Peterman repeating the phrase "this is a process.." in every interview tells me
Comments
-
It's always a process, you're always trying to improve, or you're regressing. He treats his team and players like he wants them to treat life. Christ, there's nothing to fucking analyze here. Beat fucking Cal. Win the dreckfest North. Nothing has changed.
-
Lots might change after the boors bring out the plunger on Saturdayhaie said:It's always a process, you're always trying to improve, or you're regressing. He treats his team and players like he wants them to treat life. Christ, there's nothing to fucking analyze here. Beat fucking Cal. Win the dreckfest North. Nothing has changed.
-
FTFYH_D said:MikeDamone said:And there are some dumb fucks who publically wonder why Petersen needs to burn it down and start over. The house was full of toxic mold.
Sometimes whenAnytime you buy a house where meth was manufactured, it's best to demo it down to the foundation and start over.
I'm not saying Sark is Heisenberg so don't go twisting. If I had to relate him to anyone on that show, it would probably be Badger. -
If we're bashing Scientology, I'm OUTbeelzebub said:
Wrong its his built in excuse to give himself 5 years, u guys will fall 4 anything your saviour says. Really sad scientology has more reasonable followers than this board.bananasnblondes said:that no one knows the damage Sark did to the program.
Doogs, of course, will have no patience because Steve left Pete with a "9-win team and a full copboard of great recruiting classes" but the more I hear Petersen repeat this, the more I think he knows we're fucked and this will be a rebuilding process. These kids have obviously not been well-coached and even though Sark's record was shitty, it was a favorable record considering how shitty his teams were. Close wins over shitty teams, multiple blowouts each year where the team had no business being on the same field as the opponents, close wins over really shitty teams, and 3 "Signature wins" (USC twice, and Stanford) that had huge asterisks next to them and could have easily gone the other way (No, I don't count the "god's play" win over a shitty Cal team as a signature win like Kim does).
I think Pete, a disciplined, old-school football coach, walked into this job the first day and thought "holy shit, what has been going on here?" -
That is epic pressing. All I've heard all week is Leach and Halladay make excuses for Wazzu embarrassing themselves at home. Mora throws his kicker under the bus. Frost comes out and immediately and tells a beatwriter that Mariota is hurt, yet he's willing to put him out at fucking receiver on a play against an unranked team at home.beelzebub said:
Wrong its his built in excuse to give himself 5 years, u guys will fall 4 anything your saviour says. Really sad scientology has more reasonable followers than this board.bananasnblondes said:that no one knows the damage Sark did to the program.
Doogs, of course, will have no patience because Steve left Pete with a "9-win team and a full copboard of great recruiting classes" but the more I hear Petersen repeat this, the more I think he knows we're fucked and this will be a rebuilding process. These kids have obviously not been well-coached and even though Sark's record was shitty, it was a favorable record considering how shitty his teams were. Close wins over shitty teams, multiple blowouts each year where the team had no business being on the same field as the opponents, close wins over really shitty teams, and 3 "Signature wins" (USC twice, and Stanford) that had huge asterisks next to them and could have easily gone the other way (No, I don't count the "god's play" win over a shitty Cal team as a signature win like Kim does).
I think Pete, a disciplined, old-school football coach, walked into this job the first day and thought "holy shit, what has been going on here?"
And Petersen takes 100% of the blame for a fake-punt. -
-
oh crap... DJ caught the doog virus.DerekJohnson said:That Stanford game is really stuck in our heads but will not be representative of the team come season's end.
-
Well he certainly isn't Skinny Pete.H_D said:
Sometimes when you buy a house where meth was manufactured, it's best to demo it down to the foundation and start over.MikeDamone said:And there are some dumb fucks who publically wonder why Petersen needs to burn it down and start over. The house was full of toxic mold.
I'm not saying Sark is Heisenberg so don't go twisting. If I had to relate him to anyone on that show, it would probably be Badger. -
I'd go with Pinkman, highschool drop out used by the mastermind to help relate to the market. Thinks he's a 50/50 partner and that what he brings to the table adds value, when really he's a huge liability the mastermind has to work around to accomplish anything.H_D said:
Sometimes when you buy a house where meth was manufactured, it's best to demo it down to the foundation and start over.MikeDamone said:And there are some dumb fucks who publically wonder why Petersen needs to burn it down and start over. The house was full of toxic mold.
I'm not saying Sark is Heisenberg so don't go twisting. If I had to relate him to anyone on that show, it would probably be Badger.
