Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Petersen, The Christ
Comments
-
There is such a thing as a "game flow outcome probability graph"? Whoever invented this graph needs get violated by a rusty automated auger.TierbsHsotBoobs said:RaceBannon said:
So now we're extending this hypothetical even furtherTierbsHsotBoobs said:
I also like to ignore how UW was in field goal range when they needed a touchdown at the end.RaceBannon said:
I like to pretend Stanford needed a TDThomasFremont said:
I like to pretend the 33 yard line = the end zone. I like to do that.RaceBannon said:
I like to say that a 47 yard drive is "not moving the ball the way the Husky defense was playing"ThomasFremont said:
I like to pretend 47 yard scoring drives are as easy as 80+ yard scoring drives.RaceBannon said:
Other than the 47 yards they moved it to scoresarktastic said:Brock called him out. Said you don't take chances like that at this level... kicking it would have pinned Stanford on their own 10( or not) and Stanford would not have moved the ball the way the UW defense was playing.
He should tread lightly or he may get his brother fired.
But still
But still
If you drive 47 yards from your 20 you are at the Husky 33 yard line.
They didn't
But still
CHRIST
Seems a lot like pressing now
-
It's about a dumb fuck fake punt that cost us the game when it was still winnable.RaceBannon said:
Great irrelevant graph as alwaysTierbsHsotBoobs said:RaceBannon said:
So now we're extending this hypothetical even furtherTierbsHsotBoobs said:
I also like to ignore how UW was in field goal range when they needed a touchdown at the end.RaceBannon said:
I like to pretend Stanford needed a TDThomasFremont said:
I like to pretend the 33 yard line = the end zone. I like to do that.RaceBannon said:
I like to say that a 47 yard drive is "not moving the ball the way the Husky defense was playing"ThomasFremont said:
I like to pretend 47 yard scoring drives are as easy as 80+ yard scoring drives.RaceBannon said:
Other than the 47 yards they moved it to scoresarktastic said:Brock called him out. Said you don't take chances like that at this level... kicking it would have pinned Stanford on their own 10( or not) and Stanford would not have moved the ball the way the UW defense was playing.
He should tread lightly or he may get his brother fired.
But still
But still
If you drive 47 yards from your 20 you are at the Husky 33 yard line.
They didn't
But still
CHRIST
Seems a lot like pressing now
Maybe you should see what this discussion is about first, then pop off
What are you talking about? -
Welcome to SaturdayThomasFremont said:
It's about a dumb fuck fake punt that cost us the game when it was still winnable.RaceBannon said:
Great irrelevant graph as alwaysTierbsHsotBoobs said:RaceBannon said:
So now we're extending this hypothetical even furtherTierbsHsotBoobs said:
I also like to ignore how UW was in field goal range when they needed a touchdown at the end.RaceBannon said:
I like to pretend Stanford needed a TDThomasFremont said:
I like to pretend the 33 yard line = the end zone. I like to do that.RaceBannon said:
I like to say that a 47 yard drive is "not moving the ball the way the Husky defense was playing"ThomasFremont said:
I like to pretend 47 yard scoring drives are as easy as 80+ yard scoring drives.RaceBannon said:
Other than the 47 yards they moved it to scoresarktastic said:Brock called him out. Said you don't take chances like that at this level... kicking it would have pinned Stanford on their own 10( or not) and Stanford would not have moved the ball the way the UW defense was playing.
He should tread lightly or he may get his brother fired.
But still
But still
If you drive 47 yards from your 20 you are at the Husky 33 yard line.
They didn't
But still
CHRIST
Seems a lot like pressing now
Maybe you should see what this discussion is about first, then pop off
What are you talking about?
It's about Brock saying the Husky defense was shutting Stanford down. If that was true it actually bolsters the decision. It wasn't true before the fake and it clearly wasn't true after the fake.
I'll take your hypothetical that somehow Stanford would be paralyzed by getting the ball deep and match it with them running out the clock and scoring at the end
It's Tuesday, let's stop with the simple simon shit and pay attention. Brock was wrong. That was my point
You've been struggling all day -
I agree more with Sven and Fremont on this one. There really is no right answer because it's all hypotheticals. The fake punt was a terrible call though. A small correction is that Stanford didn't move the ball easily down the field. They would have had to convert a 3rd and 8 but Danny Shelton got called for a face mask.
