Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
The new Doog
doogsinparadise
Member Posts: 9,320
Swallowing everything that Peterman will do before he actually does it. He'll make a few mistakes just like any coach, don't be a sloppy dicklicker. High standards please.
Comments
-
I agree that you don't know what you really have in CP. And those that are cocksure that He's the savior are true Doogs.
But if ur gonna hate on swallowing.....
I'm out. -
Most people here aren't gonna cut him any slack in his first year in the Pac, with a lack of experience at some positions (and justifiably so). One of the things that I at least am swallowing is his competence in putting a team together. We've gone over what he's done in the last couple months so I won't rehash it. Hell, when is the last time we've won some key recruiting battles over OSU and Oregon in the same fucking year? I think this coach deserves the benefit of the doubt for now. My senior year at UW was Sark's first, and the whole situation just reeked of over-hyped California bullshit that the doogpounders like to call "giving hope back to the program." Petersen has been all-business since he's arrived.
-
When Sark would recruit a 2-star "diamond in the rough," I thought the kid was screwed. In fact, I even thought that about some of the higher-ranked recruits.
When CP brings in a 2-star "diamond in the rough" I actually feel like the kid might develop into something.
Some people might call that "doogin." I call it an understanding of CP's track record. -
Pressing
-
I thought the new doog is the person who was convinced Sark was going to bring in a top 5 recruiting class and thinks we need a staff of 25 year old coaches who use catchphrases that mean nothing and open up all practices to embrace the community.
-
I like to pretend all coaches are created equal.doogsinparadise said:Swallowing everything that Peterman will do before he actually does it. He'll make a few mistakes just like any coach, don't be a sloppy dicklicker. High standards please.
Hire an intern, he better prove himself.
Hire a proven coach, he gets the benefit of the doubt.
If and when Petersen starts fucking stuff up, I'll criticize. Until then, I'm going to continue to enjoy the fact we have the best coach in the Northwest and top 3 in the conference for the first time since before the Patriot Act.
#HiNSA!
-
Every thread
-
The new doogs are the people that blindly supported every single thing that Dude Brah did but are now questioning whether or not Petermen can get it done in the Pac12.
In other words, the new doogs are the same as the old doogs. -
LEAVE!doogsinparadise said:Swallowing everything that Peterman will do before he actually does it. He'll make a few mistakes just like any coach, don't be a sloppy dicklicker. High standards please.
-
HRYKSarkingham said:The new doogs are the people that blindly supported every single thing that Dude Brah did but are now questioning whether or not Petermen can get it done in the Pac12.
In other words, the new doogs are the same as the old doogs.
These are the people who:
- Loved Lambo (#HiPLSS!)
- Hated Rick With The Rose Bowl.
- Loved Gilby and his TUFF questions.
- Loved Ty for cleaning up the program.
- Loved Rick Without the Rose Bowel.
= Aren't sure about Petersen.
Given their track record, I'd guess they're the ones who would have fired Don James after year 3/1988/abundance -
Well he certainly is no Leach that is for sure but he is a lot better than Sark.salemcoog said:
I agree that you don't know what you really have in CP. And those that are cocksure that He's the savior are true Doogs.
But if ur gonna hate on swallowing.....
I'm out. -
92-12
-
"Hell, when is the last time we've won some key recruiting battles over OSU and Oregon in the same fucking year? "
Uh, when you were in like middle school we beat there ass like every year. We still kick OSU's ass in recruiting for the most part. .
" this coach deserves the benefit of the doubt for now. My senior year at UW was Sark's first..."
No shit?
-
Sarkingham said:
The new doogs are the people that blindly supported every single thing that Dude Brah did but are now questioning whether or not Petermen can get it done in the Pac12.
In other words, the new doogs are the same as the old doogs. -
Swing and a miss.salemcoog said:
I agree that you don't know what you really have in CP. And those that are cocksure that He's the savior are true Doogs.
But if ur gonna hate on swallowing.....
I'm out.
We know what we have. But its fine for you to think otherwise if you want. -
agree with that and agree w/ Race. Peterman has enough of a track record that he gets the benefit of the doubt. no doubt. and it's clear we have a grown up running things now. it was just as clear from the get-go that we didn't before.dnc said:
HRYKSarkingham said:The new doogs are the people that blindly supported every single thing that Dude Brah did but are now questioning whether or not Petermen can get it done in the Pac12.
In other words, the new doogs are the same as the old doogs.
These are the people who:
- Loved Lambo (#HiPLSS!)
- Hated Rick With The Rose Bowl.
- Loved Gilby and his TUFF questions.