-
No one is gonna give him 5 years to rebuild.beelzebub said:
Wrong its his built in excuse to give himself 5 years, u guys will fall 4 anything your saviour says. Really sad scientology has more reasonable followers than this board.bananasnblondes said:that no one knows the damage Sark did to the program.
Doogs, of course, will have no patience because Steve left Pete with a "9-win team and a full copboard of great recruiting classes" but the more I hear Petersen repeat this, the more I think he knows we're fucked and this will be a rebuilding process. These kids have obviously not been well-coached and even though Sark's record was shitty, it was a favorable record considering how shitty his teams were. Close wins over shitty teams, multiple blowouts each year where the team had no business being on the same field as the opponents, close wins over really shitty teams, and 3 "Signature wins" (USC twice, and Stanford) that had huge asterisks next to them and could have easily gone the other way (No, I don't count the "god's play" win over a shitty Cal team as a signature win like Kim does).
I think Pete, a disciplined, old-school football coach, walked into this job the first day and thought "holy shit, what has been going on here?"
We aren't WSU
This. There's no reason for expectations to be changed. No one is expecting 11-2 or something crazy. But I'm not going to accept 7-8 wins for the next 2 years, even though next year looks to be a rebuilding yearPostGameOrangeSlices said:Peterton can talk about his process all he wants, but that process better fucking process itself into existence quickly.
-
I'm out of patience as well, and I agree, apparently the team was in worse shape development wise than we realized. But----yes there is a but here. Each week I have seen areas of improvement. I didn't see that under Sark, the teams never got better. Under Peterman it's a process and yet we are seeing the process unfold in improvement. The young DB are getting better each week, I suspect that Miles will be better this week. The kids are being coached up, it's just that Peterman started out with undisciplined and under developed talent. That's how I see it. And we see this coming to light on the USC team, the same mental breakdowns and shitty coaching both in games and in practice.
-
if we don't consistently move the ball on offense and score 35+ against that cal defense petersen should be fired at the 50Vegasdawg said:I'm out of patience as well, and I agree, apparently the team was in worse shape development wise than we realized. But----yes there is a but here. Each week I have seen areas of improvement. I didn't see that under Sark, the teams never got better. Under Peterman it's a process and yet we are seeing the process unfold in improvement. The young DB are getting better each week, I suspect that Miles will be better this week. The kids are being coached up, it's just that Peterman started out with undisciplined and under developed talent. That's how I see it. And we see this coming to light on the USC team, the same mental breakdowns and shitty coaching both in games and in practice.
-
Or maybe it's time to admit we don't have a decent QB on this roster. I'm certainly in the phase of Cyler has to prove he deserves to be a d1 QB. He doesn't throw like a d1 qb, he doesn't make decisions like a d1 qb. If he wants the job he needs to show it vs a terrible defense like CAL. I've seen a lot of excuses float around about miles and it will be interesting to see how this offense and miles react to playing the children of the blind. I hope he shuts me up and proves the negaMiles crowd wrong, but I just don't see a lot of what a QB needs to succeed in a pac12 schedule.dhdawg said:
if we don't consistently move the ball on offense and score 35+ against that cal defense petersen should be fired at the 50Vegasdawg said:I'm out of patience as well, and I agree, apparently the team was in worse shape development wise than we realized. But----yes there is a but here. Each week I have seen areas of improvement. I didn't see that under Sark, the teams never got better. Under Peterman it's a process and yet we are seeing the process unfold in improvement. The young DB are getting better each week, I suspect that Miles will be better this week. The kids are being coached up, it's just that Peterman started out with undisciplined and under developed talent. That's how I see it. And we see this coming to light on the USC team, the same mental breakdowns and shitty coaching both in games and in practice.
-
Peterman doesn't have beers in his hotel room to drink though.