If we punted, Durkee might have pinned it inside the 10, maybe even the 5. The crowd got deflated by the failed fake. Holding Stanford to 3 or even a missed FG was possible if we punted. It's possible Stanford could have went 90 yards for a TD, but I don't think it's crazy to assume that they wouldn't. -
Race doesn't want to hear anything that deviates from his narrative.RoadDawg55 said:I agree more with Sven and Fremont on this one. There really is no right answer because it's all hypotheticals. The fake punt was a terrible call though. A small correction is that Stanford didn't move the ball easily down the field. They would have had to convert a 3rd and 8 but Danny Shelton got called for a face mask.
If we punted, Durkee might have pinned it inside the 10, maybe even the 5. The crowd got deflated by the failed fake. Holding Stanford to 3 or even a missed FG was possible if we punted. It's possible Stanford could have went 90 yards for a TD, but I don't think it's crazy to assume that they wouldn't. -
Race doesn't want to hear anything that deviates from his narrative.
I don't think that's true. It's definitely not true for me. I'm 100% on the side of it being the wrong call. Had it worked I would have shaken my head and breathed a sigh of relief, then I would have watched the same Husky offense get stoned on the other side of the 50 and held my breath again as they attempted a long field goal.
The only way UW wins that game is if they punt that one deep and get a turnover in the red zone.
Or Shaq takes that fake to the house or close to it. Bad gamble, but it actually had a better chance of success than the Husky offense doing anything from anyplace on the field. Playing the trade punt game and failing to force turnover deep or defensive TD would have taken us to overtime at best, where I wouldn't have liked our chances.
My disagreement in this thread is with the statement that the defense was shutting Stanford down, because it wasn't, and with the statement that the fake punt cost UW the game, because it didn't. The offensive ineptitude and inability to stop Stanford's offense after the fake cost the game. The block in the back by Campbell cost UW the game. A lot of things cost UW the game.
-
chuck said:
Race doesn't want to hear anything that deviates from his narrative.
I don't think that's true. It's definitely not true for me. I'm 100% on the side of it being the wrong call. Had it worked I would have shaken my head and breathed a sigh of relief, then I would have watched the same Husky offense get stoned on the other side of the 50 and held my breath again as they attempted a long field goal.
The only way UW wins that game is if they punt that one deep and get a turnover in the red zone.
Or Shaq takes that fake to the house or close to it. Bad gamble, but it actually had a better chance of success than the Husky offense doing anything from anyplace on the field. Playing the trade punt game and failing to force turnover deep or defensive TD would have taken us to overtime at best, where I wouldn't have liked our chances.
My disagreement in this thread is with the statement that the defense was shutting Stanford down, because it wasn't, and with the statement that the fake punt cost UW the game, because it didn't. The offensive ineptitude and inability to stop Stanford's offense after the fake cost the game. The block in the back by Campbell cost UW the game. A lot of things cost UW the game.
Of course it isn't true. I already said it was the wrong call.
Some folks struggle with nuance. UW wasn't shutting Stanford down. Simple fact. -
Of course it isn't true. I already said it was the wrong call.RaceBannon said:chuck said:Race doesn't want to hear anything that deviates from his narrative.
I don't think that's true. It's definitely not true for me. I'm 100% on the side of it being the wrong call. Had it worked I would have shaken my head and breathed a sigh of relief, then I would have watched the same Husky offense get stoned on the other side of the 50 and held my breath again as they attempted a long field goal.
The only way UW wins that game is if they punt that one deep and get a turnover in the red zone.
Or Shaq takes that fake to the house or close to it. Bad gamble, but it actually had a better chance of success than the Husky offense doing anything from anyplace on the field. Playing the trade punt game and failing to force turnover deep or defensive TD would have taken us to overtime at best, where I wouldn't have liked our chances.
My disagreement in this thread is with the statement that the defense was shutting Stanford down, because it wasn't, and with the statement that the fake punt cost UW the game, because it didn't. The offensive ineptitude and inability to stop Stanford's offense after the fake cost the game. The block in the back by Campbell cost UW the game. A lot of things cost UW the game.
