Howdy, Stranger!

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

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

A Football Thread

RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 30,123
First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes Combo Breaker
Swaye's Wigwam
edited April 2014 in Hardcore Husky Board
This is for you whiny bastards who say we never talk football. Hopefully you have something to offer in these type of threads for once. This is also for Scott Eklund because I know he reads this board, and he's a fucking idiot. Give it up Scott. You are reaching Kim territory and you don't know shit about football. It's okay. You can take Sark's dick out of your mouth.

A few days ago I read a thread on the other site that was about Van Winkle saying he likes actually having a coach that watches film with him. Even for Sark, I am surprised no coach watched film with the kickers. You would think they would watch film of the opponents return men to help the kicker see why they wanted to kick the ball to a specific location. Maybe they see the front line of the on the receiving team bailing too fast and notice that they may be able to get a surprise onside kick. After the onside kick to open the second half of the Super Bowl, Sean Payton said, "We noticed there might be an opportunity for that play on film." You would also think they would watch film of where teams came with pressure to try and block kicks and who were the guys to pay special attention too. Sark is a lazy fucking bastard and so was his staff because he didn't hold them accountable.

Most doogs agreed that special teams should be improved, and were surprised no coach watched film with the kickers. It's already evident between Van Winkle's comments and Petersen coaching the returners that special teams are getting the close attention they deserve. The special teams were really bad under Sark and without a doubt cost us the Stanford game last year unless you believe it was actually Van Winkle's injury.

Of course, Kimmy and Ektard came to Sark's defense. When a poster mentioned Petersen's Boise teams had undefeated seasons ruined by missed kicks, Ektard said he ended the whole thread. Those missed kicks mean Boise State didn't have very good special teams. Really? I remember the Nevada and TCU games, but Ektard is really fucking stupid (wiw). When I think of well coached special teams, I think of good return units and blocked kicks. I think of good kick coverage teams, no bad snaps, and very few to no blocked field goals. Whether the kicker makes the kick or not is basically on his ability. Other than showing him some technique stuff, I don't know what the coach can do about missed field goals.

I did some research. From 2009-2013 BSU went 73/97 on FG's, a 75.2% clip. UW went 66 of 87, 75.9%. Pretty much the exact same. Nobody complained about our FG unit. Both Folk and Coons were pretty good kickers. It was the kick offs and return games on both side that were the problem. No big returns until Sark left, and the kick coverage units were always terrible. That shit won't happen under Petersen. You are such a useless dipshit Scott. FG teams aren't the only part of special teams.
«1

Comments

  • Options
    BennyBeaverBennyBeaver Member Posts: 13,333
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes First Comment 5 Up Votes
    Tequila long, DR
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,453
    5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment blah

    This is for you whiny bastards who say we never talk football. Hopefully you have something to offer in these type of threads for once. This is also for Scott Eklund because I know he reads this board, and he's a fucking idiot. Give it up Scott. You are reaching Kim territory and you don't know shit about football. It's okay. You can take Sark's dick out of your mouth.

    A few days ago I read a thread on the other site that was about Van Winkle saying he likes actually having a coach that watches film with him. Even for Sark, I am surprised no coach watched film with the kickers. You would think they would watch film of the opponents return men to help the kicker see why they wanted to kick the ball to a specific location. Maybe they see the front line of the on the receiving team bailing too fast and notice that they may be able to get a surprise onside kick. After the onside kick to open the second half of the Super Bowl, Sean Payton said, "We noticed there might be an opportunity for that play on film." You would also think they would watch film of where teams came with pressure to try and block kicks and who were the guys to pay special attention too. Sark is a lazy fucking bastard and so was his staff because he didn't hold them accountable.

    Most doogs agreed that special teams should be improved, and were surprised no coach watched film with the kickers. It's already evident between Van Winkle's comments and Petersen coaching the returners that special teams are getting the close attention they deserve. The special teams were really bad under Sark and without a doubt cost us the Stanford game last year unless you believe it was actually Van Winkle's injury.

    Of course, Kimmy and Ektard came to Sark's defense. When a poster mentioned Petersen's Boise teams had undefeated seasons ruined by missed kicks, Ektard said he ended the whole thread. Those missed kicks mean Boise State didn't have very good special teams. Really? I remember the Nevada and TCU games, but Ektard is really fucking stupid (wiw). When I think of well coached special teams, I think of good return units and blocked kicks. I think of good kick coverage teams, no bad snaps, and very few to no blocked field goals. Whether the kicker makes the kick or not is basically on his ability. Other than showing him some technique stuff, I don't know what the coach can do about missed field goals.

