Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
This truly is a Chris Petersen team
Comments
-
It's not a fluke, but if that's what a team is counting on to score enough to win week in and week out, they are not going to be successful more often than not. UW needed the defense to score at least twice vs stanford. They didn't.doogsinparadise said:
Huh? You missed the point. At what point do the weekly defense/st score(s) not count as flukes?MikeDamone said:
I like to pretend the offense scored more than 6 points against Stanford. I do that.doogsinparadise said:I like to pretend that points scored by the defense don't count on the SCOREBOARD!, I do that.
-
Couple of other thoughts…
@haie I think the OL is better than we think. The backs combined for 26 for 116. Sankey would have run for 150+. There were some good holes and Cal's run defense was in the top half of the conference statistically (per carry not per game). I'm not expecting huge improvement from the backs but any improvement would be a huge bonus for this squad. Sankey would make this team a whole lot better.
When Cal scored Danny Shelton was out of the game and I think Shaq too. Had to rest them at somepoint. The offense sustaining drives will be critical when we play against the explosive offenses. -
TTJ said:
You keep saying this, as if it means something. UW has demonstrated a pretty consistent ability to create big plays with its defense and special teams. While Thompson's scoring binge has to regress to the mean at some point, there is no reason not to believe big plays will continue from those units. They're talented and well coached.MikeDamone said:The 35 point per game includes defensive scores.
******, you make a valid poont. Teheran Terry also make a valid poont.MikeDamone said:
I like to pretend the offense scored more than 6 points against Stanford. I do that.doogsinparadise said:I like to pretend that points scored by the defense don't count on the SCOREBOARD!, I do that.
The point is lack of offensive productivity will cost teams games. Defensive scoring can't be counted on to make up the difference over the long run
Will you two fuck already? -
Exactly, don't need to score 50 points and throw it all over the place, just sustain drives. That means winning on 3rd downHeretoBeatmyChest said:Couple of other thoughts…
@haie I think the OL is better than we think. The backs combined for 26 for 116. Sankey would have run for 150+. There were some good holes and Cal's run defense was in the top half of the conference statistically (per carry not per game). I'm not expecting huge improvement from the backs but any improvement would be a huge bonus for this squad. Sankey would make this team a whole lot better.
When Cal scored Danny Shelton was out of the game and I think Shaq too. Had to rest them at somepoint. The offense sustaining drives will be critical when we play against the explosive offenses. -
Stanford's defense is really good. I think you are reading too much into that game. The most they have given up is 17. Notre Dame, USC, and WSU all have offenses that have been doing well, but they all struggled against Stanford. Defense and winning the turnover battle wins games. UW doesn't face a good defense the rest of the year. To expect a repeat of the Stanford performance against lesser defenses is a stretch.MikeDamone said:
It's not a fluke, but if that's what a team is counting on to score enough to win week in and week out, they are not going to be successful more often than not. UW needed the defense to score at least twice vs stanford. They didn't.doogsinparadise said:
Huh? You missed the point. At what point do the weekly defense/st score(s) not count as flukes?MikeDamone said:
I like to pretend the offense scored more than 6 points against Stanford. I do that.doogsinparadise said:I like to pretend that points scored by the defense don't count on the SCOREBOARD!, I do that.
Stanford has won two straight Pac 12 titles without a great offense. It was marginally better than ours. I get where you are coming from, but you sound like a poster from doogman. -
LIPO. But I say the offense needs to improve to get to 9 or 10 wins. It's not as solid as aburndoog contends.pawz said:
******, you make a valid poont. Teheran Terry also make a valid poont.TTJ said:
You keep saying this, as if it means something. UW has demonstrated a pretty consistent ability to create big plays with its defense and special teams. While Thompson's scoring binge has to regress to the mean at some point, there is no reason not to believe big plays will continue from those units. They're talented and well coached.MikeDamone said:The 35 point per game includes defensive scores.
MikeDamone said:
I like to pretend the offense scored more than 6 points against Stanford. I do that.doogsinparadise said:I like to pretend that points scored by the defense don't count on the SCOREBOARD!, I do that.
The point is lack of offensive productivity will cost teams games. Defensive scoring can't be counted on to make up the difference over the long run
Will you two fuck already? -
Agree.MikeDamone said:
LIPO. But I say the offense needs to improve to get to 9 or 10 wins. It's not as solid as aburndoog contends.pawz said:
******, you make a valid poont. Teheran Terry also make a valid poont.TTJ said:
You keep saying this, as if it means something. UW has demonstrated a pretty consistent ability to create big plays with its defense and special teams. While Thompson's scoring binge has to regress to the mean at some point, there is no reason not to believe big plays will continue from those units. They're talented and well coached.MikeDamone said:The 35 point per game includes defensive scores.
MikeDamone said:
I like to pretend the offense scored more than 6 points against Stanford. I do that.doogsinparadise said:I like to pretend that points scored by the defense don't count on the SCOREBOARD!, I do that.
The point is lack of offensive productivity will cost teams games. Defensive scoring can't be counted on to make up the difference over the long run
Will you two fuck already?
Additionally, the offense gets half the credit for the nation-leading +14 turnover ratio. That's a huge plus that we haven't had around here in 20 fucking years and shouldn't go unnoticed. -
The backs need to start doing more with the opportunities they get. Washington doesn't have a good feel for the first down marker and Coleman could use a little more burst to go with his vision and moves. I like them both, but would like a top shelf running back who gets spelled by them a lot better.
This offense is short on big play guys. We don't have them at RB so it hurts that much more that we don't have them outside either (aside from Ross). The play action bomb to Ross isn't going to fool people very often at this point. -
Do you honestly believe when UW kicked a field goal in the second half, they weren't trying to score a touch down, but failed to move the ball? If the goal this year is to win 8 games and go to the Vegas bowl, then they are fine.TTJ said:
You keep saying this, as if it means something. UW has demonstrated a pretty consistent ability to create big plays with its defense and special teams. While Thompson's scoring binge has to regress to the mean at some point, there is no reason not to believe big plays will continue from those units. They're talented and well coached.MikeDamone said:The 35 point per game includes defensive scores.
With a 28-point halftime lead, Peterman played ball control in the second half. Do you honestly believe that, had UW needed more points after halftime, they couldn't get them?MikeDamone said:Cal might be the worst defensive UW will see all year and they were able to score 24 points.
-
Our offense fucking sucks, there is no other truth.
