Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Jake Locker TD run against Arizona
Comments
-
That was Sark/Holtesque for shitty coaching at the end. Just epic choke.whatshouldicareabout said:
Closest I can think of was Utah 2017, but that was more "Without Whittingham we lose that game"JoeEDangerously said:
Can’t say there is one game where I said thatDerekJohnson said:
Was there ever a game where you went "Without Browning we lose that game".?JoeEDangerously said:
I wonder what he would have done on those Browning led teams. Browning was a pain in the ass but he was a winner. But Lockner had the multiple threat that makes it like you have twelve players on offenseYellowSnow said:
He would have beat USC in 2016.JoeEDangerously said:Lockner was awesome. Fuck the haters.
https://youtu.be/4QeIe0fUqhM?t=256 -
He was a great talent but avg qb. Would have looked great for chip Kelly though.RaceBannon said:Locker was the ultimate cock tease
Didn't FINISH -
The oft maligned Rick would have used him like Tui. Which would have been greatAtomicDawg said:
He was a great talent but avg qb. Would have looked great for chip Kelly though.RaceBannon said:Locker was the ultimate cock tease
Didn't FINISH -
We could have won a Natty with a 50/50 hybrid of Rick and Pete.RaceBannon said:
The oft maligned Rick would have used him like Tui. Which would have been greatAtomicDawg said:
He was a great talent but avg qb. Would have looked great for chip Kelly though.RaceBannon said:Locker was the ultimate cock tease
Didn't FINISH -
@89ute what are your thoughts on this game?Alexis said:
That was Sark/Holtesque for shitty coaching at the end. Just epic choke.whatshouldicareabout said:
Closest I can think of was Utah 2017, but that was more "Without Whittingham we lose that game"JoeEDangerously said:
Can’t say there is one game where I said thatDerekJohnson said:
Was there ever a game where you went "Without Browning we lose that game".?JoeEDangerously said:
I wonder what he would have done on those Browning led teams. Browning was a pain in the ass but he was a winner. But Lockner had the multiple threat that makes it like you have twelve players on offenseYellowSnow said:
He would have beat USC in 2016.JoeEDangerously said:Lockner was awesome. Fuck the haters.
https://youtu.be/4QeIe0fUqhM?t=256 -
A Rick type taking over in 2018 or 19 when Pete burned out would have been ideal. Guy was a disaster long-term but the perfect guy to take over a team that was talented and disciplined but who had been worn out a bit by the previous staffs.YellowSnow said:
We could have won a Natty with a 50/50 hybrid of Rick and Pete.RaceBannon said:
The oft maligned Rick would have used him like Tui. Which would have been greatAtomicDawg said:
He was a great talent but avg qb. Would have looked great for chip Kelly though.RaceBannon said:Locker was the ultimate cock tease
Didn't FINISH -
Or just Pete coaching Sunday through Friday and Rick on Saturdays.WoolleyDoog said:
A Rick type taking over in 2018 or 19 when Pete burned out would have been ideal. Guy was a disaster long-term but the perfect guy to take over a team that was talented and disciplined but who had been worn out a bit by the previous staffs.YellowSnow said:
We could have won a Natty with a 50/50 hybrid of Rick and Pete.RaceBannon said:
The oft maligned Rick would have used him like Tui. Which would have been greatAtomicDawg said:
He was a great talent but avg qb. Would have looked great for chip Kelly though.RaceBannon said:Locker was the ultimate cock tease
Didn't FINISH
I think Pete still liked coaching in practice and gameplanning. He never looked happy on gameday. I don't think we have a gif of him happy during a game. -
Yes. Many. So many that this is a silly statement. Off the top of my head, they beat Cal if our boy Hainer doesn't step in. Browning was the perfect quarterback to ball-protect and hold on to a boring win instead of a what-the-fuck loss.DerekJohnson said:Was there ever a game where you went "Without Browning we lose that game".?
If there's one way in which I part ways with the collective wisdom of this bored (TDS/BDS/TTTT aside), it's the prioritizing of looking the part and big-dick/gunslinging over actual wins and losses and on-field effectiveness on a college football field. Thinking BBK was a liability, or thinking he was until his senior year, is very on-brand for Hardcore Husky and yet completely wrong. Having a guy who could cover as much field as he did and make EVERY tackle in his gap allowed the rest of the defense to take fewer risks, and this more than made up for a couple embarrassing incidents per game of him getting "dragged." Sure, you'd like to have a 250 lb. monster who's just as fast and smart, but my daughter wants a pony, too.
It's the same with Browning. The dude was a winner, but he wasn't a 6'5" Adonis, didn't risk the ball for the sake of a big play, didn't tuck it and run for 50 yards, and expressed disappointment when his kicker misses a chip shot on a day when nothing's going right, so he fucking sucks. The most important things a quarterback can do are get the offense into the right play and throw an accurate ball, and he's the best at that at UW since I've been old enough to remember. He took some embarrassing sacks like just about any other quarterback, put a lid on the offense with his arm strength, and largely avoided the middle of the field to protect the ball. Not perfect, but consider the alternative: Over his starting career, the Huskies lose at least a half dozen more games with anyone else on the roster starting. Easily.
