Couple things...
1. Petersen inherited about the same talent as sark did
2. While I said i'm a "negadawg" I'm not referring to the long term outlook, but of what we have seen so far, Petersen's task at hand is difficult and the top 20 program we want is a ways off. This year isn't going to be what some here thought. Except for PLSS.
All the talk about calls and tricks plays and shit is fine, but the reality is Stanford went on the road in conference and won because they were better. They were better on both sides of the ball. Period. I'm optimistic Petersen is the guy to get over the hump. If he can't do it, UW is just fucked forever.
Obligatory (profiles in courage edition): I hope I'm wrong and Petersen runs the table and goes 13-1.
Comments
-
We're finishing 4-5 in conference
dats a fact jack
losses to UCLA, Oregon, Zona, and CUOG -
Arizona or WSU could flip. Neither are in the bag, by far. Both on the road. YikesPostGameOrangeSlices said:We're finishing 4-5 in conference
dats a fact jack
losses to UCLA, Oregon, Zona, and CUOG -
at Utah and at Cal could also be dicey games.MikeDamone said:
Arizona or WSU could flip. Neither are in the bag, by far. Both on the road. YikesPostGameOrangeSlices said:We're finishing 4-5 in conference
dats a fact jack
losses to UCLA, Oregon, Zona, and CUOG
I think we have a better chance of beating UCLA than we do of going .500 on the road in conference -
I'm not going to believe you unless you tell me to cook it.PostGameOrangeSlices said:We're finishing 4-5 in conference
dats a fact jack
losses to UCLA, Oregon, Zona, and CUOG -
*insert creepy clown .gif here*EsophagealFeces said:
I'm not going to believe you unless you tell me to cook it.PostGameOrangeSlices said:We're finishing 4-5 in conference
dats a fact jack
losses to UCLA, Oregon, Zona, and CUOG -
yeah... well... one more win this year and Peterman has marched Sark's brilliance as a first year Husky head coach and he'll be playing with house money the rest of the way.
-
Cannot argue with that logic. Well played.
-
I think Utah is an easy win, don't even need to show up. ...<------- faggoty wink.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
at Utah and at Cal could also be dicey games.MikeDamone said:
Arizona or WSU could flip. Neither are in the bag, by far. Both on the road. YikesPostGameOrangeSlices said:We're finishing 4-5 in conference
dats a fact jack
losses to UCLA, Oregon, Zona, and CUOG
I think we have a better chance of beating UCLA than we do of going .500 on the road in conference -
What do you know, dumbfuck once again brings nothing of value to the table.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
at Utah and at Cal could also be dicey games.MikeDamone said:
Arizona or WSU could flip. Neither are in the bag, by far. Both on the road. YikesPostGameOrangeSlices said:We're finishing 4-5 in conference
dats a fact jack
losses to UCLA, Oregon, Zona, and CUOG
I think we have a better chance of beating UCLA than we do of going .500 on the road in conference
You really would be better off to lurk around for a bit, keep your mouth shut, and let the grown ups have the real discussions. -
Near certain loss to Oregon. The others are tough, but winnable games. 5+ wins in conference.PostGameOrangeSlices said:We're finishing 4-5 in conference
dats a fact jack
losses to UCLA, Oregon, Zona, and CUOG -
We have some talent but it is painfully clear that the RB and OL positions are a disaster. And the QB stable in need of flushing. So basically I agree with the OP.
-
It's been clear since Sankey and ASJ declared this offense was going to take a major step back, pining the hopes on a coaching wizard when all u had was a returning mediocre oline at best, told u all u needed to know
No way in heck u get 5 conference wins this year like i been telling u only one is probable colorado -
For as hot of a mess as the game was against Stanford, we were in a position to win the game in the 4th quarter. Outside of Oregon and UCLA, nobody else in the conference will be at Stanford's level (who is still a reasonably decent team).
