Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Me.
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.
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.
Helfrich won a rosebowel...
Mario won a rosebowel...
Neuheisel won a Rose Bowl
Pete lost a Rose Bowel
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
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.
This to say about that.
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.
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.
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.
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.
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.
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressure
A already covered Tui versus Browning.
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.
poont of order: I'm talking the under on whatever percentage of gaymes you think would be a blowout
If they played 10 times the o/u is 5 2016 blowouts and 5 2000 squeekers
And yet somehow 2000 beat 2000 the U which was slightly more talented than 2016 Washington.
Slightly.
This is a fair rebuttal. The 2000 team always found a way. There are still so many spots they would seemingly get destroyed by the 2016 team.
We crushed teams running the ball with Sample and Dissly. The 2016 defense is way better than 2000. Triplett, Pharms, Daniels, and Akbar are the only guys that could start on the 2016 team.
Vontoure.
Over Jones and King?
Somewhere on the field. A 6'1" almost 200 bills blanket cover corner with real wheels and twitch who was physical and could hit and play the run like a boss. A rare combo player who could cover on an island or play in the middle. He could also blitz like a motherfucker. Trust me - he finds a way on the field. The only lissue with him was keeping him in the program.
And yet somehow 2000 beat 2000 the U which was slightly more talented than 2016 Washington.
Slightly.
This is a fair rebuttal. The 2000 team always found a way. There are still so many spots they would seemingly get destroyed by the 2016 team.
We crushed teams running the ball with Sample and Dissly. The 2016 defense is way better than 2000. Triplett, Pharms, Daniels, and Akbar are the only guys that could start on the 2016 team.
Vontoure.
Over Jones and King?
Somewhere on the field. A 6'1" almost 200 bills blanket cover corner with real wheels and twitch who was physical and could hit and play the run like a boss. A rare combo player who could cover on an island or play in the middle. He could also blitz like a motherfucker. Trust me - he finds a way on the field. The only lissue with him was keeping him in the program.
Maybe Budda moves to safety and McIntosh or a Rapp slides out. I loved Vountoure but he wasn’t better than King or Jones.
Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Me.
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.
Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Me.
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.
If you can't handle the ups and downs of a game thred then LEAVE!
Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Me.
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.
If you can't handle the ups and downs of a game thred then LEAVE!
Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Me.
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.
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.
Helfrich won a rosebowel...
Mario won a rosebowel...
Neuheisel won a Rose Bowl
Pete lost a Rose Bowel
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
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.
This to say about that.
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.
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.
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.
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.
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.
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressure
A already covered Tui versus Browning.
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.
poont of order: I'm talking the under on whatever percentage of gaymes you think would be a blowout
If they played 10 times the o/u is 5 2016 blowouts and 5 2000 squeekers
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.
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.
Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Me.
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.
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.
Helfrich won a rosebowel...
Mario won a rosebowel...
Neuheisel won a Rose Bowl
Pete lost a Rose Bowel
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
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.
This to say about that.
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.
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.
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.
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.
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.
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressure
A already covered Tui versus Browning.
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.
poont of order: I'm talking the under on whatever percentage of gaymes you think would be a blowout
If they played 10 times the o/u is 5 2016 blowouts and 5 2000 squeekers
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.
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.
17 and 18 didn’t tarnish anything. Did 2001 to the end of Rick’s tenure tarnish 2000 for you?
Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Me.
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.
If you can't handle the ups and downs of a game thred then LEAVE!
Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Me.
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.
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.
Helfrich won a rosebowel...
Mario won a rosebowel...
Neuheisel won a Rose Bowl
Pete lost a Rose Bowel
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
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.
This to say about that.
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.
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.
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.
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.
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.
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressure
A already covered Tui versus Browning.
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.
poont of order: I'm talking the under on whatever percentage of gaymes you think would be a blowout
If they played 10 times the o/u is 5 2016 blowouts and 5 2000 squeekers
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.
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 team beat teams they weren't supposed to and 2016 lost to the two teams more talented than them they played.
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 be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Me.
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.
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.
Helfrich won a rosebowel...
Mario won a rosebowel...
Neuheisel won a Rose Bowl
Pete lost a Rose Bowel
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
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.
This to say about that.
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.
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.
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.
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.
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.
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressure
A already covered Tui versus Browning.
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.
poont of order: I'm talking the under on whatever percentage of gaymes you think would be a blowout
If they played 10 times the o/u is 5 2016 blowouts and 5 2000 squeekers
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.
