Way Too Fucking Early Schedule Breakdown
Eastern Washington: WIN (2-0)
Illinois: WIN (3-0)
Georgia State: WIN (4-0)
Stanford: WIN (5-0)
BYE
@ California: WIN (6-0)
@ Oregon: LOSS (6-1)
Arizona State: WIN (7-1)
@ Colorado: WIN (8-1)
UCLA: LOSS (8-2)
@ Arizona: WIN (9-2)
Oregon State: WIN (10-2)
@ Washington State: WIN (11-2)
Have at it. I think that record could get us in the Rose Bowl if others falter a bit.
Comments
-
-
That would be pretty fucking great. Could see either ASU/AU being a loss.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:@ Hawai'i: WIN (1-0)
Eastern Washington: WIN (2-0)
Illinois: WIN (3-0)
Georgia State: WIN (4-0)
Stanford: WIN (5-0)
BYE
@ California: WIN (6-0)
@ Oregon: LOSS (6-1)
Arizona State: WIN (7-1)
@ Colorado: WIN (8-1)
UCLA: LOSS (8-2)
@ Arizona: WIN (9-2)
Oregon State: WIN (10-2)
@ Washington State: WIN (11-2)
Have at it. I think that record could get us in the Rose Bowl if others falter a bit. -
I agree, kinda. I know that UA kinda sorta doesn't have a QB right now. And ASU lost a TON of players, especially on defense. Should be interesting, or not, either way.... you get it.
Also, I am REALLY excited for Oregon vs. Michigan State. That should be a great early game.GrundleStiltzkin said:
That would be pretty fucking great. Could see either ASU/AU being a loss.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:@ Hawai'i: WIN (1-0)
Eastern Washington: WIN (2-0)
Illinois: WIN (3-0)
Georgia State: WIN (4-0)
Stanford: WIN (5-0)
BYE
@ California: WIN (6-0)
@ Oregon: LOSS (6-1)
Arizona State: WIN (7-1)
@ Colorado: WIN (8-1)
UCLA: LOSS (8-2)
@ Arizona: WIN (9-2)
Oregon State: WIN (10-2)
@ Washington State: WIN (11-2)
Have at it. I think that record could get us in the Rose Bowl if others falter a bit. -
The schedule looks pretty easy. On par with the last couple Sark years. And it doesn't have any obvious 3 loss streak in it.
How good the team will be? I trust Peterman but the question mark at QB makes it impossible to do any prediction. -
I think we beat UCLA. @ARI scares me more.
-
Oregon is the only sure loss. UCLA and Stanford will be tough, but they are at home. At Arizona and at WSU will be tough games. I guarantee we win at least 9. 10 or 11 is probably most likely. The schedule is set up well with the home/road match ups.
-
With an unknown QB situation I can't predict an 11-2 record with confidence. With this schedule I think 9-10 wins is a reasonable expectation though.
The road to the Rose Bowl goes through Eugene. I doubt we win the north without beating them. -
Damn your 53 seconds.The_Undertaker said:The schedule looks pretty easy. On par with the last couple Sark years. And it doesn't have any obvious 3 loss streak in it.
How good the team will be? I trust Peterman but the question mark at QB makes it impossible to do any prediction. -
that's the appropriate expectation according to PL_SSFSTheGlove said:7-6
-
We won't win the North if we don't beat Stanford AND Oregon.
For the first time in a long time, we have an advantage playing Oregon this year. In the lead up to the game Oregon plays Michigan St (very physical team) and @ UCLA the week before playing us. It's very possible that Oregon could have two losses heading into the game with the UW.
I don't think that we lose at home to UCLA. We should have beat them last year.
I think it's very possible that we may have a let down game at Arizona.
There's not a game on this schedule that does not set up well for us to have a chance to win. -
The O/U is still 5
-
Impossible to do any prediction? What the fuck? That might be one of the all time dumbest things I have ever heard. Since when do you need certainly to attempt to predict anything.The_Undertaker said:The schedule looks pretty easy. On par with the last couple Sark years. And it doesn't have any obvious 3 loss streak in it.
How good the team will be? I trust Peterman but the question mark at QB makes it impossible to do any prediction. -
I would like to think IF we have a quality coach now that "guranteed loss" isn't in the vocabulary.RoadDawg55 said:Oregon is the only sure loss. UCLA and Stanford will be tough, but they are at home. At Arizona and at WSU will be tough games. I guarantee we win at least 9. 10 or 11 is probably most likely. The schedule is set up well with the home/road match ups.
-
11-2 is AWESOME. Just ask Marty.
-
I think 10-3. Lose at Oregon , lose to ucla at home and drop either AZ or WSU on the road.