- Loved Ty for cleaning up the program.
- Loved Rick Without the Rose Bowel.
= Aren't sure about Petersen.
Given their track record, I'd guess they're the ones who would have fired Don James after year 3/1988/abundance
one tiny little bit of doubt that lingers for me is this: he did what he did in totally different conference context than the Pac 12, and I thought Hawkins was a great coach too. not being negative, just observing the obvious there.
that said, yeah, there's reason to assume better things are on the way.
a doog is a doog is a doog. doesn't matter what era it is. there were Willingham doogs, if you can actually take yourself back far enough in time. -
Obvious correction.creepycoug said:
agree with that and agree w/ Race. Peterman has enough of a track record that he gets the benefit of the doubt. no doubt. and it's clear we have a grown up running things now. it was just as clear from the get-go that we didn't before.dnc said:
HRYKSarkingham said:The new doogs are the people that blindly supported every single thing that Dude Brah did but are now questioning whether or not Petermen can get it done in the Pac12.
In other words, the new doogs are the same as the old doogs.
These are the people who:
- Loved Lambo (#HiPLSS!)
- Hated Rick With The Rose Bowl.
- Loved Gilby and his TUFF questions.
- Loved Ty for cleaning up the program.
- Loved Rick Without the Rose Bowel.
= Aren't sure about Petersen.
Given their track record, I'd guess they're the ones who would have fired Don James after year 3/1988/abundance
one tiny little bit of doubt that lingers for me is this: he did what he did in totally different conference context than the Pac 12, and I thought Hawkins was a great coach too. not being negative, just observing the obvious there.
that said, yeah, there's reason to assume better things are on the way.
a doog is a doog is a doog. doesn't matter what era it is. there were Lambright doogs, if you can actually take yourself back far enough in time. -
We know Peterman will do just as well as SWS, and there's a 95% chance he will do better, incl. some ten win seasons, and probably a RB and top ten season every 3-5 years if not more frequently. Of course there's a chance of failure, but it seems very unlikely.
-
If coaching hires were always nothing but a pure crap shoot, schools would hire interns or assistant coaches and pay them bottom dollar.
Peetamus has a proven track record of winning big games and coaching up talent with the best.
The whole "He may be a better coach at small schools like BSU because he can't handle the pressure of big conference football" argument is one of the most fucking stupid things I have ever heard in my entire life. If you actually believe this shit please douse yourself in gasoline, ignite, and on the brink of death hurl yourself off the Aurora Bridge. Peterman might end up not working out but it won't be because of this fucking ridiculous narrative.
People also need to learn the difference between being optimistic and claiming National Titles and Rose Bowls. Don't get expecting 10+ wins a season twisted with claiming it will already happen.
I would say the mood right now around here is a very very optimistic LIPO. A lot of that was triggered by the fact that everyone thought fat fuck dude brah was going to be the UW coach for another 5+ years after Leach couldn't finish the job. -
I suppose it must be my upbringing which has taken longer than probably anybody else around here, but give me Bronco breath any day over scumbag. It's not the tradition of Trojan athletics coming to foul our turf by the lake that was so disgusting, but that a succession of UW presidents forced us for two decades to swallow USC's.... stain.
-
Whittingham at Utah is a little alarming. After he curb stomped Bama in the Sugar Bowl I thought he was going to take over the south.
LIPO -
PLSS silence in this thread speaks volumes.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Obvious correction.creepycoug said:
agree with that and agree w/ Race. Peterman has enough of a track record that he gets the benefit of the doubt. no doubt. and it's clear we have a grown up running things now. it was just as clear from the get-go that we didn't before.dnc said:
HRYKSarkingham said:The new doogs are the people that blindly supported every single thing that Dude Brah did but are now questioning whether or not Petermen can get it done in the Pac12.
In other words, the new doogs are the same as the old doogs.
These are the people who:
- Loved Lambo (#HiPLSS!)
- Hated Rick With The Rose Bowl.
- Loved Gilby and his TUFF questions.
- Loved Ty for cleaning up the program.
- Loved Rick Without the Rose Bowel.
= Aren't sure about Petersen.
Given their track record, I'd guess they're the ones who would have fired Don James after year 3/1988/abundance
one tiny little bit of doubt that lingers for me is this: he did what he did in totally different conference context than the Pac 12, and I thought Hawkins was a great coach too. not being negative, just observing the obvious there.
that said, yeah, there's reason to assume better things are on the way.
a doog is a doog is a doog. doesn't matter what era it is. there were Lambright doogs, if you can actually take yourself back far enough in time. -
That's different because he had his MWC team and was put in a BCS conference. Like Peterman would struggle if Boise was immediately put into the Pac-12.Doogles said:Whittingham at Utah is a little alarming. After he curb stomped Bama in the Sugar Bowl I thought he was going to take over the south.