At this point though, I'm thinking I take the 5-4 record in conference this year and grow from there. The QB position is one hell of a hot mess. -
After watching the game I have a hard time thinking Stanford is that good. Sure they will win 8 or 9 games but they will lose their share of games in conference.
I think we are destined to win 3 or 4 conference games. Petersen gets paid a boat load of money to figure it out but so far he hasn't. It's like watching rick when he took over for Lambo. Rick scrapped everything and said what the fuck can we do when they were 0-2 ans they adapted their entire offense to the talent they had.
I really think we should run our qb a shitload of times because we sure as he'll can't throw vs a decent defense. But I leave that to Pete to figure out. -
You're a fucking pretentious faggot who deserves to be tied to the train tracks.Tequilla said:
What do you know, dumbfuck once again brings nothing of value to the table.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
at Utah and at Cal could also be dicey games.MikeDamone said:
Arizona or WSU could flip. Neither are in the bag, by far. Both on the road. YikesPostGameOrangeSlices said:We're finishing 4-5 in conference
dats a fact jack
losses to UCLA, Oregon, Zona, and CUOG
I think we have a better chance of beating UCLA than we do of going .500 on the road in conference
You really would be better off to lurk around for a bit, keep your mouth shut, and let the grown ups have the real discussions.
At least people read my posts, since I don't spend 81 minutes constructing some shit-tier thesis on something no one gives a fuck about -
I agree about the offense. I have seen QB's like Miles win, but they aren't in offenses that rely on downfield passing and going through progressions. Once Stanford shut down the running game in the second half, it was all over. Colin Klein at Kansas State comes to mind. He couldn't throw for shit and wasn't a blazing fast runner, but he was efficient. He had a shitty throwing motion too. I hope they tailor the offense more to Miles' strengths.AtomicDawg said:After watching the game I have a hard time thinking Stanford is that good. Sure they will win 8 or 9 games but they will lose their share of games in conference.
I think we are destined to win 3 or 4 conference games. Petersen gets paid a boat load of money to figure it out but so far he hasn't. It's like watching rick when he took over for Lambo. Rick scrapped everything and said what the fuck can we do when they were 0-2 ans they adapted their entire offense to the talent they had.
I really think we should run our qb a shitload of times because we sure as he'll can't throw vs a decent defense. But I leave that to Pete to figure out. -
They may as well just start running the fucking option.RoadDawg55 said:
I agree about the offense. I have seen QB's like Miles win, but they aren't in offenses that rely on downfield passing and going through progressions. Once Stanford shut down the running game in the second half, it was all over. Colin Klein at Kansas State comes to mind. He couldn't throw for shit and wasn't a blazing fast runner, but he was efficient. I hope they tailor the offense more to Miles' strengths.AtomicDawg said:After watching the game I have a hard time thinking Stanford is that good. Sure they will win 8 or 9 games but they will lose their share of games in conference.
I think we are destined to win 3 or 4 conference games. Petersen gets paid a boat load of money to figure it out but so far he hasn't. It's like watching rick when he took over for Lambo. Rick scrapped everything and said what the fuck can we do when they were 0-2 ans they adapted their entire offense to the talent they had.
I really think we should run our qb a shitload of times because we sure as he'll can't throw vs a decent defense. But I leave that to Pete to figure out. -
#tommiefrazier #tui #anythingbutthishaie said:
They may as well just start running the fucking option.RoadDawg55 said:
I agree about the offense. I have seen QB's like Miles win, but they aren't in offenses that rely on downfield passing and going through progressions. Once Stanford shut down the running game in the second half, it was all over. Colin Klein at Kansas State comes to mind. He couldn't throw for shit and wasn't a blazing fast runner, but he was efficient. I hope they tailor the offense more to Miles' strengths.AtomicDawg said:After watching the game I have a hard time thinking Stanford is that good. Sure they will win 8 or 9 games but they will lose their share of games in conference.
