We are fucked no matter what EASON does
Comments
-
By November 2000 I remember we were averaging something like 275 yards rushing a game. (during that stretch of time)PurpleJ said:Only GOOD oline I remember was 2000, and I was but a young pup so I don’t remember a whole lot other than they handled Miami. Good enough for me (and @creepycoug
))))
I get to see plenty of great DAWG lines play for my TIDE, though. Like the other smart guys said, good DAWG lines kick your ass when it counts even if they are facing a GOOD d line that fills sleeves and makes you say aweee.
This was evident after Cal when Weaver didn’t get punched in the throat repeatedly. -
RaceBannon said:
They aren't goodRoadDawg55 said:
Eason doesn’t get sacked much. They aren’t bad at all. Pretty far down the list of problems.RaceBannon said:A lot of posters here have never seen a good O line at UW
This isn't one
When you have Skinny doing the Browning you don't have good pass pro
I like to call it pass pro
And they get stuffed on short yardage and when it counts.
And they suck in the red zone
A good O line does what Oregon did and our last drive rams our purple cocks down their flat faced bills
Not getting to 3rd and 23
We were fine in short yardage until Newton got hurt. We suck in the red zone for a lot of reasons. OL is one of them, sure.
At all
Disagree.
Playing the smurfs together hurt the offense big time and made the OL look bad. The WRs couldn't get open; Eason had no one to throw to and held the ball too long making him vulnerable for sacks on blitzes. Knowing our WRs sucked, defenses loaded up the box and limited our run game.
As soon as the offense began using Puka in the second half of the AZ game the offense and the line have been nails. They've scored 69 points the last four quarters --46 ppg average--the majority against Oregon one of the top defenses in the country without Dick and McGrew. During this span, the OL has allowed only 1 sack.
Excluding Kamaris wildcat guffaws and Eason's lost fumble, the offense generated more yards than Oregon.
It sucks Peterman and crue waited on using the younger WRs but I like where the Offense and the OL are right now.
-
Disagree
-
The o-line is good, not great. The running game sucks because of play-calling and lack of talented running backs. Eason gets sacked because nobody's fucking open to throw most of the time, because of the no-talent WRs and shitty play design.
-
Wow. Logic and insight. Unexpected from this place.Baseman said:RaceBannon said:
They aren't goodRoadDawg55 said:
Eason doesn’t get sacked much. They aren’t bad at all. Pretty far down the list of problems.RaceBannon said:A lot of posters here have never seen a good O line at UW
This isn't one
When you have Skinny doing the Browning you don't have good pass pro
I like to call it pass pro
And they get stuffed on short yardage and when it counts.
And they suck in the red zone
A good O line does what Oregon did and our last drive rams our purple cocks down their flat faced bills
Not getting to 3rd and 23
We were fine in short yardage until Newton got hurt. We suck in the red zone for a lot of reasons. OL is one of them, sure.
At all
Disagree.
Playing the smurfs together hurt the offense big time and made the OL look bad. The WRs couldn't get open; Eason had no one to throw to and held the ball too long making him vulnerable for sacks on blitzes. Knowing our WRs sucked, defenses loaded up the box and limited our run game.
As soon as the offense began using Puka in the second half of the AZ game the offense and the line have been nails. They've scored 69 points the last four quarters --46 ppg average--the majority against Oregon one of the top defenses in the country without Dick and McGrew. During this span, the OL has allowed only 1 sack.
Excluding Kamaris wildcat guffaws and Eason's lost fumble, the offense generated more yards than Oregon.
It sucks Peterman and crue waited on using the younger WRs but I like where the Offense and the OL are right now. -
So excluding the negative plays, they played well. lolBaseman said:Disagree.
Playing the smurfs together hurt the offense big time and made the OL look bad. The WRs couldn't get open; Eason had no one to throw to and held the ball too long making him vulnerable for sacks on blitzes. Knowing our WRs sucked, defenses loaded up the box and limited our run game.