So, yeah, if Trevor Lawrence or Joe Burrow are sitting on the bench, there's not a single game that I felt they'd lose without Jake Browning. With Cyler Myles, Troy Williams, Jeff Lindquist, and a young Jake Haener? Plenty. Myles Gaskin is rightfully a Hardcore Husky hero, and Gaskin apparently LOVED this guy. He very often called the right shots to put Gaskin in a position to succeed. There are things going on on the field that you don't see from the stands or your couch. -
If only Jake browning had been available at cal1to392831weretaken said:
Yes. Many. So many that this is a silly statement. Off the top of my head, they beat Cal if our boy Hainer doesn't step in. Browning was the perfect quarterback to ball-protect and hold on to a boring win instead of a what-the-fuck loss.DerekJohnson said:Was there ever a game where you went "Without Browning we lose that game".?
If there's one way in which I part ways with the collective wisdom of this bored (TDS/BDS/TTTT aside), it's the prioritizing of looking the part and big-dick/gunslinging over actual wins and losses and on-field effectiveness on a college football field. Thinking BBK was a liability, or thinking he was until his senior year, is very on-brand for Hardcore Husky and yet completely wrong. Having a guy who could cover as much field as he did and make EVERY tackle in his gap allowed the rest of the defense to take fewer risks, and this more than made up for a couple embarrassing incidents per game of him getting "dragged." Sure, you'd like to have a 250 lb. monster who's just as fast and smart, but my daughter wants a pony, too.
It's the same with Browning. The dude was a winner, but he wasn't a 6'5" Adonis, didn't risk the ball for the sake of a big play, didn't tuck it and run for 50 yards, and expressed disappointment when his kicker misses a chip shot on a day when nothing's going right, so he fucking sucks. The most important things a quarterback can do are get the offense into the right play and throw an accurate ball, and he's the best at that at UW since I've been old enough to remember. He took some embarrassing sacks like just about any other quarterback, put a lid on the offense with his arm strength, and largely avoided the middle of the field to protect the ball. Not perfect, but consider the alternative: Over his starting career, the Huskies lose at least a half dozen more games with anyone else on the roster starting. Easily.
So, yeah, if Trevor Lawrence or Joe Burrow are sitting on the bench, there's not a single game that I felt they'd lose without Jake Browning. With Cyler Myles, Troy Williams, Jeff Lindquist, and a young Jake Haener? Plenty. Myles Gaskin is rightfully a Hardcore Husky hero, and Gaskin apparently LOVED this guy. He very often called the right shots to put Gaskin in a position to succeed. There are things going on on the field that you don't see from the stands or your couch. -
I get what you're saying. We're a little too hard on ol Cobra Jack Browning too much sometimes. He had some tricks in the ol back like being a little more mobile than people thought/remember and he had a few games where he correctly wasn't throwing the ball around when they could win the game on the ground.1to392831weretaken said:
Yes. Many. So many that this is a silly statement. Off the top of my head, they beat Cal if our boy Hainer doesn't step in. Browning was the perfect quarterback to ball-protect and hold on to a boring win instead of a what-the-fuck loss.DerekJohnson said:Was there ever a game where you went "Without Browning we lose that game".?
If there's one way in which I part ways with the collective wisdom of this bored (TDS/BDS/TTTT aside), it's the prioritizing of looking the part and big-dick/gunslinging over actual wins and losses and on-field effectiveness on a college football field. Thinking BBK was a liability, or thinking he was until his senior year, is very on-brand for Hardcore Husky and yet completely wrong. Having a guy who could cover as much field as he did and make EVERY tackle in his gap allowed the rest of the defense to take fewer risks, and this more than made up for a couple embarrassing incidents per game of him getting "dragged." Sure, you'd like to have a 250 lb. monster who's just as fast and smart, but my daughter wants a pony, too.
It's the same with Browning. The dude was a winner, but he wasn't a 6'5" Adonis, didn't risk the ball for the sake of a big play, didn't tuck it and run for 50 yards, and expressed disappointment when his kicker misses a chip shot on a day when nothing's going right, so he fucking sucks. The most important things a quarterback can do are get the offense into the right play and throw an accurate ball, and he's the best at that at UW since I've been old enough to remember. He took some embarrassing sacks like just about any other quarterback, put a lid on the offense with his arm strength, and largely avoided the middle of the field to protect the ball. Not perfect, but consider the alternative: Over his starting career, the Huskies lose at least a half dozen more games with anyone else on the roster starting. Easily.
So, yeah, if Trevor Lawrence or Joe Burrow are sitting on the bench, there's not a single game that I felt they'd lose without Jake Browning. With Cyler Myles, Troy Williams, Jeff Lindquist, and a young Jake Haener? Plenty. Myles Gaskin is rightfully a Hardcore Husky hero, and Gaskin apparently LOVED this guy. He very often called the right shots to put Gaskin in a position to succeed. There are things going on on the field that you don't see from the stands or your couch.
I don't know about that Cal game though. He threw an int where he was just trying to throw the ball way but was such a shithead it got intercepted and it was the second time he did that that season.