Some folks struggle with nuance. UW wasn't shutting Stanford down. Simple fact.
Without using your hindsight, what did you see from their offense that leads you to believe this?
Was it the 13 points they scored in the first 55 minutes of the game or the three TOs? -
Without using your hindsight, what did you see from their offense that leads you to believe this?ThomasFremont said:
Of course it isn't true. I already said it was the wrong call.RaceBannon said:chuck said:Race doesn't want to hear anything that deviates from his narrative.
I don't think that's true. It's definitely not true for me. I'm 100% on the side of it being the wrong call. Had it worked I would have shaken my head and breathed a sigh of relief, then I would have watched the same Husky offense get stoned on the other side of the 50 and held my breath again as they attempted a long field goal.
The only way UW wins that game is if they punt that one deep and get a turnover in the red zone.
Or Shaq takes that fake to the house or close to it. Bad gamble, but it actually had a better chance of success than the Husky offense doing anything from anyplace on the field. Playing the trade punt game and failing to force turnover deep or defensive TD would have taken us to overtime at best, where I wouldn't have liked our chances.
My disagreement in this thread is with the statement that the defense was shutting Stanford down, because it wasn't, and with the statement that the fake punt cost UW the game, because it didn't. The offensive ineptitude and inability to stop Stanford's offense after the fake cost the game. The block in the back by Campbell cost UW the game. A lot of things cost UW the game.
Some folks struggle with nuance. UW wasn't shutting Stanford down. Simple fact.
Was it the 13 points they scored in the first 55 minutes of the game or the three TOs?
364 yards and 22 first downs isn't shutting a team down, HTH -
364 yards and 22 first downs isn't shutting a team down, HTHgreenblood said:
Without using your hindsight, what did you see from their offense that leads you to believe this?ThomasFremont said:
Of course it isn't true. I already said it was the wrong call.RaceBannon said:chuck said:Race doesn't want to hear anything that deviates from his narrative.
I don't think that's true. It's definitely not true for me. I'm 100% on the side of it being the wrong call. Had it worked I would have shaken my head and breathed a sigh of relief, then I would have watched the same Husky offense get stoned on the other side of the 50 and held my breath again as they attempted a long field goal.
The only way UW wins that game is if they punt that one deep and get a turnover in the red zone.
Or Shaq takes that fake to the house or close to it. Bad gamble, but it actually had a better chance of success than the Husky offense doing anything from anyplace on the field. Playing the trade punt game and failing to force turnover deep or defensive TD would have taken us to overtime at best, where I wouldn't have liked our chances.
My disagreement in this thread is with the statement that the defense was shutting Stanford down, because it wasn't, and with the statement that the fake punt cost UW the game, because it didn't. The offensive ineptitude and inability to stop Stanford's offense after the fake cost the game. The block in the back by Campbell cost UW the game. A lot of things cost UW the game.
Some folks struggle with nuance. UW wasn't shutting Stanford down. Simple fact.
Was it the 13 points they scored in the first 55 minutes of the game or the three TOs?
That seemed obvious but perhaps it did need to be spelled out for the slow -
I faked a punt one time.RaceBannon said:Let he who has never called for a fake punt cast the first stone
Well, I guess that's about all of us
Whiskey dick.
-
364 yards and 22 first downs isn't shutting a team down, HTHgreenblood said:
Without using your hindsight, what did you see from their offense that leads you to believe this?ThomasFremont said:
Of course it isn't true. I already said it was the wrong call.RaceBannon said:chuck said:Race doesn't want to hear anything that deviates from his narrative.
I don't think that's true. It's definitely not true for me. I'm 100% on the side of it being the wrong call. Had it worked I would have shaken my head and breathed a sigh of relief, then I would have watched the same Husky offense get stoned on the other side of the 50 and held my breath again as they attempted a long field goal.
The only way UW wins that game is if they punt that one deep and get a turnover in the red zone.
Or Shaq takes that fake to the house or close to it. Bad gamble, but it actually had a better chance of success than the Husky offense doing anything from anyplace on the field. Playing the trade punt game and failing to force turnover deep or defensive TD would have taken us to overtime at best, where I wouldn't have liked our chances.