As soon as the offense began using Puka in the second half of the AZ game the offense and the line have been nails. They've scored 69 points the last four quarters --46 ppg average--the majority against Oregon one of the top defenses in the country without Dick and McGrew. During this span, the OL has allowed only 1 sack.
Excluding Kamaris wildcat guffaws and Eason's lost fumble, the offense generated more yards than Oregon.
It sucks Peterman and crue waited on using the younger WRs but I like where the Offense and the OL are right now. -
With Tui running the option.DerekJohnson said:
By November 2000 I remember we were averaging something like 275 yards rushing a game. (during that stretch of time)PurpleJ said:Only GOOD oline I remember was 2000, and I was but a young pup so I don’t remember a whole lot other than they handled Miami. Good enough for me (and @creepycoug
))))
I get to see plenty of great DAWG lines play for my TIDE, though. Like the other smart guys said, good DAWG lines kick your ass when it counts even if they are facing a GOOD d line that fills sleeves and makes you say aweee.
This was evident after Cal when Weaver didn’t get punched in the throat repeatedly.
-
We are tied for second in the conference with Oregon in offensive points scored and allow fewer sacks per game than the Ducks.
With the offensive changes, we will end the year with the best offense in the conference.
Unfortunately Pete's tardedness --sticking with Fuller and Baciella, keeping Gregory after 2017 -- have fucked the season.
-
Consider that Eason is also pretty immobile, especially relative to a guy like Herbert, and our pass protection has been fantastic this year. Our run game has also been very above average, even if there have been a few fuck-ups at extremely inopportune moments. The OL is good and only looking to get better with the way we've recruited these last two years. It's probably the unit I'm least concerned about, including DBs.Baseman said:We are tied for second in the conference with Oregon in offensive points scored and allow fewer sacks per game than the Ducks.
With the offensive changes, we will end the year with the best offense in the conference.
Unfortunately Pete's tardedness --sticking with Fuller and Baciella, keeping Gregory after 2017 -- have fucked the season. -
Dude harris is like our best OL, wtf are you talking about.backthepack said:He’s working with a 6 foot 310 lb center. Hilbers who he has actually turned into a decent player. Trey who has a fucked back. Wattenberg has improved. Jaws has been good s/o Huff.
It’s hard when you don’t have a lot of talent to work with. But he’s done a good with the limited talent + injuries he’s had. -
If you want to call 2.78 yds. per carry "handling", then OK! Imagine what it would have been w/o Rich Alexis' 2 two big runs.PurpleJ said:Only GOOD oline I remember was 2000, and I was but a young pup so I don’t remember a whole lot other than they handled Miami. Good enough for me (and @creepycoug
))))
I get to see plenty of great DAWG lines play for my TIDE, though. Like the other smart guys said, good DAWG lines kick your ass when it counts even if they are facing a GOOD d line that fills sleeves and makes you say aweee.
This was evident after Cal when Weaver didn’t get punched in the throat repeatedly.
Such fag, J. Such fag.
I do, however, agree that Washington Damnit! could use an old school Husky lineman. One of the grumpy nasty fuckers like a Kreutz or a Frank Garcia. Guys who other players on the team are legitimately afraid of pissing off. -
What is more sad, that it took pete 2 loses to realize I need to play my WR even though they will fuck up because they don’t have the experienceBaseman said:RaceBannon said:
They aren't goodRoadDawg55 said:
Eason doesn’t get sacked much. They aren’t bad at all. Pretty far down the list of problems.RaceBannon said:A lot of posters here have never seen a good O line at UW
This isn't one
When you have Skinny doing the Browning you don't have good pass pro
I like to call it pass pro
And they get stuffed on short yardage and when it counts.
And they suck in the red zone
A good O line does what Oregon did and our last drive rams our purple cocks down their flat faced bills
Not getting to 3rd and 23
We were fine in short yardage until Newton got hurt. We suck in the red zone for a lot of reasons. OL is one of them, sure.
At all
Disagree.
Playing the smurfs together hurt the offense big time and made the OL look bad. The WRs couldn't get open; Eason had no one to throw to and held the ball too long making him vulnerable for sacks on blitzes. Knowing our WRs sucked, defenses loaded up the box and limited our run game.