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.
17 and 18 didn’t tarnish anything. Did 2001 to the end of Rick’s tenure tarnish 2000 for you?
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.
Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Me.
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.
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.
Helfrich won a rosebowel...
Mario won a rosebowel...
Neuheisel won a Rose Bowl
Pete lost a Rose Bowel
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
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.
This to say about that.
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.
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.
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.
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.
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.
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressure
A already covered Tui versus Browning.
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.
poont of order: I'm talking the under on whatever percentage of gaymes you think would be a blowout
If they played 10 times the o/u is 5 2016 blowouts and 5 2000 squeekers
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.
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 team beat teams they weren't supposed to and 2016 lost to the two teams more talented than them they played.
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 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?
Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Me.
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.
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.
Helfrich won a rosebowel...
Mario won a rosebowel...
Neuheisel won a Rose Bowl
Pete lost a Rose Bowel
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
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.
This to say about that.
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.
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.
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.
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.
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.
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressure
A already covered Tui versus Browning.
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.
Critical poont of comparison. People here, apparently, have forgotten what a fucking warrior Tui was. I haven't.
Also underestimating the 2000 defense. Intimidating bunch.
Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Me.
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.
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.
Helfrich won a rosebowel...
Mario won a rosebowel...
Neuheisel won a Rose Bowl
Pete lost a Rose Bowel
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
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.
This to say about that.
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.
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.
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.
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.
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.
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressure
A already covered Tui versus Browning.
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.
poont of order: I'm talking the under on whatever percentage of gaymes you think would be a blowout
If they played 10 times the o/u is 5 2016 blowouts and 5 2000 squeekers
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.
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 team beat teams they weren't supposed to and 2016 lost to the two teams more talented than them they played.
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.
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.
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.
Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Me.
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.
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.
Helfrich won a rosebowel...
Mario won a rosebowel...
Neuheisel won a Rose Bowl
Pete lost a Rose Bowel
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
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.
This to say about that.
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.
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.
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.
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.
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.
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressure
A already covered Tui versus Browning.
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.
poont of order: I'm talking the under on whatever percentage of gaymes you think would be a blowout
If they played 10 times the o/u is 5 2016 blowouts and 5 2000 squeekers
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.
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 team beat teams they weren't supposed to and 2016 lost to the two teams more talented than them they played.
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 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?
Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Me.
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.
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.
Helfrich won a rosebowel...
Mario won a rosebowel...
Neuheisel won a Rose Bowl
Pete lost a Rose Bowel
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
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.
This to say about that.
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.
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.
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.
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.
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.
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressure
A already covered Tui versus Browning.
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.
poont of order: I'm talking the under on whatever percentage of gaymes you think would be a blowout
If they played 10 times the o/u is 5 2016 blowouts and 5 2000 squeekers
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.
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 team beat teams they weren't supposed to and 2016 lost to the two teams more talented than them they played.
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 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?
Ward, you're being awfully hard on the beaver.
No one here, Creepy Bart, has been harder on the Beaver than me. They were my whipping boi for 4 years.
Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Me.
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.
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.
Helfrich won a rosebowel...
Mario won a rosebowel...
Neuheisel won a Rose Bowl
Pete lost a Rose Bowel
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
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.
This to say about that.
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.
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.
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.
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.
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.
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressure
A already covered Tui versus Browning.
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.
Critical poont of comparison. People here, apparently, have forgotten what a fucking warrior Tui was. I haven't.
Also underestimating the 2000 defense. Intimidating bunch.
Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?
Me.
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.
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.
Helfrich won a rosebowel...
Mario won a rosebowel...
Neuheisel won a Rose Bowl
Pete lost a Rose Bowel
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
Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.
This to say about that.
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.
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.
2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.
I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.
2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.
I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.
Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.
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.
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.
The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.
The argument for 2016 is everyone else.
It would be a really chinteresting matchup.
2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressure
A already covered Tui versus Browning.
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.
poont of order: I'm talking the under on whatever percentage of gaymes you think would be a blowout
If they played 10 times the o/u is 5 2016 blowouts and 5 2000 squeekers
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.
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 team beat teams they weren't supposed to and 2016 lost to the two teams more talented than them they played.
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.
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.
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.
I think the 2016 loss to USC was bad but at least they respected us.
Comments
two, maybe three 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.
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.
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.