PM to would be Doogs

YellowSnow said:

dnc said:

pawz said:

dnc said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

dnc said:

creepycoug said:

godawgst said:

creepycoug said:

RoadDawg55 said:

dnc said:

YellowSnow said:

creepycoug said:

YellowSnow said:

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

LebamDawg said:

DerekJohnson said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

Doog_de_Jour said:

guntlove said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

Would be? Was there anyone here who wasn't shamefully dooging ahe ll week?

Me.

Jimmy's not a head coach. And JonDon will be a fucking anchor around this program. But I didn't want to piss in anybody's cornflakes last week... it was cool watching everyone doog out. This place was super fun. I wish I was wrong about Jimmy, but I'm not.

I’m still sipping my Cosmopolitan here at Club LIPO. And I’m not going to ask for my bar tab until after the final game.

Helfrich won a rosebowel...

Mario won a rosebowel...

Neuheisel won a Rose Bowl

Pete lost a Rose Bowel


and a Fiesta Bowel


and a Peach Bowel


and a Something Else Bowel somewhere in Arizona



and he did all that in 6 years

To be fair, UW almost every year under Pete could've beaten that Purdue team

Not according to @creepycoug and @MikeDamone . With their rather curious logic, beating Purdue equates to Neu >>> Toothy.

This to say about that.

Sure, over the long haul, Pete is probably a better guy to have around. Rick had a little Dennis Erickson in him. They come in hot, and then their vices as men eventually start showing up on the field.

But results are results. The Rose Bowl has been, forever, the measuring stick of a great season at Washington. That is, until Oregon started winning them.

So just give me the season that Pete had that was as successful as the one Rick had in 2000. That 2000 team won big games. I don't think Pete had one win as significant as Rick's over the 2000 Miami team, and that game was a great display of coaching. He absolutely had Washington ready to play. I was there.

And it was a damn good team. They had a great O line that could run block on anybody, an NFL TE who could block and catch, and a QB who shit turds bigger than Jake's best. Anthony Vontoure starts in any Jimmy Lake D backfield, and Akbar and Williams probably do too. Same with Larry Tripplett. Nevermind Purdue. I'd take Rick N. and that 2000 Husky team against Pete's best and like my chances. They won a Rose Bowl. They played who they were asked to play and won. I only have to play the "what if Rick played Buck" game if you guys have to play the "What if Pete played 2000 Miami" game. Pete shits his pants in that game IMO; Rick was up for the challenge and outcoached Butch Davis.

At the end of the day both 2000 and 2016 were legit top 4 teams in the country. And they could only play the teams on the schedule. Ricky got Purdue in Pasadena and won. Toothy got Satan in Atlanta and lost. On a neutral field it’s probably a coin flip between the two squads IMO.

2016 would either win in a blowout or 2000 would win in a nailbiter. Nothing in between.

I’ve always said 2016 would win easily. The 2000 team wouldn’t be able to complete a pass besides a couple to Stevens.

2000 team had Tui. You? had Brownsocks. At the most important position on the field, 2000 has 2016 by an immeasurable distance.

I'll take Tui and a coach who didn't joke under the big lights in a close one.

Vita and Greg would have single handidly blown up the triple option the 2000 team kept running.

Marques fakes the dive, goes down the line sees Victor and Bierra ready to take him down for a 3 yard loss and if he tries to pitch it to the rb, Budda is ready to tackle him for a 5 yard loss.

The 2016 team blows out the 2000 team easily.

It's not an irrational take. But you are glossing over a lot of good O lineman on the 2000 team, a great QB who had a few more tricks in his bag than pitching the ball, and the effects of a talented, mean and aggressive defense on a QB who couldn't keep his pants clean under pressure (from far lesser opponents), and the 2000 defense would have supplied some.

The argument for 2000 is Tui versus Browning.

The argument for 2016 is everyone else.

It would be a really chinteresting matchup.

2000 play under pressure>>>2016 play under pressure

A already covered Tui versus Browning.

2000 was clutch because Tui was clutch. 2016 was not because Browning was Brownsox.

Tha's why I said 2000 wins any close game but 2016 wins the blowouts.

poont of order: I'm talking the under on whatever percentage of gaymes you think would be a blowout

If they played 10 times the o/u is 5 2016 blowouts and 5 2000 squeekers

I suspect a lot of our? recency bias creeps (no pun intended @creepycoug ) into the 2000 vs 2016 debate. If you poll this bored at the end of the 2016 season, I'd wager a solid majority still consider the 2016 squad to have been better than 2000.

But add in the disappointments of 2017- 18 combined with the Brownsocks regression, Rapp sitting out the Rose Bowl, Pete losing the fire in his belly, etc, and folks start to feel differently. I think some of that 2017- 18 taint tarnished the legacy of 2016 which was a really great football team. Everyone ended up hating Browing, whereas Tui is one of our most beloved players of all time.