I think we are destined to win 3 or 4 conference games. Petersen gets paid a boat load of money to figure it out but so far he hasn't. It's like watching rick when he took over for Lambo. Rick scrapped everything and said what the fuck can we do when they were 0-2 ans they adapted their entire offense to the talent they had.
I really think we should run our qb a shitload of times because we sure as he'll can't throw vs a decent defense. But I leave that to Pete to figure out. -
PGOS has been honking that horn for days. I don't think it's a bad idea.haie said:
They may as well just start running the fucking option.RoadDawg55 said:
I agree about the offense. I have seen QB's like Miles win, but they aren't in offenses that rely on downfield passing and going through progressions. Once Stanford shut down the running game in the second half, it was all over. Colin Klein at Kansas State comes to mind. He couldn't throw for shit and wasn't a blazing fast runner, but he was efficient. I hope they tailor the offense more to Miles' strengths.AtomicDawg said:After watching the game I have a hard time thinking Stanford is that good. Sure they will win 8 or 9 games but they will lose their share of games in conference.
I think we are destined to win 3 or 4 conference games. Petersen gets paid a boat load of money to figure it out but so far he hasn't. It's like watching rick when he took over for Lambo. Rick scrapped everything and said what the fuck can we do when they were 0-2 ans they adapted their entire offense to the talent they had.
I really think we should run our qb a shitload of times because we sure as he'll can't throw vs a decent defense. But I leave that to Pete to figure out. -
RoadDawg55 said:
I agree about the offense. I have seen QB's like Miles win, but they aren't in offenses that rely on downfield passing and going through progressions. Once Stanford shut down the running game in the second half, it was all over.AtomicDawg said:After watching the game I have a hard time thinking Stanford is that good. Sure they will win 8 or 9 games but they will lose their share of games in conference.
I think we are destined to win 3 or 4 conference games. Petersen gets paid a boat load of money to figure it out but so far he hasn't. It's like watching rick when he took over for Lambo. Rick scrapped everything and said what the fuck can we do when they were 0-2 ans they adapted their entire offense to the talent they had.
I really think we should run our qb a shitload of times because we sure as he'll can't throw vs a decent defense. But I leave that to Pete to figure out.Colin KleinAny QB at Kansas State comes to mind. He couldn't throw for shit and wasn't a blazing fast runner, but he was efficient. He had a shitty throwing motion too. I hope they tailor the offense more to Miles' strengths. -
Go back & watch the triple option out of pistol in the 3rd quarter. One of the few bright points.EsophagealFeces said:
PGOS has been honking that horn for days. I don't think it's a bad idea.haie said:
They may as well just start running the fucking option.RoadDawg55 said:
I agree about the offense. I have seen QB's like Miles win, but they aren't in offenses that rely on downfield passing and going through progressions. Once Stanford shut down the running game in the second half, it was all over. Colin Klein at Kansas State comes to mind. He couldn't throw for shit and wasn't a blazing fast runner, but he was efficient. I hope they tailor the offense more to Miles' strengths.AtomicDawg said:After watching the game I have a hard time thinking Stanford is that good. Sure they will win 8 or 9 games but they will lose their share of games in conference.
I think we are destined to win 3 or 4 conference games. Petersen gets paid a boat load of money to figure it out but so far he hasn't. It's like watching rick when he took over for Lambo. Rick scrapped everything and said what the fuck can we do when they were 0-2 ans they adapted their entire offense to the talent they had.
I really think we should run our qb a shitload of times because we sure as he'll can't throw vs a decent defense. But I leave that to Pete to figure out.
-
Sorry...hadn't been on the boards and I'll probably start a shitstorm by posting this but there is no way anyone can say we have the same amount of talent as when Sark started. There are holes, but we have 3 guys on defense that will go in the first 2 rounds of the draft next year, an OL (Charles) and some WRs that will play in the pros, and we don't have a walk-on safety or walk-on want-to-be rapper OG.