-
Why is everyone so quick to mark a W for the Stanford game? Because they lost Skov, Gardner, and Murphy? That's still going to be a tough game.
-
We should have beat UCLA? Dude they were up by 17 in the 4th quarter. If we played last season over again with Petersen as coach then maybe we do win.Tequilla said:We won't win the North if we don't beat Stanford AND Oregon.
For the first time in a long time, we have an advantage playing Oregon this year. In the lead up to the game Oregon plays Michigan St (very physical team) and @ UCLA the week before playing us. It's very possible that Oregon could have two losses heading into the game with the UW.
I don't think that we lose at home to UCLA. We should have beat them last year.
I think it's very possible that we may have a let down game at Arizona.
There's not a game on this schedule that does not set up well for us to have a chance to win.
As far as other points, ASU loses like 10 starters on defense plus Marion Grice who did everything for them. He was out the last two games which they lost. ASU will be mediocre.
I'm not sure about Arizona...their D was improved but they lose a few guys. Denker improved greatly after the horrid start but hes gone along with Carey. Austin Hill returns from injury and they have some talented recruits vying for QB.
No idea about WSU. We could lose if we are not playing for anything important.
Basically last season we won every game we should...had no upset wins (Sark had at least 1 every other year) and lost the 50-50 games to ASU (and maybe UCLA).
Oregon would be the only game that would qualify as an upset win. Stanford, UCLA and Arizona could be the 50-50 games.
If QB play and DB play are not worse than last season then I'd think, realistically we could go 11-2. OL will improve and the front 7 will be better as well. -
They also lost their top 2 running backs, and 4 starters on the OL (I know they have recruited like crazy on the OL, but that is still a significant number, and it might effect the quality of their jumbo packages).
Josh Mauro is also gone on the DL so that is 4 of their front 7. Yes they will still be talented up front, but still big losses. Ed Reynolds left early for the NFL too, he was a playmaker for them in the secondary.
I don't think it will be an easy win at all, but it sure helps to play them early, and play them at home. Especially considering we should be 4-0 heading into that game. -
This.CuntWaffle said:
I would like to think IF we have a quality coach now that "guranteed loss" isn't in the vocabulary.RoadDawg55 said:Oregon is the only sure loss. UCLA and Stanford will be tough, but they are at home. At Arizona and at WSU will be tough games. I guarantee we win at least 9. 10 or 11 is probably most likely. The schedule is set up well with the home/road match ups.
I dooged it up a bit in the early portion of the season last year with the LIPO mantra regarding Sark. Looking back, the Sark script was rather easy to see; I should have bet a lot of money against Sark every fucking road game. I'd be living in a beach house outside of Kona, snorting blow off a supermodel's ass.
-
All I know is 9-4 would be 'special' ... As in retarded.
Anything less than 10-3 is unnacceptable...
I see 10-3 or 11-2 ... Alamo or Holiday ...
With a bowl win we get a minimum of 11 wins ... I could see this as the minimum acceptable record considering schedule.
If not ...,
Fuck you, Fuck me , Fuck everybody -
Probably cause UW defeated them two years ago and should have defeated them last year with Dude Brah as coach.Dardanus said:Why is everyone so quick to mark a W for the Stanford game? Because they lost Skov, Gardner, and Murphy? That's still going to be a tough game.
I think that will be the first big test in Petersen's career. However, at home I think that's a game you gotta win.
Stanford I read also returns the fewest starters in the conference while UCLA returns the most. -
At that point can't we just be happy with 4-0?CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:They also lost their top 2 running backs, and 4 starters on the OL (I know they have recruited like crazy on the OL, but that is still a significant number, and it might effect the quality of their jumbo packages).
Josh Mauro is also gone on the DL so that is 4 of their front 7. Yes they will still be talented up front, but still big losses. Ed Reynolds left early for the NFL too, he was a playmaker for them in the secondary.
I don't think it will be an easy win at all, but it sure helps to play them early, and play them at home. Especially considering we should be 4-0 heading into that game. -
I think CFBMatrix has us going 8-5 this year. I am not 100% sure on that, but he notes that it is hard to predict with new coaches coming in.
If he does predict 8 wins and we end up winning 10 lets say, that would mean Pete in his first season is a +2 coach effect. I can't see any way we only win 8 games. -
I only missed one game all year along with DNC which was the Oregon State game. Although the fire Sark talk was heating up so I had a feeling UW would win. It feels like whenever the fire Sark talk got momentum that fuck stick would pull out a win.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
This.CuntWaffle said:
I would like to think IF we have a quality coach now that "guranteed loss" isn't in the vocabulary.RoadDawg55 said:Oregon is the only sure loss. UCLA and Stanford will be tough, but they are at home. At Arizona and at WSU will be tough games. I guarantee we win at least 9. 10 or 11 is probably most likely. The schedule is set up well with the home/road match ups.