As soon as the offense began using Puka in the second half of the AZ game the offense and the line have been nails. They've scored 69 points the last four quarters --46 ppg average--the majority against Oregon one of the top defenses in the country without Dick and McGrew. During this span, the OL has allowed only 1 sack.
Excluding Kamaris wildcat guffaws and Eason's lost fumble, the offense generated more yards than Oregon.
It sucks Peterman and crue waited on using the younger WRs but I like where the Offense and the OL are right now. -
That's just lazy, Race.RaceBannon said:Disagree
-
Offensive weakness: WRs. Defensive weakness: LBs.
Other problems in coverage, and tackling are fixable or at least can be improved this year.
Better WRs are already here, but not playing enough.
LBs? This will be a problem for years to come yet. -
The OLine players are fine. They're actually really good. There are at least two, probably three, future NFL starters on the starting line.
The problem isn't that they can't block. The problem is assignment fuckups and the untimely jailbreaks where the entire defensive front aeemingly pours into the backfield unblocked. There are assignments mistakes and unblocked defenders on every short yardage play and every obvious pass play. The blocking only holds up when the play call catches the defense out of position. Thata why Hamdan calls the fucked up game that he calls. Theres no faith that the offense can just line up and win at what it's good at because nobody really knows what that is. -
OTOH, they scored four TDs on the ground.creepycoug said:
If you want to call 2.78 yds. per carry "handling", then OK! Imagine what it would have been w/o Rich Alexis' 2 two big runs.PurpleJ said:Only GOOD oline I remember was 2000, and I was but a young pup so I don’t remember a whole lot other than they handled Miami. Good enough for me (and @creepycoug
))))
I get to see plenty of great DAWG lines play for my TIDE, though. Like the other smart guys said, good DAWG lines kick your ass when it counts even if they are facing a GOOD d line that fills sleeves and makes you say aweee.
This was evident after Cal when Weaver didn’t get punched in the throat repeatedly.
Such fag, J. Such fag.
I do, however, agree that Washington Damnit! could use an old school Husky lineman. One of the grumpy nasty fuckers like a Kreutz or a Frank Garcia. Guys who other players on the team are legitimately afraid of pissing off.
And after you take sacks out it was 3.8 yards per carry. Which isn't great but they ran the ball well enough to rack up 42 rushing attempts. They were moving the chains on the ground.
UW held the ball for 37.28 compared to just 22:32 for da U.
I'd say the purple OL handled their bidness that day. -
Ok, but you can't take sacks out. It's part of the O line's performance.dnc said:
OTOH, they scored four TDs on the ground.creepycoug said:
If you want to call 2.78 yds. per carry "handling", then OK! Imagine what it would have been w/o Rich Alexis' 2 two big runs.PurpleJ said:Only GOOD oline I remember was 2000, and I was but a young pup so I don’t remember a whole lot other than they handled Miami. Good enough for me (and @creepycoug
))))
I get to see plenty of great DAWG lines play for my TIDE, though. Like the other smart guys said, good DAWG lines kick your ass when it counts even if they are facing a GOOD d line that fills sleeves and makes you say aweee.
This was evident after Cal when Weaver didn’t get punched in the throat repeatedly.
Such fag, J. Such fag.
I do, however, agree that Washington Damnit! could use an old school Husky lineman. One of the grumpy nasty fuckers like a Kreutz or a Frank Garcia. Guys who other players on the team are legitimately afraid of pissing off.
And after you take sacks out it was 3.8 yards per carry. Which isn't great but they ran the ball well enough to rack up 42 rushing attempts. They were moving the chains on the ground.
UW held the ball for 37.28 compared to just 22:32 for da U.
I'd say the purple OL handled their bidness that day.
The 2000 team had a good O line. I don't dispute that. I thought at the time that there would be more NFL careers coming out of that group than did, which I've never understood.
Back to the game, the most effective rusher other than Alexis' two runs was Tui, and I'm not sure how much credit goes to the O line. Tui had a great feel for the option that's hard to teach, and at that he was at 3.0 yards per carry.