That said, there is no way this team is only winning 5 games like Sark's first year, or only 7 games next year like the rest of Sark's career. Its a big step up to go from 4-5 wins to 7-8 wins, and its another big step up to go to 9-10 wins, and its an even bigger jump for that final step up. We should hit the 9-10 win level this year and end up barely ranked and I haven't seen anything yet that convinces me otherwise.
Its apple and oranges...Sark provided with his tenure and what we see in our QB and OL depth that he wasn't the guy to make the last couple of jumps...I hope Peterman is. Roaddawg's numbers are good...we've seen this kind of performance before from Sark QBs, and the only difference is that we almost won this game instead of losing by 40.
-
Disagree -HoustonHusky said:Sorry...hadn't been on the boards and I'll probably start a shitstorm by posting this but there is no way anyone can say we have the same amount of talent as when Sark started. There are holes, but we have 3 guys on defense that will go in the first 2 rounds of the draft next year, an OL (Charles) and some WRs that will play in the pros, and we don't have a walk-on safety or walk-on want-to-be rapper OG.
That said, there is no way this team is only winning 5 games like Sark's first year, or only 7 games next year like the rest of Sark's career. Its a big step up to go from 4-5 wins to 7-8 wins, and its another big step up to go to 9-10 wins, and its an even bigger jump for that final step up. We should hit the 9-10 win level this year and end up barely ranked and I haven't seen anything yet that convinces me otherwise.
Its apple and oranges...Sark provided with his tenure and what we see in our QB and OL depth that he wasn't the guy to make the last couple of jumps...I hope Peterman is. Roaddawg's numbers are good...we've seen this kind of performance before from Sark QBs, and the only difference is that we almost won this game instead of losing by 40.
1. Go down the list of 2009 starters vs 2014 starters. You find a mixed bag. Overall 2009 has a bit of on edge on offense, 2014 has the edge on defense. Overall the difference isn't drastic.
2. Of course this team will win more than 2009 and 2010. Mostly because of a 13 game schedule and the front loaded dreckfest of teams. The first five games in 2009 were:
LSU
Idaho
USC
Stanford
Notre Dame
The 2009 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
The first 5 games of 2010 were:
BYU
Syracuse
Nebraska
USC
ASU
The 2010 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
2009 and 2010 would both be 4-1 with the 2014 schedule.
Point is, Sark didn't leave the cupboard really any more stocked than when he arrived.
We measured Sark by his conference record. We should use the same standard. 4-5 and 5-4. This team looks on par with that. The preseason scrimmage wins should not cloud the truth.
http://hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/13144/a-q-for-the-board
-
Bolded for OBK fucking stupidMikeDamone said:
Disagree -HoustonHusky said:Sorry...hadn't been on the boards and I'll probably start a shitstorm by posting this but there is no way anyone can say we have the same amount of talent as when Sark started. There are holes, but we have 3 guys on defense that will go in the first 2 rounds of the draft next year, an OL (Charles) and some WRs that will play in the pros, and we don't have a walk-on safety or walk-on want-to-be rapper OG.
That said, there is no way this team is only winning 5 games like Sark's first year, or only 7 games next year like the rest of Sark's career. Its a big step up to go from 4-5 wins to 7-8 wins, and its another big step up to go to 9-10 wins, and its an even bigger jump for that final step up. We should hit the 9-10 win level this year and end up barely ranked and I haven't seen anything yet that convinces me otherwise.
Its apple and oranges...Sark provided with his tenure and what we see in our QB and OL depth that he wasn't the guy to make the last couple of jumps...I hope Peterman is. Roaddawg's numbers are good...we've seen this kind of performance before from Sark QBs, and the only difference is that we almost won this game instead of losing by 40.
1. Go down the list of 2009 starters vs 2014 starters. You find a mixed bag. Overall 2009 has a bit of on edge on offense, 2014 has the edge on defense. Overall the difference isn't drastic.