I dooged it up a bit in the early portion of the season last year with the LIPO mantra regarding Sark. Looking back, the Sark script was rather easy to see; I should have bet a lot of money against Sark every fucking road game. I'd be living in a beach house outside of Kona, snorting blow off a supermodel's ass. -
I got ripped in the Leach thread for saying Stanford is going to take a step backwards next year, but they really are. Hogan can't put the team on his back; he is a "game manager" that isn't very clutch. I've never seen Hogan take over a game, but he's never had to, because Stanford has been much greater than the sum of its parts for a while now.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Probably cause UW defeated them two years ago and should have defeated them last year with Dude Brah as coach.Dardanus said:Why is everyone so quick to mark a W for the Stanford game? Because they lost Skov, Gardner, and Murphy? That's still going to be a tough game.
I think that will be the first big test in Petersen's career. However, at home I think that's a game you gotta win.
Stanford I read also returns the fewest starters in the conference while UCLA returns the most.
However, having to replace a bunch of starters, coupled with a difficult schedule (@UW, @UO, @UCLA), means that Furd is gonna struggle next year.
-
No you didn't. We all agreed Stanford was going to take a step backwards. Where you got ripped was saying WSU was going to pass Stanford.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
I got ripped in the Leach thread for saying Stanford is going to take a step backwards next year, but they really are. Hogan can't put the team on his back; he is a "game manager" that isn't very clutch. I've never seen Hogan take over a game, but he's never had to, because Stanford has been much greater than the sum of its parts for a while now.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Probably cause UW defeated them two years ago and should have defeated them last year with Dude Brah as coach.Dardanus said:Why is everyone so quick to mark a W for the Stanford game? Because they lost Skov, Gardner, and Murphy? That's still going to be a tough game.
I think that will be the first big test in Petersen's career. However, at home I think that's a game you gotta win.
Stanford I read also returns the fewest starters in the conference while UCLA returns the most.
However, having to replace a bunch of starters, coupled with a difficult schedule (@UW, @UO, @UCLA), means that Furd is gonna struggle next year.
You might want to learn the difference. -
I saw Dave Barto who runs that site tweet he is probably going to put UW at 10 wins. I think the 8-5 might have been from last year.CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:I think CFBMatrix has us going 8-5 this year. I am not 100% sure on that, but he notes that it is hard to predict with new coaches coming in.
If he does predict 8 wins and we end up winning 10 lets say, that would mean Pete in his first season is a +2 coach effect. I can't see any way we only win 8 games.
He nailed last year btw. He said last year has 10 win talent but Sark is a minus one win coach so he put 9-3. Actually he even underestimated Sark as he went 8-4.
I always tell this to Doogs how Sark was the only coach in America to be a negative win coach in five straight seasons. They always respond "Well he's a Duck fan so he's obviously bias against us". I'm like him being a Duck fan has nothing to do it with, it's pure math analysis. -
Gonna be a lot of unhappiness around here in November.
-
i think roaddoog brought up the (valid) point that people have been saying the same shit about stanford regressing for years. while that's true, I think their schedule is too difficult for them to finish higher than 3rd in the ridiculously strong north next year.He_Needs_More_Time said:
No you didn't. We all agreed Stanford was going to take a step backwards. Where you got ripped was saying WSU was going to pass Stanford.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
I got ripped in the Leach thread for saying Stanford is going to take a step backwards next year, but they really are. Hogan can't put the team on his back; he is a "game manager" that isn't very clutch. I've never seen Hogan take over a game, but he's never had to, because Stanford has been much greater than the sum of its parts for a while now.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Probably cause UW defeated them two years ago and should have defeated them last year with Dude Brah as coach.Dardanus said:Why is everyone so quick to mark a W for the Stanford game? Because they lost Skov, Gardner, and Murphy? That's still going to be a tough game.
I think that will be the first big test in Petersen's career. However, at home I think that's a game you gotta win.
Stanford I read also returns the fewest starters in the conference while UCLA returns the most.
However, having to replace a bunch of starters, coupled with a difficult schedule (@UW, @UO, @UCLA), means that Furd is gonna struggle next year.
You might want to learn the difference.
-
Yeah....unhappiness that we didn't beat OSU by fucking 69 again...just rather easily, say 44-17?TheGlove said:Gonna be a lot of unhappiness around here in November.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
