Most underachieving UW team in modern times?
Comments
-
1995 (7-4-1)
ha ha your original premise was the 2015 team was better (or more underachieving) b/c they had a better pass outside pass rush. Now it's not about that?????haie said:
It's not about that. It's that almost all of the players were on that 2015 team and he won 7 games with an easier schedule.RoadDawg55 said:
16 team is better everywhere except outside pass rush. That’s pretty close too.godawgst said:
I do, and watched him vs. Oregon as a true freshman not be moved off his spot being double teamed all game.haie said:
You realize Gaines played for the 2015 team too right? 15 team had Feeney and Littleton and a better pass rush.godawgst said:
16 team names score on 2015 team on basis of Vita and Gaines alone.haie said:In 2015 Pete took a playoff roster that even had a better pass rush and more depth at the position than 2016 and won 7 games, with losses to Cal, Utah, and ASU in addition to a pathetic performance against Oregon where he just sat in prevent and punted the entire game.
2015 offense playoff roster worthy......... if you say so
16 team better at lb, corner, safety, wr, te, and OL
They wouldn't "name their score" against that 2015 defense with a legit pass rush on Browning either.
15 team had easier schedule than 16? 2016 was a one game season at home vs. SC
How many does the 15 offense put up on the 16 defense?
Your the best ballz -
2015 (7-6)
They're the most underachieving team in the last 15 years at least to me, yes. Maybe they didn't have the maturity or whatever as 2016, and Ross sat out that year, but it was the most wasted opportunity.godawgst said:
ha ha your original premise was the 2015 team was better (or more underachieving) b/c they had a better pass outside pass rush. Now it's not about that?????haie said:
It's not about that. It's that almost all of the players were on that 2015 team and he won 7 games with an easier schedule.RoadDawg55 said:
16 team is better everywhere except outside pass rush. That’s pretty close too.godawgst said:
I do, and watched him vs. Oregon as a true freshman not be moved off his spot being double teamed all game.haie said:
You realize Gaines played for the 2015 team too right? 15 team had Feeney and Littleton and a better pass rush.godawgst said:
16 team names score on 2015 team on basis of Vita and Gaines alone.haie said:In 2015 Pete took a playoff roster that even had a better pass rush and more depth at the position than 2016 and won 7 games, with losses to Cal, Utah, and ASU in addition to a pathetic performance against Oregon where he just sat in prevent and punted the entire game.
2015 offense playoff roster worthy......... if you say so
16 team better at lb, corner, safety, wr, te, and OL
They wouldn't "name their score" against that 2015 defense with a legit pass rush on Browning either.
15 team had easier schedule than 16? 2016 was a one game season at home vs. SC
How many does the 15 offense put up on the 16 defense?
Your the best ballz
Schedule? Dude, 2016 had the shit schedule compared to them. Look the bitch up yourself. Pete should have won 10 just off of that.
They had pretty much the same roster as a playoff team minus the wr which was big, but that 2016 team had no depth at DE and 2015 had that as a strength.
So taking away retarded comparisons to an accomplished playoff team, that 2015 team with that roster should have done much, much more that year than 7 wins. Stanford won it, UW played them in Palo Alto without Browning, but still. Look at the roster and their record.
7 wins with that roster. That is an absolute failure.
"We're so fucking young"
Fuck Petersen -
1995 (7-4-1)
2015 team went through what most teams do in sports and that was learning how to win (usually in losses) so that years like 2016 can happenhaie said:
They're the most underachieving team in the last 15 years at least to me, yes. Maybe they didn't have the maturity or whatever as 2016, and Ross sat out that year, but it was the most wasted opportunity.godawgst said:
ha ha your original premise was the 2015 team was better (or more underachieving) b/c they had a better pass outside pass rush. Now it's not about that?????haie said:
It's not about that. It's that almost all of the players were on that 2015 team and he won 7 games with an easier schedule.RoadDawg55 said:
16 team is better everywhere except outside pass rush. That’s pretty close too.godawgst said:
I do, and watched him vs. Oregon as a true freshman not be moved off his spot being double teamed all game.haie said:
You realize Gaines played for the 2015 team too right? 15 team had Feeney and Littleton and a better pass rush.godawgst said:
16 team names score on 2015 team on basis of Vita and Gaines alone.haie said:In 2015 Pete took a playoff roster that even had a better pass rush and more depth at the position than 2016 and won 7 games, with losses to Cal, Utah, and ASU in addition to a pathetic performance against Oregon where he just sat in prevent and punted the entire game.
2015 offense playoff roster worthy......... if you say so
16 team better at lb, corner, safety, wr, te, and OL
They wouldn't "name their score" against that 2015 defense with a legit pass rush on Browning either.
15 team had easier schedule than 16? 2016 was a one game season at home vs. SC
How many does the 15 offense put up on the 16 defense?
Your the best ballz
Schedule? Dude, 2016 had the shit schedule compared to them. Look the bitch up yourself. Pete should have won 10 just off of that.
They had pretty much the same roster as a playoff team minus the wr which was big, but that 2016 team had no depth at DE and 2015 had that as a strength.
So taking away retarded comparisons to an accomplished playoff team, that 2015 team with that roster should have done much, much more that year than 7 wins. Stanford won it, UW played them in Palo Alto without Browning, but still. Look at the roster and their record.
7 wins with that roster. That is an absolute failure.
"We're so fucking young"
Fuck Petersen
Your original quote was
"In 2015 Pete took a playoff roster that even had a better pass rush and more depth at the position than 2016 and won 7 games'
Disagree.
-
1995 (7-4-1)
They under achieved but nobody expected enough out of Sark for the underachievement to be considered significant.TTJ said:Somehow this poll passes over the entire Sark era? That was a whole period of epic underachievement.