    I did some research. From 2009-2013 BSU went 73/97 on FG's, a 75.2% clip. UW went 66 of 87, 75.9%. Pretty much the exact same. Nobody complained about our FG unit. Both Folk and Coons were pretty good kickers. It was the kick offs and return games on both side that were the problem. No big returns until Sark left, and the kick coverage units were always terrible. That shit won't happen under Petersen. You are such a useless dipshit Scott. FG teams aren't the only part of special teams.



    Road Dawg I expect better from you. You are usually crisp and to the point.

    Having said that I'll actually read this whole thing.
  • Options
    RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 30,123
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes Combo Breaker
    Swaye's Wigwam
    I agree it is way too long. I had to put the back story behind the post, mixed in with some opinion.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,453
    5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment blah

    I agree it is way too long. I had to put the back story behind the post, mixed in with some opinion.

    It was a good post. Good stat on the FG's being identical. I agree that the special teams at Boise was pretty strong. I remember fake punts, fake FG's, good returns.

    Shoot their special teams is the reason why they defeated the Huskies in that Vegas bowl. Gave up a long return as fuckheads were doing the lawnmower.

    I'm not surprised Sark or Nansen didn't watch film on them as they are lazy. That just further proves they will never be a Rose Bowl staff though.
  • Options
    sarktasticsarktastic Member Posts: 9,208
    5 Awesomes Photogenic First Anniversary Name Dropper
    Who the fuck cares.

    We got Peterman now.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,453
    5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment blah

    Who the fuck cares.

    We got Peterman now.

    It matters because it shows how under coached these kids really were. Despite all that they still went 9-4 last year.

    Gives us even more hope going forward as we finally have a coach in place who stresses special teams, being focused, pass blocking for an RB, the basics, etc which should buy us an extra 1-2 wins.

    Sark was a negative 1 win coach a year so if Petersen is just average that alone is on average going to be an one win improvement. If Petersen is a plus one coach which I think he will be then you are talking an extra two wins.

    Had he been our coach last year I think Stanford and UCLA are wins while Oregon/ASU aren't plungers.
  • Options
    HeretoBeatmyChestHeretoBeatmyChest Member Posts: 4,295
    5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes First Anniversary First Comment
    That Stanford loss was a real blow for the entire season. Played Oregon tough for 3 quarters but ran out of gas as I predicted on the podcast that week. After that the team wasn't playing for anything because they knew they were done. However....if they beat Stanford, then they are still playing for something against UCLA.

    Going into UCLA, Stanford & UW would have 2 conference losses & Oregon 1. Oregon finished 7-2 and almost lost to OSU & would have been 6-3.

    For UW to tie Oregon & Stanford all that needed to happen was UW beats Stanford & Oregon loses to OSU. For UW to win the division they needed to beat Stanford, UCLA and have Oregon lose to OSU.

    Bottom line is if they come away with that game, the scope of the season changes quite a bit. Maybe you beat UCLA and sneak into a BCS bowl game.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,453
    5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment blah

    That Stanford loss was a real blow for the entire season. Played Oregon tough for 3 quarters but ran out of gas as I predicted on the podcast that week. After that the team wasn't playing for anything because they knew they were done. However....if they beat Stanford, then they are still playing for something against UCLA.

    Going into UCLA, Stanford & UW would have 2 conference losses & Oregon 1. Oregon finished 7-2 and almost lost to OSU & would have been 6-3.

    For UW to tie Oregon & Stanford all that needed to happen was UW beats Stanford & Oregon loses to OSU. For UW to win the division they needed to beat Stanford, UCLA and have Oregon lose to OSU.

    Bottom line is if they come away with that game, the scope of the season changes quite a bit. Maybe you beat UCLA and sneak into a BCS bowl game.

    If you can be hypothetically in the Rose Bowl race come November what more can you ask for? It's like some of you Nega's had it out for Sark.
  • Options
    DardanusDardanus Member Posts: 2,623
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment

    That Stanford loss was a real blow for the entire season. Played Oregon tough for 3 quarters but ran out of gas as I predicted on the podcast that week. After that the team wasn't playing for anything because they knew they were done. However....if they beat Stanford, then they are still playing for something against UCLA.

    Going into UCLA, Stanford & UW would have 2 conference losses & Oregon 1. Oregon finished 7-2 and almost lost to OSU & would have been 6-3.

    For UW to tie Oregon & Stanford all that needed to happen was UW beats Stanford & Oregon loses to OSU. For UW to win the division they needed to beat Stanford, UCLA and have Oregon lose to OSU.

    Bottom line is if they come away with that game, the scope of the season changes quite a bit. Maybe you beat UCLA and sneak into a BCS bowl game.