Both teams had 3 turnovers, which factored into the game as much as anything.
The runner of the day was Clinton Portis, who averaged over 15 yds. per carry on 6 carries. Curiously, "Game Day" Butch didn't play him until well into the second half. He was the best player on the field for either team. -
3 future NFL starters? Where? Adams and who else?chuck said:The OLine players are fine. They're actually really good. There are at least two, probably three, future NFL starters on the starting line.
The problem isn't that they can't block. The problem is assignment fuckups and the untimely jailbreaks where the entire defensive front aeemingly pours into the backfield unblocked. There are assignments mistakes and unblocked defenders on every short yardage play and every obvious pass play. The blocking only holds up when the play call catches the defense out of position. Thata why Hamdan calls the fucked up game that he calls. Theres no faith that the offense can just line up and win at what it's good at because nobody really knows what that is. -
I've said many times that if Portis played all game we looser.creepycoug said:
Ok, but you can't take sacks out. It's part of the O line's performance.dnc said:
OTOH, they scored four TDs on the ground.creepycoug said:
If you want to call 2.78 yds. per carry "handling", then OK! Imagine what it would have been w/o Rich Alexis' 2 two big runs.PurpleJ said:Only GOOD oline I remember was 2000, and I was but a young pup so I don’t remember a whole lot other than they handled Miami. Good enough for me (and @creepycoug
))))
I get to see plenty of great DAWG lines play for my TIDE, though. Like the other smart guys said, good DAWG lines kick your ass when it counts even if they are facing a GOOD d line that fills sleeves and makes you say aweee.
This was evident after Cal when Weaver didn’t get punched in the throat repeatedly.
Such fag, J. Such fag.
I do, however, agree that Washington Damnit! could use an old school Husky lineman. One of the grumpy nasty fuckers like a Kreutz or a Frank Garcia. Guys who other players on the team are legitimately afraid of pissing off.
And after you take sacks out it was 3.8 yards per carry. Which isn't great but they ran the ball well enough to rack up 42 rushing attempts. They were moving the chains on the ground.
UW held the ball for 37.28 compared to just 22:32 for da U.
I'd say the purple OL handled their bidness that day.
The 2000 team had a good O line. I don't dispute that. I thought at the time that there would be more NFL careers coming out of that group than did, which I've never understood.
Back to the game, the most effective rusher other than Alexis' two runs was Tui, and I'm not sure how much credit goes to the O line. Tui had a great feel for the option that's hard to teach, and at that he was at 3.0 yards per carry.
Both teams had 3 turnovers, which factored into the game as much as anything.
The runner of the day was Clinton Portis, who averaged over 15 yds. per carry on 6 carries. Curiously, "Game Day" Butch didn't play him until well into the second half. He was the best player on the field for either team.
Thankfully, he didn't.
Sacks are more about the QB than they are on the OL, btw. -
Often, yes. For Tui, my recollection is seldom. I don't pretend to remember the specifics of the sacks on him that day. But he was no Browning that's for sure.dnc said:
I've said many times that if Portis played all game we looser.creepycoug said:
Ok, but you can't take sacks out. It's part of the O line's performance.dnc said:
OTOH, they scored four TDs on the ground.creepycoug said:
If you want to call 2.78 yds. per carry "handling", then OK! Imagine what it would have been w/o Rich Alexis' 2 two big runs.PurpleJ said:Only GOOD oline I remember was 2000, and I was but a young pup so I don’t remember a whole lot other than they handled Miami. Good enough for me (and @creepycoug
))))
I get to see plenty of great DAWG lines play for my TIDE, though. Like the other smart guys said, good DAWG lines kick your ass when it counts even if they are facing a GOOD d line that fills sleeves and makes you say aweee.
This was evident after Cal when Weaver didn’t get punched in the throat repeatedly.
Such fag, J. Such fag.
I do, however, agree that Washington Damnit! could use an old school Husky lineman. One of the grumpy nasty fuckers like a Kreutz or a Frank Garcia. Guys who other players on the team are legitimately afraid of pissing off.
