Coaches and Scouts view on UW
Comments
-
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 said:It’s a talent problem not a scheme problem.
The problem we had against SC in 2016 was situational playcalling tho. -
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?dawgs206 said:
Have you seen our offense?backthepack said:It’s a talent problem not a scheme problem.
The problem we had against SC in 2016 was situational playcalling tho. -
I’m also not a doogYellowSnow said:
Jeezus Damone, you sound like fucking Pumpeii.MikeDamone said: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.
-
I chinned it cause I love shots at these guys but I'm guessing Huffman. It's one of the western regional guys.RoadDawg55 said:This was written by Eklund. All of them are written by the team 247 scouts. There aren’t real scouts doing this stuff.
"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. -
Looks like @EwaDawg has me off ignore.creepycoug said:
Exactly. I've wondered the same.RoadDawg55 said:
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?FremontTroll said:
No fucking way. This is a lifetime of thoughts for Eklund.RoadDawg55 said:This was written by Eklund. All of them are written by the team 247 scouts. There aren’t real scouts doing this stuff.
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.
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.
Welcome back dumb fuck. -
Pretty sure these were from talking to NFL scouts and national writers. Local reporters and coaches don't say shit like that.
-
Scouts think we will make a bowl game regardless of QB play. That take is hotter than two rats fucking in a wool sock.
-
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.
-
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.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.
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.dnc said:
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.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.
The "more talented" narrative seems to be applied retroactively.
-
A lot of good takes in here.
I think the team is going to struggle early on in the year as the offense/Eason get going and the defense breaks in a bunch of new starters.
I'm curious to see our run game, because Salvon can't run between the tackles, but at the same time teams can't play 10 in the box because we have a QB that can throw the ball more than 15 yards now. Our pass offense can't help but be more explosive with Skinny's arm and a healthy Bryant. Its on Pete and Hamdan to push the playcalling forward and play to our stengths too.
Our D is going to be insane by the end of the year, but early on I think we will give up more big plays than in years past, especially in the run game. God help us if Wellington gets hurt.
If you look at Bill Connelly's stats, they show just how bland we have been over the past 2 years; methodical but not explosive. That's a recipe to beat dreck Pac-12 teams but look overmatched against quality competition. I'm anxious for us to take the next step. -
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:dnc said:
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.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.
The "more talented" narrative seems to be applied retroactively.
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.digits said:
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:dnc said:
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.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.
The "more talented" narrative seems to be applied retroactively.
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 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.dnc said:
I doubt 5-11 versus higher ranked teams is particularly bad, but I don't really know what a normal baseline would be.digits said:
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:dnc said:
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.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.
The "more talented" narrative seems to be applied retroactively.
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 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. -
No question.digits said:
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.dnc said:
I doubt 5-11 versus higher ranked teams is particularly bad, but I don't really know what a normal baseline would be.digits said:
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:dnc said:
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.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.
The "more talented" narrative seems to be applied retroactively.
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 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. -
The line about methodical but not explosive reminds me of how our? defense plays. We? make offenses work their way down the field a little bit at a time while increasing the potential for the D to create turnovers. If we? can’t create explosive plays on offense with Skinny, we’ll? never do it running Petermen’s offense.Woof said:A lot of good takes in here.
I think the team is going to struggle early on in the year as the offense/Eason get going and the defense breaks in a bunch of new starters.
I'm curious to see our run game, because Salvon can't run between the tackles, but at the same time teams can't play 10 in the box because we have a QB that can throw the ball more than 15 yards now. Our pass offense can't help but be more explosive with Skinny's arm and a healthy Bryant. Its on Pete and Hamdan to push the playcalling forward and play to our stengths too.
Our D is going to be insane by the end of the year, but early on I think we will give up more big plays than in years past, especially in the run game. God help us if Wellington gets hurt.
If you look at Bill Connelly's stats, they show just how bland we have been over the past 2 years; methodical but not explosive. That's a recipe to beat dreck Pac-12 teams but look overmatched against quality competition. I'm anxious for us to take the next step. -
Yes, it's true for both O and D. Unfortunately we didn't force a lot of turnovers on D last year. That led to a lot of 8 play 31 yard drives that end in a punt for both offense and defense. I can see why neutral observers think we are a boring team to watch.CFetters_Nacho_Lover said:
The line about methodical but not explosive reminds me of how our? defense plays. We? make offenses work their way down the field a little bit at a time while increasing the potential for the D to create turnovers. If we? can’t create explosive plays on offense with Skinny, we’ll? never do it running Petermen’s offense.Woof said:A lot of good takes in here.
I think the team is going to struggle early on in the year as the offense/Eason get going and the defense breaks in a bunch of new starters.
I'm curious to see our run game, because Salvon can't run between the tackles, but at the same time teams can't play 10 in the box because we have a QB that can throw the ball more than 15 yards now. Our pass offense can't help but be more explosive with Skinny's arm and a healthy Bryant. Its on Pete and Hamdan to push the playcalling forward and play to our stengths too.
Our D is going to be insane by the end of the year, but early on I think we will give up more big plays than in years past, especially in the run game. God help us if Wellington gets hurt.
If you look at Bill Connelly's stats, they show just how bland we have been over the past 2 years; methodical but not explosive. That's a recipe to beat dreck Pac-12 teams but look overmatched against quality competition. I'm anxious for us to take the next step.
This is the beginning of the third era of UW football under Pete. We started with Sark's guys, then did Boise 2.0, and now we are combining great scheme and coaching with superior athletes virtually across the board. This should be a recipe for dominating the Pac, but QB play and youth are the question marks right now. -
Bread said:
Pretty sure these were from talking to NFL scouts and national writers. Local reporters and coaches don't say shit like that.
It's hard to upset teams when you're the favorite (especially the last 3 years)... UW has essentially entered the lovely territory of most wins = who cares, you should've won, every loss = seppuku is less painfuldigits said:
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.dnc said:
I doubt 5-11 versus higher ranked teams is particularly bad, but I don't really know what a normal baseline would be.digits said:
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:dnc said:
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.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.
The "more talented" narrative seems to be applied retroactively.
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 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. -
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.YellowSnow 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.
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...).salemcoog said:
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.YellowSnow 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.
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.
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. -
This would have been a good post after 2016.salemcoog said:
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.YellowSnow 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.
-
Yes, we're losing 3-4 games with a garbage OOC and all but 1 tough conference game at home.MikeDamone said: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.
Anything less than winning the north is unacceptable -
Yeah Browning stopped being good at limiting mistakes. He became largely mediocre at everything.1to392831weretaken said:
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...).salemcoog said:
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.YellowSnow 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.
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.
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.
You also have to consider the ridiculous sacks he was taking. Those were basically turnovers -
That's the thing. Ty probably played 48 games against higher ranked teamsdnc said:
I doubt 5-11 versus higher ranked teams is particularly bad, but I don't really know what a normal baseline would be.digits said:
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:dnc said:
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.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.
The "more talented" narrative seems to be applied retroactively.
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 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.
Its like strength of schedule. The more you suck the tougher your schedule is -
Who cares about polls.digits said:
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:dnc said:
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.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.
The "more talented" narrative seems to be applied retroactively.
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
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.