2. Of course this team will win more than 2009 and 2010. Mostly because of a 13 game schedule and the front loaded dreckfest of teams. The first five games in 2009 were:
LSU
Idaho
USC
Stanford
Notre Dame
The 2009 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
The first 5 games of 2010 were:
BYU
Syracuse
Nebraska
USC
ASU
The 2010 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
2009 and 2010 would both be 4-1 with the 2014 schedule.
Point is, Sark didn't leave the cupboard really any more stocked than when he arrived.
We measured Sark by his conference record. We should use the same standard. 4-5 and 5-4. This team looks on par with that. The preseason scrimmage wins should not cloud the truth.
http://hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/13144/a-q-for-the-board -
The thing is Stanford offense is sound but doesn't score that many points. Oir defense had an incredible game with a high number of key turnovers. The score is a bit misleading. What are we gonna do when we play better PAC 12 offenses? These teams score a TD on every other drive. How are we gonna answer that?
We are Stanford with Nunes. Every coach is gonna stack the box and dare Miles to beat them with his arm, which he can't do. LIPO but 4 or 5 conference wins sounds optimistic at this point to me. -
Why? Help me out, I'm slow.RaceBannon said:
Bolded for OBK fucking stupidMikeDamone said:
Disagree -HoustonHusky said:Sorry...hadn't been on the boards and I'll probably start a shitstorm by posting this but there is no way anyone can say we have the same amount of talent as when Sark started. There are holes, but we have 3 guys on defense that will go in the first 2 rounds of the draft next year, an OL (Charles) and some WRs that will play in the pros, and we don't have a walk-on safety or walk-on want-to-be rapper OG.
That said, there is no way this team is only winning 5 games like Sark's first year, or only 7 games next year like the rest of Sark's career. Its a big step up to go from 4-5 wins to 7-8 wins, and its another big step up to go to 9-10 wins, and its an even bigger jump for that final step up. We should hit the 9-10 win level this year and end up barely ranked and I haven't seen anything yet that convinces me otherwise.
Its apple and oranges...Sark provided with his tenure and what we see in our QB and OL depth that he wasn't the guy to make the last couple of jumps...I hope Peterman is. Roaddawg's numbers are good...we've seen this kind of performance before from Sark QBs, and the only difference is that we almost won this game instead of losing by 40.
1. Go down the list of 2009 starters vs 2014 starters. You find a mixed bag. Overall 2009 has a bit of on edge on offense, 2014 has the edge on defense. Overall the difference isn't drastic.
2. Of course this team will win more than 2009 and 2010. Mostly because of a 13 game schedule and the front loaded dreckfest of teams. The first five games in 2009 were:
LSU
Idaho
USC
Stanford
Notre Dame
The 2009 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
The first 5 games of 2010 were:
BYU
Syracuse
Nebraska
USC
ASU
The 2010 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
2009 and 2010 would both be 4-1 with the 2014 schedule.
Point is, Sark didn't leave the cupboard really any more stocked than when he arrived.
We measured Sark by his conference record. We should use the same standard. 4-5 and 5-4. This team looks on par with that. The preseason scrimmage wins should not cloud the truth.
http://hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/13144/a-q-for-the-board -
He claims we always play the current cupcake schedule
And they played Michigan Fucking State!!!1111!!! -
Ah...I see.RaceBannon said:He claims we always play the current cupcake schedule
And they played Michigan Fucking State!!!1111!!!
When comparing apples to apples, talent wise, Sark left Petersen in only a marginally better place then TW left him. Fuck that narrative that Sark was anything more than average..at anything. (expect flapping his pie hole) -
FareMikeDamone said:
Disagree -HoustonHusky said:Sorry...hadn't been on the boards and I'll probably start a shitstorm by posting this but there is no way anyone can say we have the same amount of talent as when Sark started. There are holes, but we have 3 guys on defense that will go in the first 2 rounds of the draft next year, an OL (Charles) and some WRs that will play in the pros, and we don't have a walk-on safety or walk-on want-to-be rapper OG.
