Most spot on point for me was this one about the OL "They dominate teams they are better than, but when it comes to teams that are as talented or more talented, they struggle some."
This has really showed in the last 3 bowl games as for large parts of those contests, we were simply outmatched. Huff can recruit OL's to win the Pac-12 with any day of the week. The last class and the current one leads me to be optimistic that he can get guys who can hold their own against the blue blood teams.
Even if Eason is as good as advertised there are too many holes (wr's/lb depth and experience/kicker/rb's ability to get 1-3 extra yards Gaskin always seemed to get) to be a playoff team.
The schedule sets up favorably, but the SC/at Tree/at Arizona/Oregon/bye week/Utah block won't be a walk in the park and I can see two losses from that group.
The Cal game will be a early tell for me. If they want to be a playoff team, they have to Alpha the shit out of the Bears and make a statement to the conference and themselves.
Last thought: The defense will have growing pains early, but by the end of the year, look the fuck out Pac-12
The biggest key will be getting Eason to live up to his hype. If he does that, they should be in the Playoffs, but if he doesn't, it could be a long season.
We went to back to back NY6 Bowls w/ a QB that threw 19 & 16 TD Passes. If Eason can give us 25 we will go undefeated. If everything clicks and he goes for 30-35+ TD's we will win a playoff game. To me Teq, it is all about the Red Zone. We have had no problem moving the ball in between the 20's but the RZ is a different story. This is where Bryant/Jones/Spiker/Osborne I think will be the difference w/ Eason.
I tend to agree.
I think the biggest difference between Eason and Browning is just the fact that Eason can stretch the field much more effectively and that should break more big plays.
To your point on the red zone, the hope and expectation would be that Eason will be able to make throws into tight windows that Browning could only dream of making against elite athletes.
Also browning did not have Jordan Chin to throw the ball to
This was written by Eklund. All of them are written by the team 247 scouts. There aren’t real scouts doing this stuff.
No fucking way. This is a lifetime of thoughts for Eklund.
Also the guy says he only went to four practices. He is not a beat reporter. And he speaks of CP and Adams from an outsider's perspective who is around a lot of different coaching staffs.
Also, the sack issue is overrated IMO. Last season was definitely not good enough but the sacks per game had hovered around 3 since CP got here.
More concerning to me is the passing down sack rate. UW was like 84th last year after being top 25 in 2015, 2016 & 2017. If we? can’t get sacks when it’s most advantageous to the D, that’s concerning.
I’m skeptical that they will be as good as predicted (pac 12 champs). Losing 10 on defense and the best RB is school history and have no drop off? I don’t see it. This is an 8 or 9 win team.
Stronghaieballz insists that the Terrorist is better than Gaskin. He just didn't get enough carries.
Whether they? find a back who turns 2nd and long to 3rd and short again and again and again and the QB sitch are the keys.
These are actually tremendous takes and cut through a lot of the BS
I always laugh when people say the 'OKG' thing means they're good citizens and just okay players. He wants elite people and elite players. That's what 'OKG' means to him. This other crap about it being elitist or whatever is just stupid."
This is what happens when you allow others to potentially narrate the story or messaging for you. It would seem to me that UW Football could be more direct on what Built For Life and OKG means and direct the message. The scout is absolutely correct that there's nothing about OKG that is elitist, etc.
Their QB situation is worse than I expected it to be. In the practices I saw (one closed scrimmage and four regular practices) Jacob Eason didn't look good at all. He was late on his throws, he looked like he'd lost confidence. Is that because of the coaching or has he lost his edge?
Eason aside, I really do agree. Haener is a turnover machine at this point until he proves he isn't. Sirmon has a bigger upside than anybody else on the roster but he's still super raw. Eason obviously has the ability but he needs reps ... it's the point that DDY was making back in Spring that resonates the most because when you haven't taken live reps for close to 2 years it's hard to expect someone to be super sharp. I think that this was some of the thinking behind having the QBs being live during the Spring Scrimmage ... I was shocked when I saw that. Also the point that followed later about so many WR injuries in the upper ranks didn't help and likely resulted in a lot of either check downs (what I saw during the Spring Scrimmage) or forcing balls down the field.
One thing to keep in mind is that practicing against our defense can make decent offenses look like dog shit and from what I saw from the defense this defense has more talent behind it than any to date. Going back to 2016, I remember looking at the offense and thinking that the offense was really, really in trouble. Then you get to the first handful of games during the year and you realize pretty quickly that against "normal" defenses the offense was just fine.
