A Football Thread
A few days ago I read a thread on the other site that was about Van Winkle saying he likes actually having a coach that watches film with him. Even for Sark, I am surprised no coach watched film with the kickers. You would think they would watch film of the opponents return men to help the kicker see why they wanted to kick the ball to a specific location. Maybe they see the front line of the on the receiving team bailing too fast and notice that they may be able to get a surprise onside kick. After the onside kick to open the second half of the Super Bowl, Sean Payton said, "We noticed there might be an opportunity for that play on film." You would also think they would watch film of where teams came with pressure to try and block kicks and who were the guys to pay special attention too. Sark is a lazy fucking bastard and so was his staff because he didn't hold them accountable.
Most doogs agreed that special teams should be improved, and were surprised no coach watched film with the kickers. It's already evident between Van Winkle's comments and Petersen coaching the returners that special teams are getting the close attention they deserve. The special teams were really bad under Sark and without a doubt cost us the Stanford game last year unless you believe it was actually Van Winkle's injury.
Of course, Kimmy and Ektard came to Sark's defense. When a poster mentioned Petersen's Boise teams had undefeated seasons ruined by missed kicks, Ektard said he ended the whole thread. Those missed kicks mean Boise State didn't have very good special teams. Really? I remember the Nevada and TCU games, but Ektard is really fucking stupid (wiw). When I think of well coached special teams, I think of good return units and blocked kicks. I think of good kick coverage teams, no bad snaps, and very few to no blocked field goals. Whether the kicker makes the kick or not is basically on his ability. Other than showing him some technique stuff, I don't know what the coach can do about missed field goals.
I did some research. From 2009-2013 BSU went 73/97 on FG's, a 75.2% clip. UW went 66 of 87, 75.9%. Pretty much the exact same. Nobody complained about our FG unit. Both Folk and Coons were pretty good kickers. It was the kick offs and return games on both side that were the problem. No big returns until Sark left, and the kick coverage units were always terrible. That shit won't happen under Petersen. You are such a useless dipshit Scott. FG teams aren't the only part of special teams.
Comments
-
Tequila long, DR
-
Road Dawg I expect better from you. You are usually crisp and to the point.RoadDawg55 said:This is for you whiny bastards who say we never talk football. Hopefully you have something to offer in these type of threads for once. This is also for Scott Eklund because I know he reads this board, and he's a fucking idiot. Give it up Scott. You are reaching Kim territory and you don't know shit about football. It's okay. You can take Sark's dick out of your mouth.
A few days ago I read a thread on the other site that was about Van Winkle saying he likes actually having a coach that watches film with him. Even for Sark, I am surprised no coach watched film with the kickers. You would think they would watch film of the opponents return men to help the kicker see why they wanted to kick the ball to a specific location. Maybe they see the front line of the on the receiving team bailing too fast and notice that they may be able to get a surprise onside kick. After the onside kick to open the second half of the Super Bowl, Sean Payton said, "We noticed there might be an opportunity for that play on film." You would also think they would watch film of where teams came with pressure to try and block kicks and who were the guys to pay special attention too. Sark is a lazy fucking bastard and so was his staff because he didn't hold them accountable.
Most doogs agreed that special teams should be improved, and were surprised no coach watched film with the kickers. It's already evident between Van Winkle's comments and Petersen coaching the returners that special teams are getting the close attention they deserve. The special teams were really bad under Sark and without a doubt cost us the Stanford game last year unless you believe it was actually Van Winkle's injury.
Of course, Kimmy and Ektard came to Sark's defense. When a poster mentioned Petersen's Boise teams had undefeated seasons ruined by missed kicks, Ektard said he ended the whole thread. Those missed kicks mean Boise State didn't have very good special teams. Really? I remember the Nevada and TCU games, but Ektard is really fucking stupid (wiw). When I think of well coached special teams, I think of good return units and blocked kicks. I think of good kick coverage teams, no bad snaps, and very few to no blocked field goals. Whether the kicker makes the kick or not is basically on his ability. Other than showing him some technique stuff, I don't know what the coach can do about missed field goals.
I did some research. From 2009-2013 BSU went 73/97 on FG's, a 75.2% clip. UW went 66 of 87, 75.9%. Pretty much the exact same. Nobody complained about our FG unit. Both Folk and Coons were pretty good kickers. It was the kick offs and return games on both side that were the problem. No big returns until Sark left, and the kick coverage units were always terrible. That shit won't happen under Petersen. You are such a useless dipshit Scott. FG teams aren't the only part of special teams.
Having said that I'll actually read this whole thing. -
I agree it is way too long. I had to put the back story behind the post, mixed in with some opinion.
-
It was a good post. Good stat on the FG's being identical. I agree that the special teams at Boise was pretty strong. I remember fake punts, fake FG's, good returns.RoadDawg55 said:I agree it is way too long. I had to put the back story behind the post, mixed in with some opinion.