LIPO
Also prior to Whittingham Utah was BCS good already with Meyer while Boise wasn't.
Lazy comparison. -
The fuck?He_Needs_More_Time said:
That's different because he had his MWC team and was put in a BCS conference. Like Peterman would struggle if Boise was immediately put into the Pac-12.Doogles said:Whittingham at Utah is a little alarming. After he curb stomped Bama in the Sugar Bowl I thought he was going to take over the south.
LIPO
Also prior to Whittingham Utah was BCS good already with Meyer while Boise wasn't.
Lazy comparison.
2001 Boise State 8–4 6–2 2nd
2002 Boise State 12–1 8–0 1st W Humanitarian 12 15
2003 Boise State 13–1 8–0 1st W Fort Worth 15 16
2004 Boise State 11–1 8–0 1st L Liberty 13 12
2005 Boise State 9–4 7–1 T–1st L MPC Computers
Boise State: 53–11 37–3 -
What part of "Also prior to Whittingham Utah was BCS good already with Meyer while Boise wasn't. " BCS good don't you understand?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
The fuck?He_Needs_More_Time said:
That's different because he had his MWC team and was put in a BCS conference. Like Peterman would struggle if Boise was immediately put into the Pac-12.Doogles said:Whittingham at Utah is a little alarming. After he curb stomped Bama in the Sugar Bowl I thought he was going to take over the south.
LIPO
Also prior to Whittingham Utah was BCS good already with Meyer while Boise wasn't.
Lazy comparison.
2001 Boise State 8–4 6–2 2nd
2002 Boise State 12–1 8–0 1st W Humanitarian 12 15
2003 Boise State 13–1 8–0 1st W Fort Worth 15 16
2004 Boise State 11–1 8–0 1st L Liberty 13 12
2005 Boise State 9–4 7–1 T–1st L MPC Computers
Boise State: 53–11 37–3 -
Boise State was BCS good in 2003 and 2004. They just didn't get there because big school bias.He_Needs_More_Time said:
What part of "Also prior to Whittingham Utah was BCS good already with Meyer while Boise wasn't. " BCS good don't you understand?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
The fuck?He_Needs_More_Time said:
That's different because he had his MWC team and was put in a BCS conference. Like Peterman would struggle if Boise was immediately put into the Pac-12.Doogles said:Whittingham at Utah is a little alarming. After he curb stomped Bama in the Sugar Bowl I thought he was going to take over the south.
LIPO
Also prior to Whittingham Utah was BCS good already with Meyer while Boise wasn't.
Lazy comparison.
2001 Boise State 8–4 6–2 2nd
2002 Boise State 12–1 8–0 1st W Humanitarian 12 15
2003 Boise State 13–1 8–0 1st W Fort Worth 15 16
2004 Boise State 11–1 8–0 1st L Liberty 13 12
2005 Boise State 9–4 7–1 T–1st L MPC Computers
Boise State: 53–11 37–3 -
A lot of people putting words in my mouth, did I say anythingc about Dude Brah?
-
So you are saying we are being a bunch of twisters?doogsinparadise said:A lot of people putting words in my mouth, did I say anythingc about Dude Brah?
-
What exactly should we criticize at this point? That Spring Ball isn't open to fans? Wait until he loses a few games. Everyone still hates losing and Peterman has to win to be praised. It's no different from any other coach.doogsinparadise said:Swallowing everything that Peterman will do before he actually does it. He'll make a few mistakes just like any coach, don't be a sloppy dicklicker. High standards please.
Everyone is pumped that we have a proven winner that isn't a bullshit artist like Sark. Peterman's a real football coach who more than deserves this job.
-
Regarding the Wittingham comparison, I debunked it a while back with SRS data.
In the 6 or so years prior to Wittingham, Utah averaged like 33rd while Boise was about the same in the years before Petersen. Wittingham prior to being in the Pac averaged about the same (33rd) while Petersen's average was 21.7 I believe. It was even better two years ago or one year ago.
Utah in the Pac under Witt has averaged 49 which is a 16 pt difference. We could be generous and say that Boise might be about the same under Petersen in the pac. The reason might be because he'd average 8 wins a year with a tough schedule. He would get better players just as Wittingham has because of being in the pac-12.
Bottom line, Wittingham's struggles are not applicable or predictive to Petersen's performance at UW.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