My disagreement in this thread is with the statement that the defense was shutting Stanford down, because it wasn't, and with the statement that the fake punt cost UW the game, because it didn't. The offensive ineptitude and inability to stop Stanford's offense after the fake cost the game. The block in the back by Campbell cost UW the game. A lot of things cost UW the game.
Some folks struggle with nuance. UW wasn't shutting Stanford down. Simple fact.
Was it the 13 points they scored in the first 55 minutes of the game or the three TOs?
#ScoreboardBaby -
#ScoreboardBabyThomasFremont said:
364 yards and 22 first downs isn't shutting a team down, HTHgreenblood said:
Without using your hindsight, what did you see from their offense that leads you to believe this?ThomasFremont said:
Of course it isn't true. I already said it was the wrong call.RaceBannon said:chuck said:Race doesn't want to hear anything that deviates from his narrative.
I don't think that's true. It's definitely not true for me. I'm 100% on the side of it being the wrong call. Had it worked I would have shaken my head and breathed a sigh of relief, then I would have watched the same Husky offense get stoned on the other side of the 50 and held my breath again as they attempted a long field goal.
The only way UW wins that game is if they punt that one deep and get a turnover in the red zone.
Or Shaq takes that fake to the house or close to it. Bad gamble, but it actually had a better chance of success than the Husky offense doing anything from anyplace on the field. Playing the trade punt game and failing to force turnover deep or defensive TD would have taken us to overtime at best, where I wouldn't have liked our chances.
My disagreement in this thread is with the statement that the defense was shutting Stanford down, because it wasn't, and with the statement that the fake punt cost UW the game, because it didn't. The offensive ineptitude and inability to stop Stanford's offense after the fake cost the game. The block in the back by Campbell cost UW the game. A lot of things cost UW the game.
Some folks struggle with nuance. UW wasn't shutting Stanford down. Simple fact.
Was it the 13 points they scored in the first 55 minutes of the game or the three TOs?
That's what the Quooks said when we gave up 439 yards and 24 first downs to Wyoming. Nothing beat the Quooking after the Stanford game last year, trying to prove that our defense wasn't that bad since we only gave up 26 points. Let's ignore the fact they crammed the ball down our throats.
It's not the 20-13 loss, it's the way you loss. Stanford dominated that entire game. They out-gained you more than 2-1. That was the most lopsided 1 touchdown game I've scene since the Ducks went to the Farm last season.
-
That's what the Quooks said when we gave up 439 yards and 24 first downs to Wyoming. Nothing beat the Quooking after the Stanford game last year, trying to prove that our defense wasn't that bad since we only gave up 26 points. Let's ignore the fact they crammed the ball down our throats.greenblood said:
#ScoreboardBabyThomasFremont said:
364 yards and 22 first downs isn't shutting a team down, HTHgreenblood said:
Without using your hindsight, what did you see from their offense that leads you to believe this?ThomasFremont said:
Of course it isn't true. I already said it was the wrong call.RaceBannon said:chuck said:Race doesn't want to hear anything that deviates from his narrative.
I don't think that's true. It's definitely not true for me. I'm 100% on the side of it being the wrong call. Had it worked I would have shaken my head and breathed a sigh of relief, then I would have watched the same Husky offense get stoned on the other side of the 50 and held my breath again as they attempted a long field goal.
The only way UW wins that game is if they punt that one deep and get a turnover in the red zone.
Or Shaq takes that fake to the house or close to it. Bad gamble, but it actually had a better chance of success than the Husky offense doing anything from anyplace on the field. Playing the trade punt game and failing to force turnover deep or defensive TD would have taken us to overtime at best, where I wouldn't have liked our chances.
My disagreement in this thread is with the statement that the defense was shutting Stanford down, because it wasn't, and with the statement that the fake punt cost UW the game, because it didn't. The offensive ineptitude and inability to stop Stanford's offense after the fake cost the game. The block in the back by Campbell cost UW the game. A lot of things cost UW the game.
Some folks struggle with nuance. UW wasn't shutting Stanford down. Simple fact.
Was it the 13 points they scored in the first 55 minutes of the game or the three TOs?
