Some things take time for a new coach to implement
Secondly, the regression of players. Namely Cyler Miles. I went back and watched last year's UCLA and Oregon State games. That Cyler was worlds ahead of the dreckfest we saw on Saturday. I understand Miles was out for the spring, but he has no business looking that terrible. I suspect ND is going to obliterate this Stanford team next week, making us look even worse.
Comments
-
You can argue that special teams cost you the game at the Farm last year.
Stanford defensively is a way ahead of UCLA, and about 3 light years ahead of Oregon St.
Despite playing at the end last year, this was still Myles' 5th career start I believe. 5 career starts without spring practice = behind the curve. It's going to take Cyler a few more games to makeup for what he has missed already.
ND is not going to obliterate Stanford. Who has ND played? The 31-0 win over Michigan is looking worse by the week. Stanford usually wins ugly, and I think they'll win ugly again next week. That's how Stanford gets it done. -
Some of your arguments just seem like nitpicking. Screwing up a extra point is just a mess up, even happens in the pros. If they sucked at PATs all the time, that would be a coaching issue. Random screw ups are not.
-
Nobody is obliterating Stanford. Maybe Notre Dame can sneak out a win, but it's going to be a close game.
-
Inept special teams play? Durkee was phenomenal in that game. The one return was also bad execution in which the ball was mistakenly kicked to Montgomery, that was not the plan. They immediately kicked the ball to Ross and he fucking housed it, is Stanford inept? No, sometimes kickers don't execute and you saw 2 of the best 3 returners in the country do what they do. The worst special teams play was the illegal block on that very play, there's no way to coach guys fucking up snaps. If anything, Special Teams has seen the most immediate improvement of any phase. Scratching my head at your comment, gotta be honest.Gladstone said:Some things, however, absolutely do not. The most damning aspect of the Stanford game, for me, was the inept special teams play. That is something that a competent coach should be able to fix right away. Kickoff coverage 101. Not fumbling a basic PAT. Both of these fall 100% at the feet of the coaching staff and were directly attributable to our loss. Inexcusable.
Secondly, the regression of players. Namely Cyler Miles. I went back and watched last year's UCLA and Oregon State games. That Cyler was worlds ahead of the dreckfest we saw on Saturday. I understand Miles was out for the spring, but he has no business looking that terrible. I suspect ND is going to obliterate this Stanford team next week, making us look even worse. -
Jesus fucking Christ.
Go fucking jerk off and relax. -
ND 34, Stanford 17
Rather easily. -
ND is the defending Pac12 champTierbsHsotBoobs said:ND 34, Stanford 17
Rather easily. -
Revenge game.topdawgnc said:
ND is the defending Pac12 South champTierbsHsotBoobs said:ND 34, Stanford 17
Rather easily. -
This. Give peace a chance.topdawgnc said:Jesus fucking Christ.
Go fucking jerk off and relax. -
Agree with the guys who disagreed with you.
The opening kickoff was one of the worst kicks I've ever seen. It was a line drive, right to the returner, short of the goal line. It looked like the kicker was just chipping it half speed but it got no air and went right where it shouldn't have. The coverage didn't even have time to get down the field before Montgomery was across the 25 and at full stride. The best KO returner in the nation made them pay for a horrible kick.
The other KO coverage, and the punts, were more than just acceptable. The were spectacular. Ross got two returns on the game and one went to the end zone. That's pretty good even though the blocking and the return by Ross were pretty weak the second time around when something really big was needed.
I just don't see a lot to get down about here other than the fact that UW is paying for three guys to kick balls and none of can do what seemingly every team we face does routinely...kick it high and deep off of the tee. -
On point 2, would you say he's blowing things up? Did you expect Petermon to just put his stamp on things and continue things the way they were under Sark? Do you feel duped?Gladstone said:Some things, however, absolutely do not. The most damning aspect of the Stanford game, for me, was the inept special teams play. That is something that a competent coach should be able to fix right away. Kickoff coverage 101. Not fumbling a basic PAT. Both of these fall 100% at the feet of the coaching staff and were directly attributable to our loss. Inexcusable.
Secondly, the regression of players. Namely Cyler Miles. I went back and watched last year's UCLA and Oregon State games. That Cyler was worlds ahead of the dreckfest we saw on Saturday. I understand Miles was out for the spring, but he has no business looking that terrible. I suspect ND is going to obliterate this Stanford team next week, making us look even worse.
Miles looks way worse no doubt, and to an extent Petersen needs to find a way to play to his QBs strength. Sark trying to make Jake a pocket passer lost us a few games. Fuck maybe you're right, but I thought we were all into Peterman doing whatever he wanted because 95-13.
I going to get a drink -
It took Oregon 20 years to find that guy. And he's still hit or miss. You know why we've been known as a great kick coverage team? We've spent 20 years defending kickoffs that are returned from between the 7 and 10 yard line.chuck said:Agree with the guys who disagreed with you.
The opening kickoff was one of the worst kicks I've ever seen. It was a line drive, right to the returner, short of the goal line. It looked like the kicker was just chipping it half speed but it got no air and went right where it shouldn't have. The coverage didn't even have time to get down the field before Montgomery was across the 25 and at full stride. The best KO returner in the nation made them pay for a horrible kick.
The other KO coverage, and the punts, were more than just acceptable. The were spectacular. Ross got two returns on the game and one went to the end zone. That's pretty good even though the blocking and the return by Ross were pretty weak the second time around when something really big was needed.
