Way Too Fucking Early Schedule Breakdown
Comments
-
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)