It's not the 20-13 loss, it's the way you loss. Stanford dominated that entire game. They out-gained you more than 2-1. That was the most lopsided 1 touchdown game I've scene since the Ducks went to the Farm last season.
Disagree. They are a better team, but it was close the entire game and there was nothing lopsided about it. It was a tie game at halftime and after 3 quarters. It wasn't 20-0 after three. Stanford needed some breaks to win the game, just like we needed some breaks (turnovers) to stay in it. I understand the thinking that we were lucky to be in the game based on the yardage, but Timu dropped a pick 6 and Ross' TD was called back on a block and the back that would not have mattered. He would have scored if Campbell didn't touch him. -
Disagree. They are a better team, but it was close the entire game and there was nothing lopsided about it. It was a tie game at halftime and after 3 quarters. It wasn't 20-0 after three. Stanford needed some breaks to win the game, just like we needed some breaks (turnovers) to stay in it. I understand the thinking that we were lucky to be in the game based on the yardage, but Timu dropped a pick 6 and Ross' TD was called back on a block and the back that would not have mattered. He would have scored if Campbell didn't touch him.RoadDawg55 said:
That's what the Quooks said when we gave up 439 yards and 24 first downs to Wyoming. Nothing beat the Quooking after the Stanford game last year, trying to prove that our defense wasn't that bad since we only gave up 26 points. Let's ignore the fact they crammed the ball down our throats.greenblood said:
#ScoreboardBabyThomasFremont said:
364 yards and 22 first downs isn't shutting a team down, HTHgreenblood said:
Without using your hindsight, what did you see from their offense that leads you to believe this?ThomasFremont said:
Of course it isn't true. I already said it was the wrong call.RaceBannon said:chuck said:Race doesn't want to hear anything that deviates from his narrative.
I don't think that's true. It's definitely not true for me. I'm 100% on the side of it being the wrong call. Had it worked I would have shaken my head and breathed a sigh of relief, then I would have watched the same Husky offense get stoned on the other side of the 50 and held my breath again as they attempted a long field goal.
The only way UW wins that game is if they punt that one deep and get a turnover in the red zone.
Or Shaq takes that fake to the house or close to it. Bad gamble, but it actually had a better chance of success than the Husky offense doing anything from anyplace on the field. Playing the trade punt game and failing to force turnover deep or defensive TD would have taken us to overtime at best, where I wouldn't have liked our chances.
My disagreement in this thread is with the statement that the defense was shutting Stanford down, because it wasn't, and with the statement that the fake punt cost UW the game, because it didn't. The offensive ineptitude and inability to stop Stanford's offense after the fake cost the game. The block in the back by Campbell cost UW the game. A lot of things cost UW the game.
Some folks struggle with nuance. UW wasn't shutting Stanford down. Simple fact.
Was it the 13 points they scored in the first 55 minutes of the game or the three TOs?
It's not the 20-13 loss, it's the way you loss. Stanford dominated that entire game. They out-gained you more than 2-1. That was the most lopsided 1 touchdown game I've scene since the Ducks went to the Farm last season.
We needed one big break to win it. Playing conservative and counting on the defense was one gamble (the better one especially in hindsight) and hopefully create one. Faking a punt with the ball in your best player's hands was another way. I would have chosen option one. Petersen would have won universal praise for choosing option two if it had worked. -
We needed one big break to win it. Playing conservative and counting on the defense was one gamble (the better one especially in hindsight) and hopefully create one. Faking a punt with the ball in your best player's hands was another way. I would have chosen option one. Petersen would have won universal praise for choosing option two if it had worked.chuck said:
Disagree. They are a better team, but it was close the entire game and there was nothing lopsided about it. It was a tie game at halftime and after 3 quarters. It wasn't 20-0 after three. Stanford needed some breaks to win the game, just like we needed some breaks (turnovers) to stay in it. I understand the thinking that we were lucky to be in the game based on the yardage, but Timu dropped a pick 6 and Ross' TD was called back on a block and the back that would not have mattered. He would have scored if Campbell didn't touch him.RoadDawg55 said:
That's what the Quooks said when we gave up 439 yards and 24 first downs to Wyoming. Nothing beat the Quooking after the Stanford game last year, trying to prove that our defense wasn't that bad since we only gave up 26 points. Let's ignore the fact they crammed the ball down our throats.greenblood said:
#ScoreboardBabyThomasFremont said:
364 yards and 22 first downs isn't shutting a team down, HTHgreenblood said:
Without using your hindsight, what did you see from their offense that leads you to believe this?ThomasFremont said:
Of course it isn't true. I already said it was the wrong call.RaceBannon said:chuck said:Race doesn't want to hear anything that deviates from his narrative.
