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

Coaches and Scouts view on UW

2»

Comments

  • backthepack
    backthepack Member Posts: 19,937
    It’s a talent problem not a scheme problem.

    The problem we had against SC in 2016 was situational playcalling tho.
  • dawgs206
    dawgs206 Member Posts: 482

    It’s a talent problem not a scheme problem.

    The problem we had against SC in 2016 was situational playcalling tho.

    Have you seen our offense?
  • backthepack
    backthepack Member Posts: 19,937
    edited June 2019
    dawgs206 said:

    It’s a talent problem not a scheme problem.

    The problem we had against SC in 2016 was situational playcalling tho.

    Have you seen our offense?
    Yes. Did you see our WR talent? Did you see teams put 8 in the box every play? Did you see how shitty Jake Browning was?
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781

    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.

    Jeezus Damone, you sound like fucking Pumpeii.
    I’m also not a doog
  • creepycoug
    creepycoug Member Posts: 24,046

    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.
    Looks like @EwaDawg has me off ignore.

    Welcome back dumb fuck.
  • Bread
    Bread Member Posts: 4,075
    Pretty sure these were from talking to NFL scouts and national writers. Local reporters and coaches don't say shit like that.
  • KrunkJuice
    KrunkJuice Member Posts: 2,070
    I wouldn't be surprised if Bruce Feldman and Stewart Mandel made up one of those comments. I am convinced Yogi Roth made the OKG comments.
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,839
    digits said:

    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.

    Define "more talented team". Because we've beaten plenty of teams under Pete that had more blue chip recruits on their roster or were ranked higher than we were.

    The "more talented" narrative seems to be applied retroactively.
  • DoogCourics
    DoogCourics Member Posts: 5,739
    dnc said:

    digits said:

    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.

    Define "more talented team". Because we've beaten plenty of teams under Pete that had more blue chip recruits on their roster or were ranked higher than we were.

    The "more talented" narrative seems to be applied retroactively.
    That, and the scout/coach was specifically evaluating the o-line in regards to dominating lesser talent and struggling against better competition.
  • digits
    digits Member Posts: 1,748
    edited June 2019
    dnc said:

    digits said:

    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.

    Define "more talented team". Because we've beaten plenty of teams under Pete that had more blue chip recruits on their roster or were ranked higher than we were.

    The "more talented" narrative seems to be applied retroactively.
    Basically, I define more talented as what you listed above: Teams with more blue chip recruits on their roster or were ranked higher than we were. Regarding the latter, in 16 games played against higher ranked opponents under Petersen, here are the instances when UW beat a higher ranked team:

    1. 2015 unranked UW @ 17th ranked SC
    2. 2015 unranked UW vs 23rd ranked Wazzu
    3. 2016 10th ranked UW vs 7th Stanford
    4. 2017 15th ranked UW vs 14 ranked Wazzu
    5. 2018 16th ranked UW @ 8th ranked Wazzu
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,839
    digits said:

    dnc said:

    digits said:

    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.

    Define "more talented team". Because we've beaten plenty of teams under Pete that had more blue chip recruits on their roster or were ranked higher than we were.

    The "more talented" narrative seems to be applied retroactively.
    Basically, I define more talented as what you listed above: Teams with more blue chip recruits on their roster or were ranked higher than we were. Regarding the latter, in 16 games played against higher ranked opponents under Petersen, here are the instances when UW beat a higher ranked team:

    1. 2015 unranked UW @ 17th ranked SC
    2. 2015 unranked UW vs 23rd ranked Wazzu
    3. 2016 10th ranked UW vs 7th Stanford
    4. 2017 15th ranked UW vs 14 ranked Wazzu
    5. 2018 16th ranked UW @ 8th ranked Wazzu
    I doubt 5-11 versus higher ranked teams is particularly bad, but I don't really know what a normal baseline would be.

    I guess the bigger issue is we've played 16 games against higher ranked teams in the past 5 years.

    Hopefully that number is more like 5-8 in the next 5.
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,839
    digits said:

    dnc said:

    digits said:

    dnc said:

    digits said:

    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.

    Define "more talented team". Because we've beaten plenty of teams under Pete that had more blue chip recruits on their roster or were ranked higher than we were.

    The "more talented" narrative seems to be applied retroactively.
    Basically, I define more talented as what you listed above: Teams with more blue chip recruits on their roster or were ranked higher than we were. Regarding the latter, in 16 games played against higher ranked opponents under Petersen, here are the instances when UW beat a higher ranked team:

    1. 2015 unranked UW @ 17th ranked SC
    2. 2015 unranked UW vs 23rd ranked Wazzu
    3. 2016 10th ranked UW vs 7th Stanford
    4. 2017 15th ranked UW vs 14 ranked Wazzu
    5. 2018 16th ranked UW @ 8th ranked Wazzu
    I doubt 5-11 versus higher ranked teams is particularly bad, but I don't really know what a normal baseline would be.

