The truth must be told.
Comments
-
Flip Browning and Watson as QBs for Clemson/Washington and the 2016 UW team wins that playoff IMO.
Otherwise I agree with overall point. We missed our shot, and now we're hiring Make-A-Wish people for our OC roles. We've become the laughingstock of the conference in a manner of weeks. -
Disagree, the 2016 team was special. It was one offensive lineman and slightly better QB away
-
I like this new nega GladstoneGladstone said:Flip Browning and Watson as QBs for Clemson/Washington and the 2016 UW team wins that playoff IMO.
Otherwise I agree with overall point. We missed our shot, and now we're hiring Make-A-Wish people for our OC roles. We've become the laughingstock of the conference in a manner of weeks. -
So what you're saying is with different players UW had a chance. Makes sense. DAWG sense.Gladstone said:Flip Browning and Watson as QBs for Clemson/Washington and the 2016 UW team wins that playoff IMO.
Otherwise I agree with overall point. We missed our shot, and now we're hiring Make-A-Wish people for our OC roles. We've become the laughingstock of the conference in a manner of weeks. -
Disagree with what? You just said they didn't have the players to contend. That's what I said.FireCohen said:Disagree, the 2016 team was special. It was one offensive lineman and slightly better QB away
-
It’s easier to understand when you take a step back or walk for perspective and observe there is no one in the entire university, AD, or football program who really aspires to be in the playoff or winning a natty
We’ve heard this directly from Cohen and Peterman, but even our hallowed cocky Lake made sure to reference winning a “Pac-12 championship” as more meaningful than landing big recruiting classes. They believe in a natty so little (and believe their fan base doesn’t either) they don’t even blow sunshine up our asses about it -
And if a frog had wings he wouldn’t bump his ass
-
And do it the "right way"DoubleJDawg said:It’s easier to understand when you take a step back or walk for perspective and observe there is no one in the entire university, AD, or football program who really aspires to be in the playoff or winning a natty
We’ve heard this directly from Cohen and Peterman, but even our hallowed cocky Lake made sure to reference winning a “Pac-12 championship” as more meaningful than landing big recruiting classes. They believe in a natty so little (and believe their fan base doesn’t either) they don’t even blow sunshine up our asses about it -
Do it the right way “aggressively”MikeDamone said:
And do it the "right way"DoubleJDawg said:It’s easier to understand when you take a step back or walk for perspective and observe there is no one in the entire university, AD, or football program who really aspires to be in the playoff or winning a natty
We’ve heard this directly from Cohen and Peterman, but even our hallowed cocky Lake made sure to reference winning a “Pac-12 championship” as more meaningful than landing big recruiting classes. They believe in a natty so little (and believe their fan base doesn’t either) they don’t even blow sunshine up our asses about it -
Or just do what it takesDoubleJDawg said:
Do it the right way “aggressively”MikeDamone said:
And do it the "right way"DoubleJDawg said:It’s easier to understand when you take a step back or walk for perspective and observe there is no one in the entire university, AD, or football program who really aspires to be in the playoff or winning a natty
We’ve heard this directly from Cohen and Peterman, but even our hallowed cocky Lake made sure to reference winning a “Pac-12 championship” as more meaningful than landing big recruiting classes. They believe in a natty so little (and believe their fan base doesn’t either) they don’t even blow sunshine up our asses about it -
We are never going to have a full stock of dudes like these teams athletically. We could have a lot of first teamers that fit the bill though. We are going to need a generational talent at an most likely though and it’s possible. Not saying Huard is that guy so don’t twist.
That being said we made a stupid hire at oc so none of this matters. -
So you're agreeing with me.AtomicDawg said:We are never going to have a full stock of dudes like these teams athletically. We could have a lot of first teamers that fit the bill though. We are going to need a generational talent at an most likely though and it’s possible. Not saying Huard is that guy so don’t twist.
That being said we made a stupid hire at oc so none of this matters. -
We could have a defense as good as either of these teams. We nearly did in 2016 and within a couple years we could have a comparable group, especially if we get some better edge pressure (Latu, Smalls, Tryon, etc.). Not quite the depth as has been pointed out.
On the offensive side it's probably a different story. Just because each team has a generational talent at QB plus insane RBs, and WRs.