I just don't see a lot to get down about here other than the fact that UW is paying for three guys to kick balls and none of can do what seemingly every team we face does routinely...kick it high and deep off of the tee. -
All the screenshots I needTierbsHsotBoobs said:ND 34, Stanford 17
Rather easily.
-
I was hoping someone would take one.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
-
If you're betting, I take it, you're betting with a Sven $20TierbsHsotBoobs said:ND 34, Stanford 17
Rather easily. -
I was thinking 1000 Weiser bucks.greenblood said:
If you're betting, I take it, you're betting with a Sven $20TierbsHsotBoobs said:ND 34, Stanford 17
Rather easily. -
What's their conversion rate?TierbsHsotBoobs said:
I was thinking 1000 Weiser bucks.greenblood said:
If you're betting, I take it, you're betting with a Sven $20TierbsHsotBoobs said:ND 34, Stanford 17
Rather easily. -
Goldson gets injured in 1st quarter, Furd wins a TUFF one 13-10TierbsHsotBoobs said:
cook it!
*insert spastic killer clown .gif* -
I agree because you "cooked it"PostGameOrangeSlices said:
Goldson gets injured in 1st quarter, Furd wins a TUFF one 13-10TierbsHsotBoobs said:
cook it!
*insert spastic killer clown .gif* -
PostGameOrangeSlices said:
Goldson gets injured in 1st quarter, Furd wins a TUFF one 13-10TierbsHsotBoobs said:
cook it!
*insert spastic killer clown .gif*
-
greenblood said:
I agree because you "cooked it"PostGameOrangeSlices said:
Goldson gets injured in 1st quarter, Furd wins a TUFF one 13-10TierbsHsotBoobs said:
cook it!
*insert spastic killer clown .gif*
-
Please explain how far a QB can regress when they're a sophomore starting their second game vs P12 talent.
Do you mean he didn't look as good against the #1 defense in the country as opposed to the Eastern Eagles?
Astute observation. -
I think this is true. Play to Miles' strengths and don't try to force him into being something he's not. I think there were one or two called runs or plays where Miles kept the ball. The time I remember him keeping it, he gained 10 yards and picked up a first down. I don't like to complain about play calling too much, but it would have been nice to see some QB runs and fly sweeps called in the run game.UWerentThereMan said:
On point 2, would you say he's blowing things up? Did you expect Petermon to just put his stamp on things and continue things the way they were under Sark? Do you feel duped?Gladstone said:Some things, however, absolutely do not. The most damning aspect of the Stanford game, for me, was the inept special teams play. That is something that a competent coach should be able to fix right away. Kickoff coverage 101. Not fumbling a basic PAT. Both of these fall 100% at the feet of the coaching staff and were directly attributable to our loss. Inexcusable.
Secondly, the regression of players. Namely Cyler Miles. I went back and watched last year's UCLA and Oregon State games. That Cyler was worlds ahead of the dreckfest we saw on Saturday. I understand Miles was out for the spring, but he has no business looking that terrible. I suspect ND is going to obliterate this Stanford team next week, making us look even worse.
Miles looks way worse no doubt, and to an extent Petersen needs to find a way to play to his QBs strength. Sark trying to make Jake a pocket passer lost us a few games. Fuck maybe you're right, but I thought we were all into Peterman doing whatever he wanted because 95-13.
I going to get a drink -
Miles picked up 2 first downs on runs in the 4th quarter. When he didn't run sideways, he picked up positive yardageRoadDawg55 said:
I think this is true. Play to Miles' strengths and don't try to force him into being something he's not. I think there were one or two called runs or plays where Miles kept the ball. The time I remember him keeping it, he gained 10 yards and picked up a first down. I don't like to complain about play calling too much, but it would have been nice to see some QB runs and fly sweeps called in the run game.UWerentThereMan said:
On point 2, would you say he's blowing things up? Did you expect Petermon to just put his stamp on things and continue things the way they were under Sark? Do you feel duped?Gladstone said:Some things, however, absolutely do not. The most damning aspect of the Stanford game, for me, was the inept special teams play. That is something that a competent coach should be able to fix right away. Kickoff coverage 101. Not fumbling a basic PAT. Both of these fall 100% at the feet of the coaching staff and were directly attributable to our loss. Inexcusable.
Secondly, the regression of players. Namely Cyler Miles. I went back and watched last year's UCLA and Oregon State games. That Cyler was worlds ahead of the dreckfest we saw on Saturday. I understand Miles was out for the spring, but he has no business looking that terrible. I suspect ND is going to obliterate this Stanford team next week, making us look even worse.
Miles looks way worse no doubt, and to an extent Petersen needs to find a way to play to his QBs strength. Sark trying to make Jake a pocket passer lost us a few games. Fuck maybe you're right, but I thought we were all into Peterman doing whatever he wanted because 95-13.
I going to get a drink
I really don't know what the fuck Petahman and Smoth are thinking. Run Cyler 15 times a game...there are fucking THREE 4 star recruits that are tanned, rested, and ready in case Miley pulls a hammy.
It's fucking pissing me off.
-
I see you are going for 0-2 on your predictions involving Stanford.TierbsHsotBoobs said:ND 34, Stanford 17
Rather easily. -
0-3. I thought they would beat SC.uzi said:
I see you are going for 0-2 on your predictions involving Stanford.TierbsHsotBoobs said:ND 34, Stanford 17
Rather easily. -
Whoa, big spender!TierbsHsotBoobs said:
I was thinking 1000 Weiser bucks.greenblood said:
If you're betting, I take it, you're betting with a Sven $20TierbsHsotBoobs said:ND 34, Stanford 17
Rather easily.