    I guess the bigger issue is we've played 16 games against higher ranked teams in the past 5 years.

    Hopefully that number is more like 5-8 in the next 5.
    3 out of the 5 games were Wazzu. So, yeah. Don't get me wrong, I think Petersen is the guy, but he hasn't produced many upsets (Sans SC) while @ UW and I don't think that can really be argued.
    No question.
  • Kaepsknee
    Kaepsknee Member Posts: 14,913
    edited June 2019

    I still think, even with average to below-average QB play, they will be a bowl team because they're talented enough and their schedule is (soft enough) to get them eight wins regardless, but Petersen and the staff there have them focused on more

    We've had average to below average QB play the past 2 years and still have played in 2 straight NY6 games.

    You did. But you had a game manager whose main goal was to not turn the ball over. Now you have a gunslinger who will inevitably turn the ball over moar. He will probably throw moar TD's as well.

    In Jack Brownlees 4 years, He did a great job of not putting the defense in bad spots and allowed THEM to play downhill. A risk taking QB will inevitably give up that leverage from time to time.
  • 1to392831weretaken
    1to392831weretaken Member Posts: 7,696
    salemcoog said:

    I still think, even with average to below-average QB play, they will be a bowl team because they're talented enough and their schedule is (soft enough) to get them eight wins regardless, but Petersen and the staff there have them focused on more

    We've had average to below average QB play the past 2 years and still have played in 2 straight NY6 games.

    You did. But you had a game manager whose main goal was to not turn the ball over. Now you have a gunslinger who will inevitably turn the ball over moar. He will probably throw moar TD's as well.

    In Jack Brownlees 4 years, He did a great job of not putting the defense in bad spots and allowed THEM to play downhill. A risk taking QB will inevitably give up that leverage from time to time.
    Jake Browning had a 16:10 TD:INT ratio last season. He also fumbled three times and lost two. That's a 4:3 TD:turnover ratio. Jake Browning famously rarely turned over the ball in the red zone (I believe three in his entire career when you count the Auburn fumble?), so those turnovers were definitely putting the defense in a tough spot. Oh, and there's also the famous Cal Haener action that tacked another pick-six onto the tally (at least that didn't shaft the defense...).

    For comparison, The Stache threw one fewer interception than Browning. And 38 TDs.

    I don't think setting your defense up for success was necessarily Browning's (or ANYONE responsible for that shit offense's) strong suit. I doubt it's any worse this season. What helps your defense the most is keeping them off the field. I'll take Browning's 10 interceptions from Eason if he can couple it with twice the touchdowns and better third down performance.
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,839
    salemcoog said:

    I still think, even with average to below-average QB play, they will be a bowl team because they're talented enough and their schedule is (soft enough) to get them eight wins regardless, but Petersen and the staff there have them focused on more

    We've had average to below average QB play the past 2 years and still have played in 2 straight NY6 games.

    You did. But you had a game manager whose main goal was to not turn the ball over. Now you have a gunslinger who will inevitably turn the ball over moar. He will probably throw moar TD's as well.
    This would have been a good post after 2016.
  • dhdawg
    dhdawg Member Posts: 13,326

    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.

    Yes, we're losing 3-4 games with a garbage OOC and all but 1 tough conference game at home.

    Anything less than winning the north is unacceptable
  • FremontTroll
    FremontTroll Member Posts: 4,744
    digits said:

    dnc said:

    digits said:

    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.

    Define "more talented team". Because we've beaten plenty of teams under Pete that had more blue chip recruits on their roster or were ranked higher than we were.

    The "more talented" narrative seems to be applied retroactively.
    Basically, I define more talented as what you listed above: Teams with more blue chip recruits on their roster or were ranked higher than we were. Regarding the latter, in 16 games played against higher ranked opponents under Petersen, here are the instances when UW beat a higher ranked team:

    1. 2015 unranked UW @ 17th ranked SC
    2. 2015 unranked UW vs 23rd ranked Wazzu
    3. 2016 10th ranked UW vs 7th Stanford
    4. 2017 15th ranked UW vs 14 ranked Wazzu
    5. 2018 16th ranked UW @ 8th ranked Wazzu
    Who cares about polls.

    UW was favored in 3 of those 5 games. And by A LOT in 2015 and 2017 vs. WSU.

    2017 WSU: -10
    2015 WSU: -7.5
    2016 Stanford: -3.5

    2018 UW somehow closed at +3 @ WSU so that was technically an upset although I doubt any of us were surprised at the outcome.

    2015 USC the only big upset (more than +3 underdog) CP has pulled.

    2016 Stanford the only example of bulldozing a team with superior talent (by blue chips) although we were at home and favored.

    Granted we haven't had many opportunities as an underdog the last three years but overall CP is 3-13 as an underdog at UW. The third win in addition to 2015 USC and 2018 WSU was 2014 vs. Cal.

    So yeah.