UW's ceiling is probably getting to this game and losing by 14-17 points. -
I'm not convinced there are enuf coffee cups in the world to make a difference.MikeDamone said:
Or just do what it takesDoubleJDawg said:
Do it the right way “aggressively”MikeDamone said:
And do it the "right way"DoubleJDawg said:It’s easier to understand when you take a step back or walk for perspective and observe there is no one in the entire university, AD, or football program who really aspires to be in the playoff or winning a natty
We’ve heard this directly from Cohen and Peterman, but even our hallowed cocky Lake made sure to reference winning a “Pac-12 championship” as more meaningful than landing big recruiting classes. They believe in a natty so little (and believe their fan base doesn’t either) they don’t even blow sunshine up our asses about it -
We could have a team close to this athletically in our footprint ifMikeDamone said:
So you're agreeing with me.AtomicDawg said:We are never going to have a full stock of dudes like these teams athletically. We could have a lot of first teamers that fit the bill though. We are going to need a generational talent at an most likely though and it’s possible. Not saying Huard is that guy so don’t twist.
That being said we made a stupid hire at oc so none of this matters.
1) We prioritized recruiting AND coaching in all of our position coaches
2) We included transfers in our recruitment strategy - at any position at any time
3) We played the best players based on ability (not practice kiss-ass-ery) regardless of class and let them development- and ran off the shit players to be replaced with new ones
So basically no margin for error, and in other words Damone is right -
McMillian, Odunze, Egbuka and Franklin (if you can get the latter two) would be a receiving core on the level of what you're watching tonight.Kingdome_Urinals said:We could have a defense as good as either of these teams. We nearly did in 2016 and within a couple years we could have a comparable group, especially if we get some better edge pressure (Latu, Smalls, Tryon, etc.). Not quite the depth as has been pointed out.
On the offensive side it's probably a different story. Just because each team has a generational talent at QB plus insane RBs, and WRs.
UW's ceiling is probably getting to this game and losing by 14-17 points.
And we have the potential generational QB coming in.
It's not at all impossible from where we are, especially considering we have actual pass rushers in the depth going forward.
That's why the OC hire was such a disaster. -
"Could. Nearly. Couple of years. Comparable. If. Not quite. Different. Generational. "Kingdome_Urinals said:We could have a defense as good as either of these teams. We nearly did in 2016 and within a couple years we could have a comparable group, especially if we get some better edge pressure (Latu, Smalls, Tryon, etc.). Not quite the depth as has been pointed out.
On the offensive side it's probably a different story. Just because each team has a generational talent at QB plus insane RBs, and WRs.
UW's ceiling is probably getting to this game and losing by 14-17 points.
You serious Clark? -
Each of these defenses tonight are good to give up 40+ points. Nobody is throwing a shutout. UW can give up 40 just as well as anyone.MikeDamone said:
"Could. Nearly. Couple of years. Comparable. If. Not quite. Different. Generational. "Kingdome_Urinals said:We could have a defense as good as either of these teams. We nearly did in 2016 and within a couple years we could have a comparable group, especially if we get some better edge pressure (Latu, Smalls, Tryon, etc.). Not quite the depth as has been pointed out.
On the offensive side it's probably a different story. Just because each team has a generational talent at QB plus insane RBs, and WRs.
UW's ceiling is probably getting to this game and losing by 14-17 points.
You serious Clark? -
We won't have a QB as good as either of these guys however.MikeDamone said:
"Could. Nearly. Couple of years. Comparable. If. Not quite. Different. Generational. "Kingdome_Urinals said:We could have a defense as good as either of these teams. We nearly did in 2016 and within a couple years we could have a comparable group, especially if we get some better edge pressure (Latu, Smalls, Tryon, etc.). Not quite the depth as has been pointed out.
On the offensive side it's probably a different story. Just because each team has a generational talent at QB plus insane RBs, and WRs.
UW's ceiling is probably getting to this game and losing by 14-17 points.
You serious Clark? -
I know you’re not dumb but you like to portray yourself that way for some reason. The logicial conclusion would be to look at clemsons team with Watson. That is attainable and explains the very team that myself and others are describing.AtomicDawg said:We are never going to have a full stock of dudes like these teams athletically. We could have a lot of first teamers that fit the bill though. We are going to need a generational talent at an most likely though and it’s possible. Not saying Huard is that guy so don’t twist.
That being said we made a stupid hire at oc so none of this matters.
Dig deeper. -
Christ.Kingdome_Urinals said:
Each of these defenses tonight are good to give up 40+ points. Nobody is throwing a shutout. UW can give up 40 just as well as anyone.MikeDamone said:
"Could. Nearly. Couple of years. Comparable. If. Not quite. Different. Generational. "Kingdome_Urinals said:We could have a defense as good as either of these teams. We nearly did in 2016 and within a couple years we could have a comparable group, especially if we get some better edge pressure (Latu, Smalls, Tryon, etc.). Not quite the depth as has been pointed out.