This is full LIPO for me until Fall ... but you really would like to Eason step up early in the Fall camp and show that the job is his and leave no doubt about it.
One guy I like a lot is Austin Osborne. He's strong and faster than you think. The coaches loved his progress and I'd bet he plays a lot this year.
I agree with this take a lot. One of the byproducts of having the top WRs out was that it gave valuable reps for younger WRs to go against top end DBs and see where they are in their development. Worst case, Osborne's going to be a valuable possession WR this year. Best case is that he takes a step forward and pushes Ty Jones.
The guy I think the coaches really like a lot is Richard Newton.
If the season started today, I really do think that there's a good chance that Dick Newton gets the backup RB reps. Pleasant runs well but seems more of a 2nd back in a 2 back set with his versatility. McGrew seems more of the passing option in a 2-minute drill type of situation. From what I saw in Spring, Newton's a little better than JAG at this point. Really want to see what Cam Davis does once he gets on campus. I don't feel like this position is really settled at the moment.
BTW, the Ahmed "he's just a straight line runner" is a load of crap. He was a lot more patient this Spring than I've seen in the past. He will still be in a spot where he outruns everybody if he gets into the open. But the real growth in him will be developing what made Myles so special in that he always got 1-3 yards more than he should have on those runs between the tackles that didn't look like they were going anywhere.
I think they should be better than they're playing. They dominate teams they are better than, but when it comes to teams that are as talented or more talented, they struggle some.
At this point, it's a fair criticism but I'm not 100% sure that I agree with it as being a massive Huff issue. Kaleb's best football is ahead of him and he was a mauler in the run but there were some pass protection issues at times. Nick Harris is going to be an all conference center but there were some issues his first 2 years due to size and playing probably a bit out of position. Kirkland will be a good one but was a tad young last year. Watty is probably an average guy in terms of what we've been recruiting since Huff's come in. Hilbers fits the same bill. Trey it's a health thing. So yeah, up until now I think we've got good players but not massively high end players. I suspect that you'll start seeing in 2-3 years the quality of our OL in the draft go up significantly. We've leveled up massively here and continue to do so.
I'll be shocked if (Levi Onwuzurike) sticks around after this year. When he's on, he's the best d-linemen in the conference and would be right up there with any guy from the SEC or Big 10. He's special."
I agree with this 100%. If all the pieces come together for Levi, and I suspect that they will this year, he's going to be an absolute terror.
"Every year, you think their secondary is going to take a hit with graduation and losing guys to the NFL and every year, they seem to just plug in guys and get the most out of them. Right now, I don't think there's a better secondary coach in the nation than Jimmy Lake. He just gets the most out of his guys. They fit perfectly in the system they run there. Their DBs have excellent size. I was talking with one of the coaches and he just sorta laughed and said the guys they redshirted last season, they probably would have played almost anywhere else, but at Washington, they redshirted. They are just so deep there. The guy that makes that thing go is Myles Bryant. I know he's not the biggest guy, but he plays with an edge, an attitude and I think the other guys feed off of that. Sorta like they did off of Kevin King when he was there. I love Keith Taylor, but, for my money, their best cover guy is (Elijah) Molden. He just 'gets it'. He reads things so well. I'm excited to see what he can do this season as the starter. He's had to wait his turn. Now it's his chance. They love that (Cam) Williams kid. They think he'll be special. (Lake and Will Harris) said they don't think he'll redshirt this season. In that secondary, if you don't redshirt, you're pretty damn good."
Jimmy's great obviously and those in the know recognize it. Nice to see that Will Harris is starting to get mentioned with Lake when it comes to the secondary. Important going forward that Harris is building out his niche as well to help give him creedence from a recruiting standpoint. What's so interesting here is the idea that we know what we want when we are recruiting and we recruit to what we want. That's really important to me. So important to get the right fits for me. Myles really does have an edge to him that we definitely need more in the program. He will be playing on Sunday. The overall quality is just laughable. And agreed in that you can just see that Cam Williams has that IT quality that separates the good from the great ones.