Shoot their special teams is the reason why they defeated the Huskies in that Vegas bowl. Gave up a long return as fuckheads were doing the lawnmower.
I'm not surprised Sark or Nansen didn't watch film on them as they are lazy. That just further proves they will never be a Rose Bowl staff though. -
TL,DR version:
-Van Winkle finally has a coach that watches film with him.
-Most agree Special Teams will be better under Peterman.
-Ektard says Petersen's special teams weren't great because of 2 missed FG's.
-FG % was equal between Boise State and UW from 2009-2013
-Scott Eklund is fucking idiot who still has Sark's dick in his mouth. -
Who the fuck cares.
We got Peterman now. -
It matters because it shows how under coached these kids really were. Despite all that they still went 9-4 last year.sarktastic said:Who the fuck cares.
We got Peterman now.
Gives us even more hope going forward as we finally have a coach in place who stresses special teams, being focused, pass blocking for an RB, the basics, etc which should buy us an extra 1-2 wins.
Sark was a negative 1 win coach a year so if Petersen is just average that alone is on average going to be an one win improvement. If Petersen is a plus one coach which I think he will be then you are talking an extra two wins.
Had he been our coach last year I think Stanford and UCLA are wins while Oregon/ASU aren't plungers. -
The O/U is 5 to the number of Krispy Kremes Drecklund and F3 will munch individually tomorrow for a pre breakfast snack.
-
That Stanford loss was a real blow for the entire season. Played Oregon tough for 3 quarters but ran out of gas as I predicted on the podcast that week. After that the team wasn't playing for anything because they knew they were done. However....if they beat Stanford, then they are still playing for something against UCLA.
Going into UCLA, Stanford & UW would have 2 conference losses & Oregon 1. Oregon finished 7-2 and almost lost to OSU & would have been 6-3.
For UW to tie Oregon & Stanford all that needed to happen was UW beats Stanford & Oregon loses to OSU. For UW to win the division they needed to beat Stanford, UCLA and have Oregon lose to OSU.
Bottom line is if they come away with that game, the scope of the season changes quite a bit. Maybe you beat UCLA and sneak into a BCS bowl game. -
If you can be hypothetically in the Rose Bowl race come November what more can you ask for? It's like some of you Nega's had it out for Sark.HeretoBeatmyChest said:That Stanford loss was a real blow for the entire season. Played Oregon tough for 3 quarters but ran out of gas as I predicted on the podcast that week. After that the team wasn't playing for anything because they knew they were done. However....if they beat Stanford, then they are still playing for something against UCLA.
Going into UCLA, Stanford & UW would have 2 conference losses & Oregon 1. Oregon finished 7-2 and almost lost to OSU & would have been 6-3.
For UW to tie Oregon & Stanford all that needed to happen was UW beats Stanford & Oregon loses to OSU. For UW to win the division they needed to beat Stanford, UCLA and have Oregon lose to OSU.
Bottom line is if they come away with that game, the scope of the season changes quite a bit. Maybe you beat UCLA and sneak into a BCS bowl game. -
We don't like to comment on hypotheticals.He_Needs_More_Time said:
If you can be hypothetically in the Rose Bowl race come November what more can you ask for? It's like some of you Nega's had it out for Sark.HeretoBeatmyChest said:That Stanford loss was a real blow for the entire season. Played Oregon tough for 3 quarters but ran out of gas as I predicted on the podcast that week. After that the team wasn't playing for anything because they knew they were done. However....if they beat Stanford, then they are still playing for something against UCLA.
Going into UCLA, Stanford & UW would have 2 conference losses & Oregon 1. Oregon finished 7-2 and almost lost to OSU & would have been 6-3.
For UW to tie Oregon & Stanford all that needed to happen was UW beats Stanford & Oregon loses to OSU. For UW to win the division they needed to beat Stanford, UCLA and have Oregon lose to OSU.
Bottom line is if they come away with that game, the scope of the season changes quite a bit. Maybe you beat UCLA and sneak into a BCS bowl game. -
When did Stephanie Sarkisian hack your account?HeretoBeatmyChest said:That Stanford loss was a real blow for the entire season. Played Oregon tough for 3 quarters but ran out of gas as I predicted on the podcast that week. After that the team wasn't playing for anything because they knew they were done. However....if they beat Stanford, then they are still playing for something against UCLA.
Going into UCLA, Stanford & UW would have 2 conference losses & Oregon 1. Oregon finished 7-2 and almost lost to OSU & would have been 6-3.
For UW to tie Oregon & Stanford all that needed to happen was UW beats Stanford & Oregon loses to OSU. For UW to win the division they needed to beat Stanford, UCLA and have Oregon lose to OSU.