Allegedly -
It's Cal. They have a terrible defense. If Colorado can score 49 in regulation on them, UW should score at least 35. I don't think that is too much to ask whether Miles is decent or not.FreeChavez said:
Or maybe it's time to admit we don't have a decent QB on this roster. I'm certainly in the phase of Cyler has to prove he deserves to be a d1 QB. He doesn't throw like a d1 qb, he doesn't make decisions like a d1 qb. If he wants the job he needs to show it vs a terrible defense like CAL. I've seen a lot of excuses float around about miles and it will be interesting to see how this offense and miles react to playing the children of the blind. I hope he shuts me up and proves the negaMiles crowd wrong, but I just don't see a lot of what a QB needs to succeed in a pac12 schedule.dhdawg said:
if we don't consistently move the ball on offense and score 35+ against that cal defense petersen should be fired at the 50Vegasdawg said:I'm out of patience as well, and I agree, apparently the team was in worse shape development wise than we realized. But----yes there is a but here. Each week I have seen areas of improvement. I didn't see that under Sark, the teams never got better. Under Peterman it's a process and yet we are seeing the process unfold in improvement. The young DB are getting better each week, I suspect that Miles will be better this week. The kids are being coached up, it's just that Peterman started out with undisciplined and under developed talent. That's how I see it. And we see this coming to light on the USC team, the same mental breakdowns and shitty coaching both in games and in practice.
I don't think we should be too worried about it. I think we will score with relative ease against Cal. That said, I am starting to have some concerns about the offense and how we are utilizing the players. It just seems like there is very little creativity in getting the playmakers the ball compared to what I am watching with the other teams. Maybe the Stanford game is too ingrained in my mind, but I thought this was true in some of the non conference games as well. -
They are dead last in pass defense. 21 passing TD's and average 427 fucking passing yards a game allowed. I don't care if 700 of those are from one game, Ronnie Fouch and Johnny DuRocher should be able to move the ball through the air on Cal.RoadDawg55 said:It's Cal. They have a terrible defense. If Colorado can score 49 in regulation on them, UW should score at least 35. I don't think that is too much to ask whether Miles is decent or not.
-
I think our TE's have caught less than a dozen balls in five games. Our speed burners need the ball.RoadDawg55 said:
It's Cal. They have a terrible defense. If Colorado can score 49 in regulation on them, UW should score at least 35. I don't think that is too much to ask whether Miles is decent or not.FreeChavez said:
Or maybe it's time to admit we don't have a decent QB on this roster. I'm certainly in the phase of Cyler has to prove he deserves to be a d1 QB. He doesn't throw like a d1 qb, he doesn't make decisions like a d1 qb. If he wants the job he needs to show it vs a terrible defense like CAL. I've seen a lot of excuses float around about miles and it will be interesting to see how this offense and miles react to playing the children of the blind. I hope he shuts me up and proves the negaMiles crowd wrong, but I just don't see a lot of what a QB needs to succeed in a pac12 schedule.dhdawg said:
if we don't consistently move the ball on offense and score 35+ against that cal defense petersen should be fired at the 50Vegasdawg said:I'm out of patience as well, and I agree, apparently the team was in worse shape development wise than we realized. But----yes there is a but here. Each week I have seen areas of improvement. I didn't see that under Sark, the teams never got better. Under Peterman it's a process and yet we are seeing the process unfold in improvement. The young DB are getting better each week, I suspect that Miles will be better this week. The kids are being coached up, it's just that Peterman started out with undisciplined and under developed talent. That's how I see it. And we see this coming to light on the USC team, the same mental breakdowns and shitty coaching both in games and in practice.
I don't think we should be too worried about it. I think we will score with relative ease against Cal. That said, I am starting to have some concerns about the offense and how we are utilizing the players. It just seems like there is very little creativity in getting the playmakers the ball compared to what I am watching with the other teams. Maybe the Stanford game is too ingrained in my mind, but I thought this was true in some of the non conference games as well. -
I think we have about 3 running plays. Inside zone, outside zone, and I saw a pitch once against Stanford. I haven't seen a QB sweep with lead blockers. No Gilby shovel passes. No option. Very few fly sweeps.
Part of the reason is probably because Petersen has placed a premium on ball security. He's also big on fundamentals and may not want to do that stuff until they prefect the simple stuff. We are purposely somewhat conservative, but the offense has been bland. I'm not saying get cute like Sark, but mix in some things to keep the defense off balance. The passing game isn't getting it done and the RB's at this point have been mediocre. Hopefully we open it up a little bit, especially in the run game because that needs to be the strength of this offense. The concerning thing is Petersen said they actually need to dial it back with installing the playbook. -
We have TE's?Vegasdawg said:I think our TE's have caught less than a dozen balls in five games. Our speed burners need the ball.