They need a guy who can be a threat off the edge every play. They like Joe Tryon a lot, but I don't think he's as explosive off the edge as they really need,
This will be arguably the biggest question mark heading into the season for me, at least defensively. If Tryon can take a step forward and get up to the 8-10 sack range this defense will be beyond scary. I'm not sure Tryon has the same ceiling that a guy like Latu has, but he's way more talented than anybody that we've had at least since Mathis.
They are sound fundamentally. Bob Gregory is one of the best linebacker coaches I've been around. He's tough on his players, but they respond."
When I read this I pictured the pledge scene in Animal House when they flashed the picture of Kent Dorfman. I think it's really important to separate Gregory the coach and Gregory the recruiter. Anybody that thinks that Gregory can't coach is full of it. The question is fully on Gregory the recruiter.
The biggest key will be getting Eason to live up to his hype. If he does that, they should be in the Playoffs, but if he doesn't, it could be a long season.
This really is the nuts and bolts of it. If Eason plays well and Bush advances as an offensive coordinator, then the Playoffs isn't just a pipe dream but a high likelihood. If Eason struggles though then I think you're looking at another year of grumblings about Pete, the offensive system, and potentially another change in coordinators. I'd bet on Eason figuring things out but there's obviously the "prove it" factor for both Eason and Bush. Until they do, it's the weight that can drag the program under the Vegas win totals.
Son you wouldn't know nuts and bolts if they dribbled down your chin.
This was written by Eklund. All of them are written by the team 247 scouts. There aren’t real scouts doing this stuff.
No fucking way. This is a lifetime of thoughts for Eklund.
Also the guy says he only went to four practices. He is not a beat reporter. And he speaks of CP and Adams from an outsider's perspective who is around a lot of different coaching staffs.
No “scout” would talk about Scott Huff or Cam Williams. “I like Scott Huff” wasn’t a dead give away? Most the coaches in the Pac 12 probably don’t know who Huff is. You think Petersen could name half the schools in the Pac-12’s OL coach?
Who are these scouts that visit spring balls and have these write ups? I’ll answer for you, it’s Eklund and the other team writers.
This was written by Eklund. All of them are written by the team 247 scouts. There aren’t real scouts doing this stuff.
No fucking way. This is a lifetime of thoughts for Eklund.
Also the guy says he only went to four practices. He is not a beat reporter. And he speaks of CP and Adams from an outsider's perspective who is around a lot of different coaching staffs.
No “scout” would talk about Scott Huff or Cam Williams. “I like Scott Huff” wasn’t a dead give away? Most the coaches in the Pac 12 probably don’t know who Huff is. You think Petersen could name half the schools in the Pac-12’s OL coach?
Who are these scouts that visit spring balls and have these write ups? I’ll answer for you, it’s Eklund and the other team writers.
Exactly. I've wondered the same.
When you see the real version of these with the HCs takes, each one is like two lines long. None of them have time or interest to stand there and dissect each other program.
They say a few complimentary things, maybe make one obvious critical observation ("well they're going to have to replace Myles Gaskin, but Chris Petersen is one of the best in the business and I'm sure they'll have someone ready to go!") and move on.
I don't know if there is a pecking order in journalism, but if there is sports journalism has to be at or near the bottom with the National Enquirer.
This was written by Eklund. All of them are written by the team 247 scouts. There aren’t real scouts doing this stuff.
No fucking way. This is a lifetime of thoughts for Eklund.
Also the guy says he only went to four practices. He is not a beat reporter. And he speaks of CP and Adams from an outsider's perspective who is around a lot of different coaching staffs.
No “scout” would talk about Scott Huff or Cam Williams. “I like Scott Huff” wasn’t a dead give away? Most the coaches in the Pac 12 probably don’t know who Huff is. You think Petersen could name half the schools in the Pac-12’s OL coach?
Who are these scouts that visit spring balls and have these write ups? I’ll answer for you, it’s Eklund and the other team writers.
What the fuck? I absolutely think Petersen could name half the OL coaches in the conference. I'd be surprised if he couldn't rattle off the names of every GA out there as well.
As for your larger theory of whether or not these are the writers or actual coaches, I could go either way on that.
I’m skeptical that they will be as good as predicted (pac 12 champs). Losing 10 on defense and the best RB is school history and have no drop off? I don’t see it. This is an 8 or 9 win team.
This was written by Eklund. All of them are written by the team 247 scouts. There aren’t real scouts doing this stuff.
No fucking way. This is a lifetime of thoughts for Eklund.
