Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Some Numbers and Observations
Comments
-
@Tequilla- You are all over the place. I agree that a great QB makes a huge difference. The thing is, I never expected Miles to be great. I expected him to be better than he has played, but the formula has always been for this team to run the ball, win the turnover battle, and play solid defense. He's a game manager with running ability. He's not a blazing fast guy, but he's a big guy who is good in short yardage situations and can hurt you a little bit with his legs.
I don't think you are getting the point. This is a run dominant team that until the Stanford game had been running the ball pretty well. We shouldn't be relying on Miles to beat a tough opponent like Stanford. That is what happened and the results were probably what should have been expected. As I originally noted, Locker and Price had some terrible games too, and that was with supporting casts (at least at the skill positions) that were better than what Miles currently has.
I don't think anybody on this board besides you expected a championship. So, Miles isn't a championship QB, at least with the talent we have around him. That QB isn't going to magically appear. He still might be good enough to win 10+ games.
Here is some Pac 12 relevancy. Kevin Hogan from last year. Hogan played with a very good OL, had a strong running game, and good defense. Montgomery (certainly) and Cajuste are probably better than any WR we have as well. None of these three defenses are/were as good as Stanford's is. It should prove that there are more ways to win football games than to have a great QB slinging the ball around.
Wash: 12-20, 100 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT (W 31-28)
@OSU: 8-18, 88 yards , 0 TD, 0 INT (W 20-12)
Ore: 7-13, 103 yards, 0 TD, 0 INT (W 26-20)
Miles needs to play better, but it's way too early to write him off because he played poorly against a very good defense. We still could have won the game, even with the inept offense. -
"Par the course." Can we just be the fuck done with golf anal-ogies?
-
Thats out of boundsHomebrew_Dawg said:"Par the course." Can we just be the fuck done with golf anal-ogies?
-
Experience, eh?RaceBannon said:
Thats out of boundsHomebrew_Dawg said:"Par the course." Can we just be the fuck done with golf anal-ogies?
-
For the 1984 whiners: Win your own conference then pop off.
-
How many times have you read this comment--"it all starts up front with the big boys" or something similar? What we are witnessing is what we have been saying for several years now, missing on those signing days for good linemen was going to hurt us for years down the line. When people were making excuses for Sark on signing day the rest of us were forecasting this day in the future. When all those misses resulted in fuzzy chinned freshman starting on the line, we said the same thing, some of these kids will be hurt and have their careers shortened. OK, sorry for the rehashing but there was a reason in the past why our line today sucks.
Locker was not a good passer, he couldn't hit the broad side of the barn. And bad passers remain so in the vast majority of cases. Miles is a noodle armed bad passer. His audition is over yet we are probably stuck with him until spring ball. I doubt Peterman will go with a QB next season who has a noodle arm, in fact I think we may see Williams or a return of Lindquist at Cal.
I don't think there is much more we can hash out about this situation, the majority of us thought this was the year, we just didn't realize how little Sark had left Peterman to work with. -
I like Lavon Coleman a lot. He's not a HR hitter but use Mickens and Ross on fly sweeps or quick screens if defenses pinch the middle b/c they're not worried about getting hurt on the edges.
Jomon Dotson is supposed to be fast and he'll be available next year. Myles Gaskin is supposed to be very good and both those guys could be the lightning to Coleman's thunder.
Coleman will do his fair share of pounding against Cal and you'll like him for it!
