said:
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressurednc said:
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.creepycoug said:
It's not an irrational take. But you are glossing over a lot of good O lineman on the 2000 team, a great QB who had a few more tricks in his bag than pitching the ball, and the effects of a talented, mean and aggressive defense on a QB who couldn't keep his pants clean under pressure (from far lesser opponents), and the 2000 defense would have supplied some.godawgst said:
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.creepycoug said:
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.RoadDawg55 said:
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.dnc said:
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.YellowSnow said:
At the end of the day both 2000 and 2016 were legit top 4 teams in the country. And they could only play the teams on the schedule. Ricky got Purdue in Pasadena and won. Toothy got Satan in Atlanta and lost. On a neutral field it’s probably a coin flip between the two squads IMO.creepycoug said:
This to say about that.YellowSnow said:
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.PostGameOrangeSlices said:LebamDawg said:
Pete lost a Rose BowelDerekJohnson said:
Neuheisel won a Rose BowlUW_Doog_Bot said:
Helfrich won a rosebowel...Doog_de_Jour said:
I’m still sipping my Cosmopolitan here at Club LIPO. And I’m not going to ask for my bar tab until after the final game.guntlove said:
Me.GreenRiverGatorz said:Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Jimmy's not a head coach. And JonDon will be a fucking anchor around this program. But I didn't want to piss in anybody's cornflakes last week... it was cool watching everyone doog out. This place was super fun. I wish I was wrong about Jimmy, but I'm not.
Mario won a rosebowel...
and a Fiesta Bowel
and a Peach Bowel
and a Something Else Bowel somewhere in Arizona
and he did all that in 6 years
To be fair, UW almost every year under Pete could've beaten that Purdue team
Sure, over the long haul, Pete is probably a better guy to have around. Rick had a little Dennis Erickson in him. They come in hot, and then their vices as men eventually start showing up on the field.
But results are results. The Rose Bowl has been, forever, the measuring stick of a great season at Washington. That is, until Oregon started winning them.
So just give me the season that Pete had that was as successful as the one Rick had in 2000. That 2000 team won big games. I don't think Pete had one win as significant as Rick's over the 2000 Miami team, and that game was a great display of coaching. He absolutely had Washington ready to play. I was there.
And it was a damn good team. They had a great O line that could run block on anybody, an NFL TE who could block and catch, and a QB who shit turds bigger than Jake's best. Anthony Vontoure starts in any Jimmy Lake D backfield, and Akbar and Williams probably do too. Same with Larry Tripplett. Nevermind Purdue. I'd take Rick N. and that 2000 Husky team against Pete's best and like my chances. They won a Rose Bowl. They played who they were asked to play and won. I only have to play the "what if Rick played Buck" game if you guys have to play the "What if Pete played 2000 Miami" game. Pete shits his pants in that game IMO; Rick was up for the challenge and outcoached Butch Davis.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Marques fakes the dive, goes down the line sees Victor and Bierra ready to take him down for a 3 yard loss and if he tries to pitch it to the rb, Budda is ready to tackle him for a 5 yard loss.
The 2016 team blows out the 2000 team easily.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
2000 was clutch because Tui was clutch. 2016 was not because Browning was Brownsox.
Tha's why I said 2000 wins any close game but 2016 wins the blowouts.
But add in the disappointments of 2017- 18 combined with the Brownsocks regression, Rapp sitting out the Rose Bowl, Pete losing the fire in his belly, etc, and folks start to feel differently. I think some of that 2017- 18 taint tarnished the legacy of 2016 which was a really great football team. Everyone ended up hating Browing, whereas Tui is one of our most beloved players of all time.
I mostly agree with @dnc and not because I'm scared of being bullied. I'd give the favorable odds to 2000 but not by a lot.
2000 totally capable of pulling out games against superior talent.