RoadDawg55 said:
It's Cal. They have a terrible defense. If Colorado can score 49 in regulation on them, UW should score at least 35. I don't think that is too much to ask whether Miles is decent or not.FreeChavez said:
Or maybe it's time to admit we don't have a decent QB on this roster. I'm certainly in the phase of Cyler has to prove he deserves to be a d1 QB. He doesn't throw like a d1 qb, he doesn't make decisions like a d1 qb. If he wants the job he needs to show it vs a terrible defense like CAL. I've seen a lot of excuses float around about miles and it will be interesting to see how this offense and miles react to playing the children of the blind. I hope he shuts me up and proves the negaMiles crowd wrong, but I just don't see a lot of what a QB needs to succeed in a pac12 schedule.dhdawg said:
if we don't consistently move the ball on offense and score 35+ against that cal defense petersen should be fired at the 50Vegasdawg said:I'm out of patience as well, and I agree, apparently the team was in worse shape development wise than we realized. But----yes there is a but here. Each week I have seen areas of improvement. I didn't see that under Sark, the teams never got better. Under Peterman it's a process and yet we are seeing the process unfold in improvement. The young DB are getting better each week, I suspect that Miles will be better this week. The kids are being coached up, it's just that Peterman started out with undisciplined and under developed talent. That's how I see it. And we see this coming to light on the USC team, the same mental breakdowns and shitty coaching both in games and in practice.
I don't think we should be too worried about it. I think we will score with relative ease against Cal. That said, I am starting to have some concerns about the offense and how we are utilizing the players. It just seems like there is very little creativity in getting the playmakers the ball compared to what I am watching with the other teams. Maybe the Stanford game is too ingrained in my mind, but I thought this was true in some of the non conference games as well. -
Not to be running game superiority guy, but if you can run them effectively you dont need anything BUT inside and outside zone. That being said, Arian Foster does not play for UW.RoadDawg55 said:I think we have about 3 running plays. Inside zone, outside zone, and I saw a pitch once against Stanford. I haven't seen a QB sweep with lead blockers. No Gilby shovel passes. No option. Very few fly sweeps.
Part of the reason is probably because Petersen has placed a premium on ball security. He's also big on fundamentals and may not want to do that stuff until they prefect the simple stuff. We are purposely somewhat conservative, but the offense has been bland. I'm not saying get cute like Sark, but mix in some things to keep the defense off balance. The passing game isn't getting it done and the RB's at this point have been mediocre. Hopefully we open it up a little bit, especially in the run game because that needs to be the strength of this offense. The concerning thing is Petersen said they actually need to dial it back with installing the playbook. -
They ran triple-option at least once against Stanford. Myliey kept it and converted on 3rd down.RoadDawg55 said:I think we have about 3 running plays. Inside zone, outside zone, and I saw a pitch once against Stanford. I haven't seen a QB sweep with lead blockers. No Gilby shovel passes. No option. Very few fly sweeps.
Part of the reason is probably because Petersen has placed a premium on ball security. He's also big on fundamentals and may not want to do that stuff until they prefect the simple stuff. We are purposely somewhat conservative, but the offense has been bland. I'm not saying get cute like Sark, but mix in some things to keep the defense off balance. The passing game isn't getting it done and the RB's at this point have been mediocre. Hopefully we open it up a little bit, especially in the run game because that needs to be the strength of this offense. The concerning thing is Petersen said they actually need to dial it back with installing the playbook. -
Shortest. Hallelujah!TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Your best effort.Tequilla said:
No reason to expect going backwards from 5-4 in conference.DerekJohnson said:With this schedule, if this team ends up at 7-6 and in the Humanitarian Bowl or whatever, then it is a poor job by Petersen no matter how you slice it.
-
But why is L Ron Hubbard a bad inventor of science fiction based religions?Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
If we're bashing Scientology, I'm OUTbeelzebub said:
Wrong its his built in excuse to give himself 5 years, u guys will fall 4 anything your saviour says. Really sad scientology has more reasonable followers than this board.bananasnblondes said:that no one knows the damage Sark did to the program.
Doogs, of course, will have no patience because Steve left Pete with a "9-win team and a full copboard of great recruiting classes" but the more I hear Petersen repeat this, the more I think he knows we're fucked and this will be a rebuilding process. These kids have obviously not been well-coached and even though Sark's record was shitty, it was a favorable record considering how shitty his teams were. Close wins over shitty teams, multiple blowouts each year where the team had no business being on the same field as the opponents, close wins over really shitty teams, and 3 "Signature wins" (USC twice, and Stanford) that had huge asterisks next to them and could have easily gone the other way (No, I don't count the "god's play" win over a shitty Cal team as a signature win like Kim does).
I think Pete, a disciplined, old-school football coach, walked into this job the first day and thought "holy shit, what has been going on here?"