On the offensive side it's probably a different story. Just because each team has a generational talent at QB plus insane RBs, and WRs.
UW's ceiling is probably getting to this game and losing by 14-17 points.
You serious Clark?
Doogs gonna doog.
Uw is so far from this level and it's not even close. Hold cal then pop off -
I might go even further as to blaspheme Peterman even more directly and say that Built for Life is antithetical to a real consistent NC contending teamDoubleJDawg said:
We could have a team close to this athletically in our footprint ifMikeDamone said:
So you're agreeing with me.AtomicDawg said:We are never going to have a full stock of dudes like these teams athletically. We could have a lot of first teamers that fit the bill though. We are going to need a generational talent at an most likely though and it’s possible. Not saying Huard is that guy so don’t twist.
That being said we made a stupid hire at oc so none of this matters.
1) We prioritized recruiting AND coaching in all of our position coaches
2) We included transfers in our recruitment strategy - at any position at any time
3) We played the best players based on ability (not practice kiss-ass-ery) regardless of class and let them development- and ran off the shit players to be replaced with new ones
So basically no margin for error, and in other words Damone is right
Built for Life posits that real life is plan A - and at Boise, sure it is as 80-90% of their players will never have a chance to go pro. It also helps to “seal in” crappy players because the program has a mission of producing fine young men and a few pros, and keeping the fine young me in the program is part of the value prop
At a Clemson or LSU you go there to try to go pro - fuck the broader picture
If we were serious about football, we could change built for life by offering exited players external access to that program when they are at Montana State or the like. Maybe peterman could produce some TED talks or podcasts they could access. Both goals could definitely be achieved, if we actually cared about football -
Doesn’t Clemson have a program almost exactly like built for life? It’s just the fun version with a fan base that gives a shit.DoubleJDawg said:
I might go even further as to blaspheme Peterman even more directly and say that Built for Life is antithetical to a real consistent NC contending teamDoubleJDawg said:
We could have a team close to this athletically in our footprint ifMikeDamone said:
So you're agreeing with me.AtomicDawg said:We are never going to have a full stock of dudes like these teams athletically. We could have a lot of first teamers that fit the bill though. We are going to need a generational talent at an most likely though and it’s possible. Not saying Huard is that guy so don’t twist.
That being said we made a stupid hire at oc so none of this matters.
1) We prioritized recruiting AND coaching in all of our position coaches
2) We included transfers in our recruitment strategy - at any position at any time
3) We played the best players based on ability (not practice kiss-ass-ery) regardless of class and let them development- and ran off the shit players to be replaced with new ones
So basically no margin for error, and in other words Damone is right
Built for Life posits that real life is plan A - and at Boise, sure it is as 80-90% of their players will never have a chance to go pro. It also helps to “seal in” crappy players because the program has a mission of producing fine young men and a few pros, and keeping the fine young me in the program is part of the value prop
At a Clemson or LSU you go there to try to go pro - fuck the broader picture
If we were serious about football, we could change built for life by offering exited players external access to that program when they are at Montana State or the like. Maybe peterman could produce some TED talks or podcasts they could access. Both goals could definitely be achieved, if we actually cared about football -
All you do is bitch. I’m sure 90% of husky Twitter is tired of you also. I’m curious what sports or sport you actually played at a high level or if your taking shit from your moms basementMikeDamone said:UW isn't even close to being a national title contender and if they ever are, it probably won't be in our lifetimes. They weren't 2016 either. Not even close.
-
Maybe a built for life that is designed for like 50% of your team (the other 50% is going pro) is a little looser that our built for life designed for the majority of the team Boise styleAtomicDawg said:
Doesn’t Clemson have a program almost exactly like built for life? It’s just the fun version with a fan base that gives a shit.DoubleJDawg said:
I might go even further as to blaspheme Peterman even more directly and say that Built for Life is antithetical to a real consistent NC contending teamDoubleJDawg said:
We could have a team close to this athletically in our footprint ifMikeDamone said:
So you're agreeing with me.AtomicDawg said:We are never going to have a full stock of dudes like these teams athletically. We could have a lot of first teamers that fit the bill though. We are going to need a generational talent at an most likely though and it’s possible. Not saying Huard is that guy so don’t twist.
That being said we made a stupid hire at oc so none of this matters.