2016 could beat teams they were more talented than. Don't forget they also came really close to losing to Utah. -
No one here, Creepy Bart, has been harder on the Beaver than me. They were my whipping boi for 4 years.creepycoug said:
Ward, you're being awfully hard on the beaver.YellowSnow said:
2000 beat 1 team they weren't supposed to beat- i.e., Miami. One of our all time great wins. It's one data point though. What other game on the schedule were they underdogs in?UW_Doog_Bot said:
2000 team beat teams they weren't supposed to and 2016 lost to the two teams more talented than them they played.YellowSnow said:
I suspect a lot of our? recency bias creeps (no pun intended @creepycoug ) into the 2000 vs 2016 debate. If you poll this bored at the end of the 2016 season, I'd wager a solid majority still consider the 2016 squad to have been better than 2000.dnc said:
If they played 10 times the o/u is 5 2016 blowouts and 5 2000 squeekerspawz said:
poont of order: I'm talking the under on whatever percentage of gaymes you think would be a blowoutdnc said:
A already covered Tui versus Browning.UW_Doog_Bot said:
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressurednc said:
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.creepycoug said:
It's not an irrational take. But you are glossing over a lot of good O lineman on the 2000 team, a great QB who had a few more tricks in his bag than pitching the ball, and the effects of a talented, mean and aggressive defense on a QB who couldn't keep his pants clean under pressure (from far lesser opponents), and the 2000 defense would have supplied some.godawgst said:
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.creepycoug said:
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.RoadDawg55 said:
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.dnc said:
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.YellowSnow said:
At the end of the day both 2000 and 2016 were legit top 4 teams in the country. And they could only play the teams on the schedule. Ricky got Purdue in Pasadena and won. Toothy got Satan in Atlanta and lost. On a neutral field it’s probably a coin flip between the two squads IMO.creepycoug said:
This to say about that.YellowSnow said:
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.PostGameOrangeSlices said:LebamDawg said:
Pete lost a Rose BowelDerekJohnson said:
Neuheisel won a Rose BowlUW_Doog_Bot said:
Helfrich won a rosebowel...Doog_de_Jour said:
I’m still sipping my Cosmopolitan here at Club LIPO. And I’m not going to ask for my bar tab until after the final game.guntlove said:
Me.GreenRiverGatorz said:Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Jimmy's not a head coach. And JonDon will be a fucking anchor around this program. But I didn't want to piss in anybody's cornflakes last week... it was cool watching everyone doog out. This place was super fun. I wish I was wrong about Jimmy, but I'm not.
Mario won a rosebowel...
and a Fiesta Bowel
and a Peach Bowel
and a Something Else Bowel somewhere in Arizona
and he did all that in 6 years
To be fair, UW almost every year under Pete could've beaten that Purdue team
Sure, over the long haul, Pete is probably a better guy to have around. Rick had a little Dennis Erickson in him. They come in hot, and then their vices as men eventually start showing up on the field.
But results are results. The Rose Bowl has been, forever, the measuring stick of a great season at Washington. That is, until Oregon started winning them.
So just give me the season that Pete had that was as successful as the one Rick had in 2000. That 2000 team won big games. I don't think Pete had one win as significant as Rick's over the 2000 Miami team, and that game was a great display of coaching. He absolutely had Washington ready to play. I was there.
And it was a damn good team. They had a great O line that could run block on anybody, an NFL TE who could block and catch, and a QB who shit turds bigger than Jake's best. Anthony Vontoure starts in any Jimmy Lake D backfield, and Akbar and Williams probably do too. Same with Larry Tripplett. Nevermind Purdue. I'd take Rick N. and that 2000 Husky team against Pete's best and like my chances. They won a Rose Bowl. They played who they were asked to play and won. I only have to play the "what if Rick played Buck" game if you guys have to play the "What if Pete played 2000 Miami" game. Pete shits his pants in that game IMO; Rick was up for the challenge and outcoached Butch Davis.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Marques fakes the dive, goes down the line sees Victor and Bierra ready to take him down for a 3 yard loss and if he tries to pitch it to the rb, Budda is ready to tackle him for a 5 yard loss.
The 2016 team blows out the 2000 team easily.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
2000 was clutch because Tui was clutch. 2016 was not because Browning was Brownsox.
Tha's why I said 2000 wins any close game but 2016 wins the blowouts.
But add in the disappointments of 2017- 18 combined with the Brownsocks regression, Rapp sitting out the Rose Bowl, Pete losing the fire in his belly, etc, and folks start to feel differently. I think some of that 2017- 18 taint tarnished the legacy of 2016 which was a really great football team. Everyone ended up hating Browing, whereas Tui is one of our most beloved players of all time.
I mostly agree with @dnc and not because I'm scared of being bullied. I'd give the favorable odds to 2000 but not by a lot.
2000 totally capable of pulling out games against superior talent.