Bottom line is if they come away with that game, the scope of the season changes quite a bit. Maybe you beat UCLA and sneak into a BCS bowl game. -
She hacked it while Sark was at the new Joey in Torrance, CA.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
When did Stephanie Sarkisian hack your account?HeretoBeatmyChest said:That Stanford loss was a real blow for the entire season. Played Oregon tough for 3 quarters but ran out of gas as I predicted on the podcast that week. After that the team wasn't playing for anything because they knew they were done. However....if they beat Stanford, then they are still playing for something against UCLA.
Going into UCLA, Stanford & UW would have 2 conference losses & Oregon 1. Oregon finished 7-2 and almost lost to OSU & would have been 6-3.
For UW to tie Oregon & Stanford all that needed to happen was UW beats Stanford & Oregon loses to OSU. For UW to win the division they needed to beat Stanford, UCLA and have Oregon lose to OSU.
Bottom line is if they come away with that game, the scope of the season changes quite a bit. Maybe you beat UCLA and sneak into a BCS bowl game. -
You fuckos are a little slow, so I'll help.....
The point of the post is Sark's fucktardedness with ST cost UW a win over a top 5 team on the road.....not "Sark almost beat a top 5 team on the road." -
If you have to reiterate the point of your poast so that we better understand your poast, me thinks you should have done better the first time.
That being said - you're right. ST cost us minimum 1 game per season with Seven Win Steve. -
Otherwise I completely agree.RoadDawg55 said:Both Folk and Coons were
prettyvery good kickers. -
Will be interesting to see how big of a loss Coons is. He was 15/16 last season on FG's (only miss was blocked) and his punting work was enough to earn him All-Pac 12.
-
I think that is a big loss actually and I'm not confident we have a replacement to replace him in kicking and punting.HeretoBeatmyChest said:Will be interesting to see how big of a loss Coons is. He was 15/16 last season on FG's (only miss was blocked) and his punting work was enough to earn him All-Pac 12.
In some ways I fear his loss more than Keith Price or even Sankey's since we have ready replacements for those two. -
That's because we are a bunch of girls sitting around in kindergarden art class eating pasteHeretoBeatmyChest said:You fuckos are a little slow, so I'll help.....
The point of the post is Sark's fucktardedness with ST cost UW a win over a top 5 team on the road.....not "Sark almost beat a top 5 team on the road." -
He_Needs_More_Time said:
It matters because it shows how under coached these kids really were. Despite all that they still went 9-4 last year.sarktastic said:Who the fuck cares.
We got Peterman now.
Gives us even more hope going forward as we finally have a coach in place who stresses special teams, being focused, pass blocking for an RB, the basics, etc which should buy us an extra 1-2 wins.
Sark was a negative 1 win coach a year so if Petersen is just average that alone is on average going to be an one win improvement. If Petersen is a plus one coach which I think he will be then you are talking an extra two wins.
Had he been our coach last year I think Stanford and UCLA are wins while Oregon/ASU aren't plungers.
It really sounds like you're making excuses for Peterman sucking this year.
relax.
1. Peterman won't suck
2. If for some fluke he does suck he doesn't want you making fucking excuses.
c'mon man, recruits parents read this bored and they don't need to be getting a pussy vibe.
-
That's not at all what I'm doing. Not surprised you are too dumb to miss my point.sarktastic said:He_Needs_More_Time said:
It matters because it shows how under coached these kids really were. Despite all that they still went 9-4 last year.sarktastic said:Who the fuck cares.
We got Peterman now.
Gives us even more hope going forward as we finally have a coach in place who stresses special teams, being focused, pass blocking for an RB, the basics, etc which should buy us an extra 1-2 wins.
Sark was a negative 1 win coach a year so if Petersen is just average that alone is on average going to be an one win improvement. If Petersen is a plus one coach which I think he will be then you are talking an extra two wins.
Had he been our coach last year I think Stanford and UCLA are wins while Oregon/ASU aren't plungers.
It really sounds like you're making excuses for Peterman sucking this year.
relax.
1. Peterman won't suck
2. If for some fluke he does suck he doesn't want you making fucking excuses.
If anything I'm stating why I think it's not "unrealistic" to expect 10-11 wins this year. -
oh, man I bet her world was rocked the day she found out she was losing the dockboy.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
When did Stephanie Sarkisian hack your account?HeretoBeatmyChest said:That Stanford loss was a real blow for the entire season. Played Oregon tough for 3 quarters but ran out of gas as I predicted on the podcast that week. After that the team wasn't playing for anything because they knew they were done. However....if they beat Stanford, then they are still playing for something against UCLA.
Going into UCLA, Stanford & UW would have 2 conference losses & Oregon 1. Oregon finished 7-2 and almost lost to OSU & would have been 6-3.
For UW to tie Oregon & Stanford all that needed to happen was UW beats Stanford & Oregon loses to OSU. For UW to win the division they needed to beat Stanford, UCLA and have Oregon lose to OSU.
Bottom line is if they come away with that game, the scope of the season changes quite a bit. Maybe you beat UCLA and sneak into a BCS bowl game.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
