UW's 1977 scrimmages
Loss -- Miss St @ home 27-18
Win -- San Jose St @ 24-3
Loss --@ Syracuse 22-20
Loss --@ Minn. 19-17
Huskies beat Oregon the next week when the REAL season started, Went 6-1 in conference and beat Mich in the Rose Bowl 27-20. Finished 10th in the country. Lots of scrimmage season twisting going on.
Comments
-
FYI...Oregon wasn't part of the real schedule in 77'.
-
Oregon wasn't part of the "real" schedule until 1994IrishDawg22 said:FYI...Oregon wasn't part of the real schedule in 77'.
hth -
College football wasn't invented until 1994.topdawgnc said:
Oregon wasn't part of the "real" schedule until 1994IrishDawg22 said:FYI...Oregon wasn't part of the real schedule in 77'.
hth -
Nobody wants Peterman fired. Everyone, or at least 99% know it was only one game. I thought the opener was a shitty performance all the way around, but I'm happy he is our coach. He's a proven winner who knows what the fuck he is doing. He certainly has earned the benefit of the doubt by going 93-12, but can we just let it play out and have the chips fall where they may? There's no need to fluff him up with 1977's scrimmages. What happened in 1977 is completely irrelevant. There are plenty of examples where a shitty scrimmage forecasted a bad season as well. We are going to be a good team, but enough with defending a shitty performance. It was what it was, we are 1-0 like we all expected, and we will find out what kind of team we have coming up soon.
-
Because internet. Sitting back and waiting doesn't make for good internet fodder.
-
I hear you. It wasn't meant to be taken literally. I'm just amazed some can't call it what it was, a shitty performance. It was a bad performance regardless of who was coaching. If Sark was still our coach, everyone here who still cared about the football team would be up in arms over it. Since Peterman is our coach, some refuse to criticize anything. I get it. Petersen is a great coach and he has earned that trust by going 93-12. I have complete trust in what he is doing and honestly an 8 win season wouldn't change that. He deserves time. That doesn't change the fact that we played awful and it was disappointing to watch.Gladstone said:Because internet. Sitting back and waiting doesn't make for good internet fodder.
-
When people start rolling out this stat, watch out. I'm not saying it's doomsday time at all, I'm just saying,.... this stat is another surreptitious way of saying so-and-so is just like Don James, and it never comes out that way.CirrhosisDawg said:Went 1-3. Lots of fucktards back then as well that said UW had hired the wrong coach (1977 being his third season).
Loss -- Miss St @ home 27-18
Win -- San Jose St @ 24-3
Loss --@ Syracuse 22-20
Loss --@ Minn. 19-17
Huskies beat Oregon the next week when the REAL season started, Went 6-1 in conference and beat Mich in the Rose Bowl 27-20. Finished 10th in the country. Lots of scrimmage season twisting going on.
-
PS., I hope that liver is holding up.
-
You are right, but if we lose one of these scrimmages, I am going to drink myself to death anyway.RoadDawg55 said:
I hear you. It wasn't meant to be taken literally. I'm just amazed some can't call it what it was, a shitty performance. It was a bad performance regardless of who was coaching. If Sark was still our coach, everyone here who still cared about the football team would be up in arms over it. Since Peterman is our coach, some refuse to criticize anything. I get it. Petersen is a great coach and he has earned that trust by going 93-12. I have complete trust in what he is doing and honestly an 8 win season wouldn't change that. He deserves time. That doesn't change the fact that we played awful and it was disappointing to watch.Gladstone said:Because internet. Sitting back and waiting doesn't make for good internet fodder.
-
That game was very disappointing to watch. I expected much more from the Huskies. Still, anyone who has watched college football for any length of time knows that the first game of the season has the potential to be a real turd burger. And that was one full on shit filled turd burger of a game. In the end, they did manage to limp to a win, which was the only real positive takeaway. I think we all know the Armenian used car salesman would have found a way to lose that game. I do expect to see a big jump up in the level of play this week, but the season started in LIFPO mode and will stay that way until the team establishes itself, one way or the other.RoadDawg55 said:
I hear you. It wasn't meant to be taken literally. I'm just amazed some can't call it what it was, a shitty performance. It was a bad performance regardless of who was coaching. If Sark was still our coach, everyone here who still cared about the football team would be up in arms over it. Since Peterman is our coach, some refuse to criticize anything. I get it. Petersen is a great coach and he has earned that trust by going 93-12. I have complete trust in what he is doing and honestly an 8 win season wouldn't change that. He deserves time. That doesn't change the fact that we played awful and it was disappointing to watch.Gladstone said:Because internet. Sitting back and waiting doesn't make for good internet fodder.
-
Post of the week so far.RoadDawg55 said:There's no need to fluff him up with 1977's scrimmages. What happened in 1977 is completely irrelevant. There are plenty of examples where a shitty scrimmage forecasted a bad season as well. We are going to be a good team, but enough with defending a shitty performance. It was what it was, we are 1-0 like we all expected, and we will find out what kind of team we have coming up soon.
Enough with the "James started with blabla against shit school in 19 something". For years this board has made fun of doogs using the same kind of comparison to back up Sark's incremental progress "yeah but Coach McDoog did this his first 5 years and look now how good he is". You can always find an example to fit your narrative. -
This is interesting because the doogs used the first few seasons of Don James to prop up Sarks lousy performance.
-
I often talked to Don and Carol about that when I golfed with themMikeDamone said:This is interesting because the doogs used the first few seasons of Don James to prop up Sarks lousy performance.
#FleenorNameDrop -
Are they dear, dear freinds?RaceBannon said:
I often talked to Don and Carol about that when I golfed with themMikeDamone said:This is interesting because the doogs used the first few seasons of Don James to prop up Sarks lousy performance.
#FleenorNameDrop -
MikeDamone said:
Are they dear, dear freinds?RaceBannon said:
I often talked to Don and Carol about that when I golfed with themMikeDamone said:This is interesting because the doogs used the first few seasons of Don James to prop up Sarks lousy performance.
#FleenorNameDrop
GO!
HUSKIES!!
GO!
HUSKIES!!!