2016 could beat teams they were more talented than. Don't forget they also came really close to losing to Utah. -
2000 squad will beat 2016 because of QB play rather easily, I know ground breaking take
-
You're coming around Cohen. Like Fudgie, a slow development, but you're getting there.FireCohen said:2000 squad will beat 2016 because of QB play rather easily, I know ground breaking take
-
I think the 2016 loss to USC was bad but at least they respected us.creepycoug said:
Critical poont of comparison. People here, apparently, have forgotten what a fucking warrior Tui was. I haven't.dnc said:
A already covered Tui versus Browning.UW_Doog_Bot said:
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressurednc said:
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.creepycoug said:
It's not an irrational take. But you are glossing over a lot of good O lineman on the 2000 team, a great QB who had a few more tricks in his bag than pitching the ball, and the effects of a talented, mean and aggressive defense on a QB who couldn't keep his pants clean under pressure (from far lesser opponents), and the 2000 defense would have supplied some.godawgst said:
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.creepycoug said:
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.RoadDawg55 said:
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.dnc said:
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.YellowSnow said:
At the end of the day both 2000 and 2016 were legit top 4 teams in the country. And they could only play the teams on the schedule. Ricky got Purdue in Pasadena and won. Toothy got Satan in Atlanta and lost. On a neutral field it’s probably a coin flip between the two squads IMO.creepycoug said:
This to say about that.YellowSnow said:
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.PostGameOrangeSlices said:LebamDawg said:
Pete lost a Rose BowelDerekJohnson said:
Neuheisel won a Rose BowlUW_Doog_Bot said:
Helfrich won a rosebowel...Doog_de_Jour said:
I’m still sipping my Cosmopolitan here at Club LIPO. And I’m not going to ask for my bar tab until after the final game.guntlove said:
Me.GreenRiverGatorz said:Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Jimmy's not a head coach. And JonDon will be a fucking anchor around this program. But I didn't want to piss in anybody's cornflakes last week... it was cool watching everyone doog out. This place was super fun. I wish I was wrong about Jimmy, but I'm not.
Mario won a rosebowel...
and a Fiesta Bowel
and a Peach Bowel
and a Something Else Bowel somewhere in Arizona
and he did all that in 6 years
To be fair, UW almost every year under Pete could've beaten that Purdue team
Sure, over the long haul, Pete is probably a better guy to have around. Rick had a little Dennis Erickson in him. They come in hot, and then their vices as men eventually start showing up on the field.
But results are results. The Rose Bowl has been, forever, the measuring stick of a great season at Washington. That is, until Oregon started winning them.
So just give me the season that Pete had that was as successful as the one Rick had in 2000. That 2000 team won big games. I don't think Pete had one win as significant as Rick's over the 2000 Miami team, and that game was a great display of coaching. He absolutely had Washington ready to play. I was there.
And it was a damn good team. They had a great O line that could run block on anybody, an NFL TE who could block and catch, and a QB who shit turds bigger than Jake's best. Anthony Vontoure starts in any Jimmy Lake D backfield, and Akbar and Williams probably do too. Same with Larry Tripplett. Nevermind Purdue. I'd take Rick N. and that 2000 Husky team against Pete's best and like my chances. They won a Rose Bowl. They played who they were asked to play and won. I only have to play the "what if Rick played Buck" game if you guys have to play the "What if Pete played 2000 Miami" game. Pete shits his pants in that game IMO; Rick was up for the challenge and outcoached Butch Davis.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Marques fakes the dive, goes down the line sees Victor and Bierra ready to take him down for a 3 yard loss and if he tries to pitch it to the rb, Budda is ready to tackle him for a 5 yard loss.
The 2016 team blows out the 2000 team easily.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
2000 was clutch because Tui was clutch. 2016 was not because Browning was Brownsox.
Tha's why I said 2000 wins any close game but 2016 wins the blowouts.
Also underestimating the 2000 defense. Intimidating bunch.