And after you take sacks out it was 3.8 yards per carry. Which isn't great but they ran the ball well enough to rack up 42 rushing attempts. They were moving the chains on the ground.
UW held the ball for 37.28 compared to just 22:32 for da U.
I'd say the purple OL handled their bidness that day.
The 2000 team had a good O line. I don't dispute that. I thought at the time that there would be more NFL careers coming out of that group than did, which I've never understood.
Back to the game, the most effective rusher other than Alexis' two runs was Tui, and I'm not sure how much credit goes to the O line. Tui had a great feel for the option that's hard to teach, and at that he was at 3.0 yards per carry.
Both teams had 3 turnovers, which factored into the game as much as anything.
The runner of the day was Clinton Portis, who averaged over 15 yds. per carry on 6 carries. Curiously, "Game Day" Butch didn't play him until well into the second half. He was the best player on the field for either team.
Thankfully, he didn't.
Sacks are more about the QB than they are on the OL, btw.
-
Agreed. Too many unblocked defenders in the backfield or making tackles for no-gain.chuck said:The OLine players are fine. They're actually really good. There are at least two, probably three, future NFL starters on the starting line.
The problem isn't that they can't block. The problem is assignment fuckups and the untimely jailbreaks where the entire defensive front aeemingly pours into the backfield unblocked. There are assignments mistakes and unblocked defenders on every short yardage play and every obvious pass play. The blocking only holds up when the play call catches the defense out of position. Thata why Hamdan calls the fucked up game that he calls. Theres no faith that the offense can just line up and win at what it's good at because nobody really knows what that is.
The curse of Beta Football. -
Tui was like Russ, he wanted to make something magical happen on every play and oftentimes held onto the ball longer than he should have in hopes of doing so.creepycoug said:
Often, yes. For Tui, my recollection is seldom. I don't pretend to remember the specifics of the sacks on him that day. But he was no Browning that's for sure.dnc said:
I've said many times that if Portis played all game we looser.creepycoug said:
Ok, but you can't take sacks out. It's part of the O line's performance.dnc said:
OTOH, they scored four TDs on the ground.creepycoug said:
If you want to call 2.78 yds. per carry "handling", then OK! Imagine what it would have been w/o Rich Alexis' 2 two big runs.PurpleJ said:Only GOOD oline I remember was 2000, and I was but a young pup so I don’t remember a whole lot other than they handled Miami. Good enough for me (and @creepycoug
))))
I get to see plenty of great DAWG lines play for my TIDE, though. Like the other smart guys said, good DAWG lines kick your ass when it counts even if they are facing a GOOD d line that fills sleeves and makes you say aweee.
This was evident after Cal when Weaver didn’t get punched in the throat repeatedly.
Such fag, J. Such fag.
I do, however, agree that Washington Damnit! could use an old school Husky lineman. One of the grumpy nasty fuckers like a Kreutz or a Frank Garcia. Guys who other players on the team are legitimately afraid of pissing off.
And after you take sacks out it was 3.8 yards per carry. Which isn't great but they ran the ball well enough to rack up 42 rushing attempts. They were moving the chains on the ground.
UW held the ball for 37.28 compared to just 22:32 for da U.
I'd say the purple OL handled their bidness that day.
The 2000 team had a good O line. I don't dispute that. I thought at the time that there would be more NFL careers coming out of that group than did, which I've never understood.
Back to the game, the most effective rusher other than Alexis' two runs was Tui, and I'm not sure how much credit goes to the O line. Tui had a great feel for the option that's hard to teach, and at that he was at 3.0 yards per carry.
Both teams had 3 turnovers, which factored into the game as much as anything.
The runner of the day was Clinton Portis, who averaged over 15 yds. per carry on 6 carries. Curiously, "Game Day" Butch didn't play him until well into the second half. He was the best player on the field for either team.
Thankfully, he didn't.
Sacks are more about the QB than they are on the OL, btw.
I love them both but they both take more sacks than an average QB would in the same situations.