    If you can be hypothetically in the Rose Bowl race come November what more can you ask for? It's like some of you Nega's had it out for Sark.
    We don't like to comment on hypotheticals.
  • Options
    TierbsHsotBoobsTierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    Combo Breaker 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Anniversary

    That Stanford loss was a real blow for the entire season. Played Oregon tough for 3 quarters but ran out of gas as I predicted on the podcast that week. After that the team wasn't playing for anything because they knew they were done. However....if they beat Stanford, then they are still playing for something against UCLA.

    Going into UCLA, Stanford & UW would have 2 conference losses & Oregon 1. Oregon finished 7-2 and almost lost to OSU & would have been 6-3.

    For UW to tie Oregon & Stanford all that needed to happen was UW beats Stanford & Oregon loses to OSU. For UW to win the division they needed to beat Stanford, UCLA and have Oregon lose to OSU.

    Bottom line is if they come away with that game, the scope of the season changes quite a bit. Maybe you beat UCLA and sneak into a BCS bowl game.

    When did Stephanie Sarkisian hack your account?
  • Options
    CheersWestDawgCheersWestDawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 2,475
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes Name Dropper
    Swaye's Wigwam

    That Stanford loss was a real blow for the entire season. Played Oregon tough for 3 quarters but ran out of gas as I predicted on the podcast that week. After that the team wasn't playing for anything because they knew they were done. However....if they beat Stanford, then they are still playing for something against UCLA.

    Going into UCLA, Stanford & UW would have 2 conference losses & Oregon 1. Oregon finished 7-2 and almost lost to OSU & would have been 6-3.

    For UW to tie Oregon & Stanford all that needed to happen was UW beats Stanford & Oregon loses to OSU. For UW to win the division they needed to beat Stanford, UCLA and have Oregon lose to OSU.

    Bottom line is if they come away with that game, the scope of the season changes quite a bit. Maybe you beat UCLA and sneak into a BCS bowl game.

    When did Stephanie Sarkisian hack your account?
    She hacked it while Sark was at the new Joey in Torrance, CA.
  • Options
    HeretoBeatmyChestHeretoBeatmyChest Member Posts: 4,295
    5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes First Anniversary First Comment
    You fuckos are a little slow, so I'll help.....

    The point of the post is Sark's fucktardedness with ST cost UW a win over a top 5 team on the road.....not "Sark almost beat a top 5 team on the road."
  • Options
    kh83kh83 Member Posts: 596
    5 Awesomes First Anniversary First Comment Name Dropper
    If you have to reiterate the point of your poast so that we better understand your poast, me thinks you should have done better the first time.

    That being said - you're right. ST cost us minimum 1 game per season with Seven Win Steve.
  • Options
    TTJTTJ Member Posts: 4,795
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment

    Both Folk and Coons were prettyvery good kickers.

    Otherwise I completely agree.
  • Options
    HeretoBeatmyChestHeretoBeatmyChest Member Posts: 4,295
    5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes First Anniversary First Comment
    Will be interesting to see how big of a loss Coons is. He was 15/16 last season on FG's (only miss was blocked) and his punting work was enough to earn him All-Pac 12.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,453
    5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment blah

    Will be interesting to see how big of a loss Coons is. He was 15/16 last season on FG's (only miss was blocked) and his punting work was enough to earn him All-Pac 12.

    I think that is a big loss actually and I'm not confident we have a replacement to replace him in kicking and punting.

    In some ways I fear his loss more than Keith Price or even Sankey's since we have ready replacements for those two.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,453
    5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment blah

    You fuckos are a little slow, so I'll help.....

    The point of the post is Sark's fucktardedness with ST cost UW a win over a top 5 team on the road.....not "Sark almost beat a top 5 team on the road."

    That's because we are a bunch of girls sitting around in kindergarden art class eating paste
  • Options
    sarktasticsarktastic Member Posts: 9,208
    5 Awesomes Photogenic First Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited April 2014

    Who the fuck cares.

    We got Peterman now.

    It matters because it shows how under coached these kids really were. Despite all that they still went 9-4 last year.

    Gives us even more hope going forward as we finally have a coach in place who stresses special teams, being focused, pass blocking for an RB, the basics, etc which should buy us an extra 1-2 wins.

    Sark was a negative 1 win coach a year so if Petersen is just average that alone is on average going to be an one win improvement. If Petersen is a plus one coach which I think he will be then you are talking an extra two wins.

    Had he been our coach last year I think Stanford and UCLA are wins while Oregon/ASU aren't plungers.

    It really sounds like you're making excuses for Peterman sucking this year.

    relax.

    1. Peterman won't suck

    2. If for some fluke he does suck he doesn't want you making fucking excuses.

    c'mon man, recruits parents read this bored and they don't need to be getting a pussy vibe.


Sign In or Register to comment.