1) We prioritized recruiting AND coaching in all of our position coaches
2) We included transfers in our recruitment strategy - at any position at any time
3) We played the best players based on ability (not practice kiss-ass-ery) regardless of class and let them development- and ran off the shit players to be replaced with new ones
So basically no margin for error, and in other words Damone is right
Built for Life posits that real life is plan A - and at Boise, sure it is as 80-90% of their players will never have a chance to go pro. It also helps to “seal in” crappy players because the program has a mission of producing fine young men and a few pros, and keeping the fine young me in the program is part of the value prop
At a Clemson or LSU you go there to try to go pro - fuck the broader picture
If we were serious about football, we could change built for life by offering exited players external access to that program when they are at Montana State or the like. Maybe peterman could produce some TED talks or podcasts they could access. Both goals could definitely be achieved, if we actually cared about football
I’m sure that fun rather than “its the hardest thing you will ever do” as a brand helps
I’m fairly certain a Kyler Manu and an Opera Singer would have been counseled on at Clemson too
Shrug - dunno -
Just a couple more OKGs guys. Almost there. Trust me.
-
Dabo does the same thing only fun. He also throws a ton of religion into it too.DoubleJDawg said:
Maybe a built for life that is designed for like 50% of your team (the other 50% is going pro) is a little looser that our built for life designed for the majority of the team Boise styleAtomicDawg said:
Doesn’t Clemson have a program almost exactly like built for life? It’s just the fun version with a fan base that gives a shit.DoubleJDawg said:
I might go even further as to blaspheme Peterman even more directly and say that Built for Life is antithetical to a real consistent NC contending teamDoubleJDawg said:
We could have a team close to this athletically in our footprint ifMikeDamone said:
So you're agreeing with me.AtomicDawg said:We are never going to have a full stock of dudes like these teams athletically. We could have a lot of first teamers that fit the bill though. We are going to need a generational talent at an most likely though and it’s possible. Not saying Huard is that guy so don’t twist.
That being said we made a stupid hire at oc so none of this matters.
1) We prioritized recruiting AND coaching in all of our position coaches
2) We included transfers in our recruitment strategy - at any position at any time
3) We played the best players based on ability (not practice kiss-ass-ery) regardless of class and let them development- and ran off the shit players to be replaced with new ones
So basically no margin for error, and in other words Damone is right
Built for Life posits that real life is plan A - and at Boise, sure it is as 80-90% of their players will never have a chance to go pro. It also helps to “seal in” crappy players because the program has a mission of producing fine young men and a few pros, and keeping the fine young me in the program is part of the value prop
At a Clemson or LSU you go there to try to go pro - fuck the broader picture
If we were serious about football, we could change built for life by offering exited players external access to that program when they are at Montana State or the like. Maybe peterman could produce some TED talks or podcasts they could access. Both goals could definitely be achieved, if we actually cared about football
I’m sure that fun rather than “its the hardest thing you will ever do” as a brand helps
I’m fairly certain a Kyler Manu and an Opera Singer would have been counseled on at Clemson too
Shrug - dunno
The big difference is they try to win the games where our genius staff thinks it’s more of a bi product of the system. All hail the system. I thought jimmy was going to understand this and correct it. Problem seems to be that he thinks he is smarter than everyone. Hope he is. But I doubt it.
-
UW’s formula is a veteran team on the lines with an amazing QB. A natty run will never happen without it. Need a generational QB to bridge the gap. Huard could be that. He’s the doog hope.AtomicDawg said:We are never going to have a full stock of dudes like these teams athletically. We could have a lot of first teamers that fit the bill though. We are going to need a generational talent at an most likely though and it’s possible. Not saying Huard is that guy so don’t twist.
That being said we made a stupid hire at oc so none of this matters. -
Today? No. Not close.MikeDamone said:UW isn't even close to being a national title contender and if they ever are, it probably won't be in our lifetimes. They weren't 2016 either. Not even close.
But a year ago? UW and LSU would have been evenly matched. UW may have been a hair better.
The point? LSU got a lot better in a hurry. It can be done. -
Lol. LSU got better. UW got worse. That's my point. It can be done, but not here.TTJ said:
Today? No. Not close.MikeDamone said:UW isn't even close to being a national title contender and if they ever are, it probably won't be in our lifetimes. They weren't 2016 either. Not even close.
But a year ago? UW and LSU would have been evenly matched. UW may have been a hair better.
The point? LSU got a lot better in a hurry. It can be done.
Hth