Look, if I'm being honest, I give 2016 a pass on Bama, even though Bama has had better teams. But losing to SC at home is another matter. I think we? give SC too much credit at times and always default to assuming they have superior fire power. W lost that game because Brownsocks tripped over his shoelaces doing his retarded scramble dance at PRECISELY the worst times. Going back to my 'most important position' rationale.UW_Doog_Bot said:
2000 team beat teams they weren't supposed to and 2016 lost to the two teams more talented than them they played.YellowSnow said:
I suspect a lot of our? recency bias creeps (no pun intended @creepycoug ) into the 2000 vs 2016 debate. If you poll this bored at the end of the 2016 season, I'd wager a solid majority still consider the 2016 squad to have been better than 2000.dnc said:
If they played 10 times the o/u is 5 2016 blowouts and 5 2000 squeekerspawz said:
poont of order: I'm talking the under on whatever percentage of gaymes you think would be a blowoutdnc said:
A already covered Tui versus Browning.UW_Doog_Bot said:
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressurednc said:
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.creepycoug said:
It's not an irrational take. But you are glossing over a lot of good O lineman on the 2000 team, a great QB who had a few more tricks in his bag than pitching the ball, and the effects of a talented, mean and aggressive defense on a QB who couldn't keep his pants clean under pressure (from far lesser opponents), and the 2000 defense would have supplied some.godawgst said:
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.creepycoug said:
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.RoadDawg55 said:
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.dnc said:
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.YellowSnow said:
At the end of the day both 2000 and 2016 were legit top 4 teams in the country. And they could only play the teams on the schedule. Ricky got Purdue in Pasadena and won. Toothy got Satan in Atlanta and lost. On a neutral field it’s probably a coin flip between the two squads IMO.creepycoug said:
This to say about that.YellowSnow said:
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.PostGameOrangeSlices said:LebamDawg said:
Pete lost a Rose BowelDerekJohnson said:
Neuheisel won a Rose BowlUW_Doog_Bot said:
Helfrich won a rosebowel...Doog_de_Jour said:
I’m still sipping my Cosmopolitan here at Club LIPO. And I’m not going to ask for my bar tab until after the final game.guntlove said:
Me.GreenRiverGatorz said:Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Jimmy's not a head coach. And JonDon will be a fucking anchor around this program. But I didn't want to piss in anybody's cornflakes last week... it was cool watching everyone doog out. This place was super fun. I wish I was wrong about Jimmy, but I'm not.
Mario won a rosebowel...
and a Fiesta Bowel
and a Peach Bowel
and a Something Else Bowel somewhere in Arizona
and he did all that in 6 years
To be fair, UW almost every year under Pete could've beaten that Purdue team
Sure, over the long haul, Pete is probably a better guy to have around. Rick had a little Dennis Erickson in him. They come in hot, and then their vices as men eventually start showing up on the field.
But results are results. The Rose Bowl has been, forever, the measuring stick of a great season at Washington. That is, until Oregon started winning them.
So just give me the season that Pete had that was as successful as the one Rick had in 2000. That 2000 team won big games. I don't think Pete had one win as significant as Rick's over the 2000 Miami team, and that game was a great display of coaching. He absolutely had Washington ready to play. I was there.
And it was a damn good team. They had a great O line that could run block on anybody, an NFL TE who could block and catch, and a QB who shit turds bigger than Jake's best. Anthony Vontoure starts in any Jimmy Lake D backfield, and Akbar and Williams probably do too. Same with Larry Tripplett. Nevermind Purdue. I'd take Rick N. and that 2000 Husky team against Pete's best and like my chances. They won a Rose Bowl. They played who they were asked to play and won. I only have to play the "what if Rick played Buck" game if you guys have to play the "What if Pete played 2000 Miami" game. Pete shits his pants in that game IMO; Rick was up for the challenge and outcoached Butch Davis.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Marques fakes the dive, goes down the line sees Victor and Bierra ready to take him down for a 3 yard loss and if he tries to pitch it to the rb, Budda is ready to tackle him for a 5 yard loss.
The 2016 team blows out the 2000 team easily.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
2000 was clutch because Tui was clutch. 2016 was not because Browning was Brownsox.
Tha's why I said 2000 wins any close game but 2016 wins the blowouts.
But add in the disappointments of 2017- 18 combined with the Brownsocks regression, Rapp sitting out the Rose Bowl, Pete losing the fire in his belly, etc, and folks start to feel differently. I think some of that 2017- 18 taint tarnished the legacy of 2016 which was a really great football team. Everyone ended up hating Browing, whereas Tui is one of our most beloved players of all time.
I mostly agree with @dnc and not because I'm scared of being bullied. I'd give the favorable odds to 2000 but not by a lot.
2000 totally capable of pulling out games against superior talent.
2016 could beat teams they were more talented than. Don't forget they also came really close to losing to Utah.
Would could shoulda, sure, but I know just as sure as I'm typing this that Tui not only doesn't do that, but executes those critical plays and throat slits Trooj on that day.
People forget ( @RaceBannon ) that 2000 also beat a very good Beavlet team. I was there for that one too. If there's ever been a better set of WRs on the same team in the P10 I'd like to know who they were. At the end of the season, a lot of people thought Beav was the best team in the country. UW beat the #2 and the #4 teams in the final polls, losing only to the #7 team on the road. -
-
Luv u lightfoot:)PurpleJ said: -
Such fag, J.
-
-
-
Your mom says you have to start calling me dad.backthepack said: -
You've really missed that; haven't you?Doog_de_Jour said:J IS BAK! DDJ IZ SO HAPPI!