I don't think that's true. It's definitely not true for me. I'm 100% on the side of it being the wrong call. Had it worked I would have shaken my head and breathed a sigh of relief, then I would have watched the same Husky offense get stoned on the other side of the 50 and held my breath again as they attempted a long field goal.
The only way UW wins that game is if they punt that one deep and get a turnover in the red zone.
Or Shaq takes that fake to the house or close to it. Bad gamble, but it actually had a better chance of success than the Husky offense doing anything from anyplace on the field. Playing the trade punt game and failing to force turnover deep or defensive TD would have taken us to overtime at best, where I wouldn't have liked our chances.
My disagreement in this thread is with the statement that the defense was shutting Stanford down, because it wasn't, and with the statement that the fake punt cost UW the game, because it didn't. The offensive ineptitude and inability to stop Stanford's offense after the fake cost the game. The block in the back by Campbell cost UW the game. A lot of things cost UW the game.
Some folks struggle with nuance. UW wasn't shutting Stanford down. Simple fact.
Was it the 13 points they scored in the first 55 minutes of the game or the three TOs?
It's not the 20-13 loss, it's the way you loss. Stanford dominated that entire game. They out-gained you more than 2-1. That was the most lopsided 1 touchdown game I've scene since the Ducks went to the Farm last season.
Does my aunt have a cock? Didn't think so. -
That's what the Quooks said when we gave up 439 yards and 24 first downs to Wyoming. Nothing beat the Quooking after the Stanford game last year, trying to prove that our defense wasn't that bad since we only gave up 26 points. Let's ignore the fact they crammed the ball down our throats.greenblood said:
#ScoreboardBabyThomasFremont said:
364 yards and 22 first downs isn't shutting a team down, HTHgreenblood said:
Without using your hindsight, what did you see from their offense that leads you to believe this?ThomasFremont said:
Of course it isn't true. I already said it was the wrong call.RaceBannon said:chuck said:Race doesn't want to hear anything that deviates from his narrative.
I don't think that's true. It's definitely not true for me. I'm 100% on the side of it being the wrong call. Had it worked I would have shaken my head and breathed a sigh of relief, then I would have watched the same Husky offense get stoned on the other side of the 50 and held my breath again as they attempted a long field goal.
The only way UW wins that game is if they punt that one deep and get a turnover in the red zone.
Or Shaq takes that fake to the house or close to it. Bad gamble, but it actually had a better chance of success than the Husky offense doing anything from anyplace on the field. Playing the trade punt game and failing to force turnover deep or defensive TD would have taken us to overtime at best, where I wouldn't have liked our chances.
My disagreement in this thread is with the statement that the defense was shutting Stanford down, because it wasn't, and with the statement that the fake punt cost UW the game, because it didn't. The offensive ineptitude and inability to stop Stanford's offense after the fake cost the game. The block in the back by Campbell cost UW the game. A lot of things cost UW the game.
Some folks struggle with nuance. UW wasn't shutting Stanford down. Simple fact.
Was it the 13 points they scored in the first 55 minutes of the game or the three TOs?
It's not the 20-13 loss, it's the way you loss. Stanford dominated that entire game. They out-gained you more than 2-1. That was the most lopsided 1 touchdown game I've scene since the Ducks went to the Farm last season.
I would normally agree with that but Peters, Shaq, and Shelton had the turnovers to keep that game close. We're a bend and then pray-we-get-a-to-b4-you-score type of defense. Learn the fucking difference. -
I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.SpoonieLuv said:
I faked a punt one time.RaceBannon said:Let he who has never called for a fake punt cast the first stone
Well, I guess that's about all of us
Whiskey dick. -
-
