Let's Go Over The Start Of The Game

TTJ said:

RoadDawg55 said:

Oregon's first series: Timu drops a pick 6. 3 and out.

Washington: FG. Cyler Miles 4-4 26 yards. Dwayne Washington: 2 car -8 yards. (3-0)

Oregon: 81 yard TD Drive. Keys plays are 28 yard pass to Brown and 37 yard TD run by Freeman. (7-3)

Washington: 52 yard drive, FG. Mickens dropped a TD pass. Miles for the game 6-7 70 yards. (7-6)

Oregon: 81 yard TD drive. Has Oregon in 2nd and 21 and 3rd and 8. Couldn't get off the field. Allowed 3 yard TD run on 4th down. (14-6)

Washington: 33 yard drive. Punt puts Oregon on the 1. (14-6)

Oregon: 99 yard TD drive. 3rd and 11 on the 12. Oregon converts on 4th down at the 2. (21-6)


The wheels fell off at this point, highlighted by a terrible INT by Miles. The defense was fucking horrible. Before the half Campbell and Kasen dropped passes. Campbell was wide fucking open. It goes beyond Miles. We were losers long before Miles was out QB. Make the plays on a pick 6. Help your QB and catch TD passes in your hands. Don't allow Oregon to convert every 4th down and go on 99 yard drives. 10 carries for 27 yards rushing in the first half. 22 of the yards came from Miles and Ross on two plays. Coleman and Washington had 7 carries for 2 yards in the first half. The person to blame is Petersen. He's the guy in charge. The defense allowed 3 straight TD drives and on the 4th, Oregon missed a 33 yard FG. They got fucking shredded!

We got down 21-6. We all know Miles isn't a QB to lead a comeback. The INT may have sealed it, but it was really bad long before that. Miles may suck, but this Miles narrative going on is bullshit. We can't run the fucking ball, we don't throw it well, and the defense had a terrible game. It's not one thing. It sucked all the way around. Saying otherwise is plain wrong.

Some of you will say I always defend Miles. Yeah, I thought he would be better. I also thought Dwayne Washington would be good. It's obvious Miles isn't a very good QB right now. I'm all for Williams starting. It can't be worse and hopefully he will provide a spark. But let's not go full doogman and blame the QB when the whole team sucked.

YBE. Seriously.

There ain't a QB in UW history -- not Saint Marques, not Billy Joe, not Bob motherfucking Schloredt -- that could have won in Eugene yesterday with zero defense and zero running game.

Like I said after the Stanford game: Miles is who he is -- a proficient game manager. When you're able to run the ball, and your defense is keeping you in the game, Miles is good enough to win it for you. When those things aren't happening (which is hopefully rare), Miles is going to lose. And it will probably look pretty ugly.

I'm not opposed to giving Troy a chance. But blaming Miles for the Oregon loss is dncFS.

dhdawg said:

t

MikeDamone said:

Agree on the team being leaderless. Sort of reminds of 1997. The team isn't as talented at that one, but there are some good individuals who can't lead when things go south. The QB really needs to be a leader. The offseason attempted beatdown of the 12s speaks volumes about Miles leadership ability. Peters acting like a cunty bitch after getting a dumbshit penalty tells the defensive backfield is leaderless. I would say this team isn't a whole lot worse in terms of talent than the 2000 team. The difference is 2000 had leaders, not guys who fold in the heat of the battle.

Spot on. They always use the phrase the sum is greater than its parts when describing a team like 2000. This feels like the opposite. A bunch of talented individuals who don't work well as a team

dhdawg said:

t

MikeDamone said:

Agree on the team being leaderless. Sort of reminds of 1997. The team isn't as talented at that one, but there are some good individuals who can't lead when things go south. The QB really needs to be a leader. The offseason attempted beatdown of the 12s speaks volumes about Miles leadership ability. Peters acting like a cunty bitch after getting a dumbshit penalty tells the defensive backfield is leaderless. I would say this team isn't a whole lot worse in terms of talent than the 2000 team. The difference is 2000 had leaders, not guys who fold in the heat of the battle.

Spot on. They always use the phrase the sum is greater than its parts when describing a team like 2000. This feels like the opposite. A bunch of talented individuals who don't work well as a team