That said, there is no way this team is only winning 5 games like Sark's first year, or only 7 games next year like the rest of Sark's career. Its a big step up to go from 4-5 wins to 7-8 wins, and its another big step up to go to 9-10 wins, and its an even bigger jump for that final step up. We should hit the 9-10 win level this year and end up barely ranked and I haven't seen anything yet that convinces me otherwise.
Its apple and oranges...Sark provided with his tenure and what we see in our QB and OL depth that he wasn't the guy to make the last couple of jumps...I hope Peterman is. Roaddawg's numbers are good...we've seen this kind of performance before from Sark QBs, and the only difference is that we almost won this game instead of losing by 40.
1. Go down the list of 2009 starters vs 2014 starters. You find a mixed bag. Overall 2009 has a bit of on edge on offense, 2014 has the edge on defense. Overall the difference isn't drastic.
2. Of course this team will win more than 2009 and 2010. Mostly because of a 13 game schedule and the front loaded dreckfest of teams. The first five games in 2009 were:
LSU
Idaho
USC
Stanford
Notre Dame
The 2009 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
The first 5 games of 2010 were:
BYU
Syracuse
Nebraska
USC
ASU
The 2010 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
2009 and 2010 would both be 4-1 with the 2014 schedule.
Point is, Sark didn't leave the cupboard really any more stocked than when he arrived.
We measured Sark by his conference record. We should use the same standard. 4-5 and 5-4. This team looks on par with that. The preseason scrimmage wins should not cloud the truth.
http://hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/13144/a-q-for-the-board -
I never claimed to be a journalist.RaccoonHarry said:
FareMikeDamone said:
Disagree -HoustonHusky said:Sorry...hadn't been on the boards and I'll probably start a shitstorm by posting this but there is no way anyone can say we have the same amount of talent as when Sark started. There are holes, but we have 3 guys on defense that will go in the first 2 rounds of the draft next year, an OL (Charles) and some WRs that will play in the pros, and we don't have a walk-on safety or walk-on want-to-be rapper OG.
That said, there is no way this team is only winning 5 games like Sark's first year, or only 7 games next year like the rest of Sark's career. Its a big step up to go from 4-5 wins to 7-8 wins, and its another big step up to go to 9-10 wins, and its an even bigger jump for that final step up. We should hit the 9-10 win level this year and end up barely ranked and I haven't seen anything yet that convinces me otherwise.
Its apple and oranges...Sark provided with his tenure and what we see in our QB and OL depth that he wasn't the guy to make the last couple of jumps...I hope Peterman is. Roaddawg's numbers are good...we've seen this kind of performance before from Sark QBs, and the only difference is that we almost won this game instead of losing by 40.
1. Go down the list of 2009 starters vs 2014 starters. You find a mixed bag. Overall 2009 has a bit of on edge on offense, 2014 has the edge on defense. Overall the difference isn't drastic.
2. Of course this team will win more than 2009 and 2010. Mostly because of a 13 game schedule and the front loaded dreckfest of teams. The first five games in 2009 were:
LSU
Idaho
USC
Stanford
Notre Dame
The 2009 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
The first 5 games of 2010 were:
BYU
Syracuse
Nebraska
USC
ASU
The 2010 team started 2-3. The 2014 team would fair no better.
2009 and 2010 would both be 4-1 with the 2014 schedule.
Point is, Sark didn't leave the cupboard really any more stocked than when he arrived.
We measured Sark by his conference record. We should use the same standard. 4-5 and 5-4. This team looks on par with that. The preseason scrimmage wins should not cloud the truth.
http://hardcorehusky.com/forums/#/discussion/13144/a-q-for-the-board
I suck at homophones.