@PurpleJ, WHAT R U EATIG? -
😡 Like you haven’t Mr. Malarkey?PurpleBaze said:
You've really missed that; haven't you?Doog_de_Jour said:J IS BAK! DDJ IZ SO HAPPI!
@PurpleJ, WHAT R U EATIG? -
NoPurpleJ said:
Your mom says you have to start calling me dad.backthepack said:
-
Sensitive are we?Doog_de_Jour said:
😡 Like you haven’t Mr. Malarkey?PurpleBaze said:
You've really missed that; haven't you?Doog_de_Jour said:J IS BAK! DDJ IZ SO HAPPI!
@PurpleJ, WHAT R U EATIG?
That time of the month? -
I EATIG GIRLELD CEHESE!!!!!!1 I DRIKNIG TAMOOT SUOP!!!!!! I WSAHIG DSHEIS!!!!!1 I KEPEIG CEALN LIVIG SAPEC!!!!!11169Doog_de_Jour said:J IS BAK! DDJ IZ SO HAPPI!
@PurpleJ, WHAT R U EATIG? -
Mom?PurpleJ said:
Your mom says you have to start calling me dad.backthepack said: -
Yes, actually. Now you can extrapolate my menstrual cycle and know when to tread lightly, cabbie.PurpleBaze said:
Sensitive are we?Doog_de_Jour said:
😡 Like you haven’t Mr. Malarkey?PurpleBaze said:
You've really missed that; haven't you?Doog_de_Jour said:J IS BAK! DDJ IZ SO HAPPI!
@PurpleJ, WHAT R U EATIG?
That time of the month? -
@Swaye already has a thread about it in the wam.Doog_de_Jour said:
Yes, actually. Now you can extrapolate my menstrual cycle and know when to tread lightly, cabbie.PurpleBaze said:
Sensitive are we?Doog_de_Jour said:
😡 Like you haven’t Mr. Malarkey?PurpleBaze said:
You've really missed that; haven't you?Doog_de_Jour said:J IS BAK! DDJ IZ SO HAPPI!
@PurpleJ, WHAT R U EATIG?
That time of the month? -
I’m so overjoyed right now. Christmas has come early. Makes up for @PurpleBaze.PurpleJ said:
I EATIG GIRLELD CEHESE!!!!!!1 I DRIKNIG TAMOOT SUOP!!!!!! I WSAHIG DSHEIS!!!!!1 I KEPEIG CEALN LIVIG SAPEC!!!!!11169Doog_de_Jour said:J IS BAK! DDJ IZ SO HAPPI!
@PurpleJ, WHAT R U EATIG?
Welcome back @PurpleJ. -
That's a great idear.Doog_de_Jour said:
Yes, actually. Now you can extrapolate my menstrual cycle and know when to tread lightly, cabbie.PurpleBaze said:
Sensitive are we?Doog_de_Jour said:
😡 Like you haven’t Mr. Malarkey?PurpleBaze said:
You've really missed that; haven't you?Doog_de_Jour said:J IS BAK! DDJ IZ SO HAPPI!
@PurpleJ, WHAT R U EATIG?
That time of the month? -
HurtfulDoog_de_Jour said:
I’m so overjoyed right now. Christmas has come early. Makes up for @PurpleBaze.PurpleJ said:
I EATIG GIRLELD CEHESE!!!!!!1 I DRIKNIG TAMOOT SUOP!!!!!! I WSAHIG DSHEIS!!!!!1 I KEPEIG CEALN LIVIG SAPEC!!!!!11169Doog_de_Jour said:J IS BAK! DDJ IZ SO HAPPI!
@PurpleJ, WHAT R U EATIG?
Welcome back @PurpleJ. -
I LIKG @PurpleJ IN DIS OONE RATHR ESILYbackthepack said:
NoPurpleJ said:
Your mom says you have to start calling me dad.backthepack said: -
I am conflicted. On the one hand, I love Princess ( @PurpleJ ). On the other hand, he called me a fag when he left. I will consult the spirits on what to do here.
-
The best part of the Return of J is any poast (her hee) can be replied to with such fag, J. That's been missing from the boreds.
Welcome back J. -
Such fag, JCFetters_Nacho_Lover said:The best part of the Return of J is any poast (her hee) can be replied to with such fag, J. That's been missing from the boreds.
Welcome back J. -
@UW_Doog_Bot gets it!UW_Doog_Bot said:
Such fag, JCFetters_Nacho_Lover said:The best part of the Return of J is any poast (her hee) can be replied to with such fag, J. That's been missing from the boreds.
Welcome back J.