They also manufacture more big plays.
It's a tradeoff. -
Thanks, pup. . .MikeDamone said:
It’’s almost like someone was saying this back in the summer. Who’s was that? Oh yeah, ME
-
You guys are having selective memories. This OL is probably better than 2000.
Ward was a better guard than anyone we have. Other than that, we are better at every other spot.
Adams > Silvers
Kirkland > Fraze & and Dom Daste
Harris > Benn
Hilbers > Wes Call
The 2000 team ran the ball more and also had a running QB while this team has a pocket passer.
2000 team is much better because they won a Rose Bowl and popped off. However, they were a team that did more with less. They were tough and clutch when it counted and Pete’s teams have been the opposite of that. -
Starters?chuck said:The OLine players are fine. They're actually really good. There are at least two, probably three, future NFL starters on the starting line.
The problem isn't that they can't block. The problem is assignment fuckups and the untimely jailbreaks where the entire defensive front aeemingly pours into the backfield unblocked. There are assignments mistakes and unblocked defenders on every short yardage play and every obvious pass play. The blocking only holds up when the play call catches the defense out of position. Thata why Hamdan calls the fucked up game that he calls. Theres no faith that the offense can just line up and win at what it's good at because nobody really knows what that is.
-
creepycoug said:
Starters?chuck said:The OLine players are fine. They're actually really good. There are at least two, probably three, future NFL starters on the starting line.
The problem isn't that they can't block. The problem is assignment fuckups and the untimely jailbreaks where the entire defensive front aeemingly pours into the backfield unblocked. There are assignments mistakes and unblocked defenders on every short yardage play and every obvious pass play. The blocking only holds up when the play call catches the defense out of position. Thata why Hamdan calls the fucked up game that he calls. Theres no faith that the offense can just line up and win at what it's good at because nobody really knows what that is.
-
Seeing a lot of excuses for poor line play and if you take out all the other teams good plays we were right there posts.
Not a great O line at all. Barely good if I want to be generous.
Winners win and grind the opposition to the dust. Losers have great reasons why we didn't
Lather rinse repeat -
And another take away anything good the opponent did and we were great postcreepycoug said:
If you want to call 2.78 yds. per carry "handling", then OK! Imagine what it would have been w/o Rich Alexis' 2 two big runs.PurpleJ said:Only GOOD oline I remember was 2000, and I was but a young pup so I don’t remember a whole lot other than they handled Miami. Good enough for me (and @creepycoug
))))
I get to see plenty of great DAWG lines play for my TIDE, though. Like the other smart guys said, good DAWG lines kick your ass when it counts even if they are facing a GOOD d line that fills sleeves and makes you say aweee.
This was evident after Cal when Weaver didn’t get punched in the throat repeatedly.
Such fag, J. Such fag.
I do, however, agree that Washington Damnit! could use an old school Husky lineman. One of the grumpy nasty fuckers like a Kreutz or a Frank Garcia. Guys who other players on the team are legitimately afraid of pissing off.
Take away 65 points in 2001 and UW takes that game to over time -
The guys that won are better than the losersRoadDawg55 said:You guys are having selective memories. This OL is probably better than 2000.
Ward was a better guard than anyone we have. Other than that, we are better at every other spot.
Adams > Silvers
Kirkland > Fraze & and Dom Daste
Harris > Benn
Hilbers > Wes Call
The 2000 team ran the ball more and also had a running QB while this team has a pocket passer.
2000 team is much better because they won a Rose Bowl and popped off. However, they were a team that did more with less. They were tough and clutch when it counted and Pete’s teams have been the opposite of that.
Who cares about anything else.
Dom Daste is the toughest player of my lifetime
Stars don't measure that -
We don’t have a bad OL. I’ve seen a lot of bad OL’s. This ain’t one of them.RaceBannon said:Seeing a lot of excuses for poor line play and if you take out all the other teams good plays we were right there posts.
Not a great O line at all. Barely good if I want to be generous.
Winners win and grind the opposition to the dust. Losers have great reasons why we didn't
Lather rinse repeat