Also the guy says he only went to four practices. He is not a beat reporter. And he speaks of CP and Adams from an outsider's perspective who is around a lot of different coaching staffs.
No “scout” would talk about Scott Huff or Cam Williams. “I like Scott Huff” wasn’t a dead give away? Most the coaches in the Pac 12 probably don’t know who Huff is. You think Petersen could name half the schools in the Pac-12’s OL coach?
Who are these scouts that visit spring balls and have these write ups? I’ll answer for you, it’s Eklund and the other team writers.
Exactly. I've wondered the same.
When you see the real version of these with the HCs takes, each one is like two lines long. None of them have time or interest to stand there and dissect each other program.
They say a few complimentary things, maybe make one obvious critical observation ("well they're going to have to replace Myles Gaskin, but Chris Petersen is one of the best in the business and I'm sure they'll have someone ready to go!") and move on.
I don't know if there is a pecking order in journalism, but if there is sports journalism has to be at or near the bottom with the National Enquirer.
This is how I feel about the entire UW program under Petersen: "I think they should be better than they're playing. They dominate teams they are better than, but when it comes to teams that are as talented or more talented, they struggle some."
UW should be running the table versus conference opponents because the Pac 12 fucking sucks, but we? aren't.
The only game I've seen us win versus a more talented team under Petersen is 2015 @ SC (And let us not forget that included the Sark factor).
2016 vs SC, 'Bama, Auburn, Penn St., tOSU... I believe all those games were winnable, but Petersen didn't have the team, coaches included, prepared well enough for what was necessary to win. It's on the head coach.
Comments
This has really showed in the last 3 bowl games as for large parts of those contests, we were simply outmatched. Huff can recruit OL's to win the Pac-12 with any day of the week. The last class and the current one leads me to be optimistic that he can get guys who can hold their own against the blue blood teams.
Even if Eason is as good as advertised there are too many holes (wr's/lb depth and experience/kicker/rb's ability to get 1-3 extra yards Gaskin always seemed to get) to be a playoff team.
The schedule sets up favorably, but the SC/at Tree/at Arizona/Oregon/bye week/Utah block won't be a walk in the park and I can see two losses from that group.
The Cal game will be a early tell for me. If they want to be a playoff team, they have to Alpha the shit out of the Bears and make a statement to the conference and themselves.
Last thought: The defense will have growing pains early, but by the end of the year, look the fuck out Pac-12
Also the guy says he only went to four practices. He is not a beat reporter. And he speaks of CP and Adams from an outsider's perspective who is around a lot of different coaching staffs.
Also, the sack issue is overrated IMO. Last season was definitely not good enough but the sacks per game had hovered around 3 since CP got here.
More concerning to me is the passing down sack rate. UW was like 84th last year after being top 25 in 2015, 2016 & 2017. If we? can’t get sacks when it’s most advantageous to the D, that’s concerning.
Whether they? find a back who turns 2nd and long to 3rd and short again and again and again and the QB sitch are the keys.
The rest is Tequilla.
Who are these scouts that visit spring balls and have these write ups? I’ll answer for you, it’s Eklund and the other team writers.
When you see the real version of these with the HCs takes, each one is like two lines long. None of them have time or interest to stand there and dissect each other program.
They say a few complimentary things, maybe make one obvious critical observation ("well they're going to have to replace Myles Gaskin, but Chris Petersen is one of the best in the business and I'm sure they'll have someone ready to go!") and move on.
I don't know if there is a pecking order in journalism, but if there is sports journalism has to be at or near the bottom with the National Enquirer.
As for your larger theory of whether or not these are the writers or actual coaches, I could go either way on that.
The problem we had against SC in 2016 was situational playcalling tho.
"He's one of the most technically-sound linemen I've seen this year and I've been to schools from all over this spring."
Eklund hasn't been to schools all over Puget Sound this spring, let alone actual universities.
Welcome back dumb fuck.
UW should be running the table versus conference opponents because the Pac 12 fucking sucks, but we? aren't.
The only game I've seen us win versus a more talented team under Petersen is 2015 @ SC (And let us not forget that included the Sark factor).
2016 vs SC, 'Bama, Auburn, Penn St., tOSU... I believe all those games were winnable, but Petersen didn't have the team, coaches included, prepared well enough for what was necessary to win. It's on the head coach.