Grinolds says that it will take three years...

KenND · October 2014

...for Petersen to get UW to the point that they can compete with Oregon. Agree or disagree?

Interestingly enough, no theories from him on why the roster is in the shape that it's in.

MikeDamone · October 2014

Does this year count?

RoadDawg55 · October 2014

We'll see. A lot can change in a year. I don't think we will be much, if any better next year, but by year 3 I expect a championship contender.

The game is at home next year, and Oregon won't have Mariota, but after 11 in a row, predicting a win is bold. At this point, I will believe UW can beat Oregon when I see it.

MisterEm · October 2014

MikeDamone said:
Does this year count?

Not if Smiff is canned like Bleenor hints at...

DHD · October 2014

I can live with 3 years, if that's what it takes to make us a Pac-12 championship contender.

I'm not excited about 3 years if it just gets us to "competitive".

I think the big key is off-season attrition. We need guys like Mathis (just one example) to stay in the fold. Not because he's going to be a superstar, but because it helps build quality depth at positions of need while we transition to Pete's players/style of play.

Pete can redshirt some of "his" guys if guys like Mathis stay ... if we see wholesale departures and freshman have to start filling the gaps, I think the re-build takes much longer.

KenND · October 2014

RoadDawg55 said:
We'll see. A lot can change in a year. I don't think we will be much, if any better next year, but by year 3 I expect a championship contender.

The game is at home next year, and Oregon won't have Mariota, but after 11 in a row, predicting a win is bold. At this point, I will believe UW can beat Oregon when I see it.

It is bold, but you have an adult in charge now, while Oregon could potentially start dropping off. It also looks like we're seeing Stanford's decline starting to gain steam too.

GrundleStiltzkin · October 2014

RoadDawg55 said:
We'll see. A lot can change in a year. I don't think we will be much, if any better next year, but by year 3 I expect a championship contender.

The game is at home next year, and Oregon won't have Mariota, but after 11 in a row, predicting a win is bold. At this point, I will believe UW can beat Oregon when I see it.

My inner doog has been beaten to death now.

If by some miracle Petersen can beat Oregon next year, just give him the third Bryant trophy at the 50 yard line. We lose the few quality players we have and return a good mix of youngsters and fuckups. I don't see an Oregon win anytime soon.

PurpleThrobber · October 2014

KenND said:
...for Petersen to get UW to the point that they can compete with Oregon. Agree or disagree?

Interestingly enough, no theories from him on why the roster is in the shape that it's in.

Remind me again when Sark was competitive against Oregon.

Fenwick · October 2014

He says the same shit over and over and over which makes him a champion recycler. Is there really anyone besides himself that does not read him like a bad novel.

Fire_Marshall_Bill · October 2014

We should be competitive by next year. I know we lose offensive lineman. Most teams lose key players from units. Get guys reps now so they will be more rready. I expected to be able to beat Oregon by next year and that hasn't changed. Will I guarantee it? Hell no

HeretoBeatmyChest · October 2014

Before the season I thought Oregon would have the advantage in 15 given that we lose so much on defense and the OL.

To sum it up, right now the problem is the 11 & 12 recruiting classes had little quality outside of the top guys. We already lost ASJ and Sankey and will lose Shaq, Peters and Shelton after this year, rendering those classes very weak heading into 15. The 2013 class was very good and Petersen salvaged the 2014 class.

This year is the rebuilding year on offense while next year will be on defense. However, I'd expect fewer growing pains on the defense given the size, talent and depth on the DL and the depth being built in the secondary with freshman. On offense, the hope is guys like Ross, Daniels, Pettis, Williams improve a lot over the next season and a half.

2016 is Pete's year 3 and we know that with a new coach it happens by year 3. I actually feel very good about 2016. The defense should be very good led by an outstanding DL. You still have Ross and Daniels could be a monster at TE. Troy would be a jr and Browning a rs fr. The big concern is the OL. Perhaps Brostek could develop into an all league guy and they get lucky and develop someone else to that stage. In the next two classes it would be great to get one skill guy and one lineman who could play right away. Like a 5* impact guy.

KenND · October 2014

PurpleThrobber said:

KenND said:
...for Petersen to get UW to the point that they can compete with Oregon. Agree or disagree?

Interestingly enough, no theories from him on why the roster is in the shape that it's in.
Remind me again when Sark was competitive against Oregon.

No one said that he was.

PDXDuckFan · October 2014

KenND said:

It is bold, but you have an adult in charge now, while Oregon could potentially start dropping off. It also looks like we're seeing Stanford's decline starting to gain steam too.

"We're Back"*

*maybe in 3 years

PDXDuckFan · October 2014

HeretoBeatmyChest said:

2016 is Pete's year 3 and we know that with a new coach it happens by year 3.

2016 is going to be special.

bananasnblondes · October 2014

Grinolds posted this in response to someone else posting a talk they had with a former UW player who essentially said that it would take CP 3 years to build the program due to the shitty way Sark ran it. The way Grinolds stated "If I would have told all of you it would be another 3 years, how many of you would have gone crazy?", he was insinuating that if Sark had stayed, UW would be a national title contender this year, but since everyone wanted him gone, you all are stuck with rebuilding again.

AtomicDawg · October 2014

Sark was not the answer. Petersen might be. Either way tilt be interesting.

Meek · October 2014

bananasnblondes said:
Grinolds posted this in response to someone else posting a talk they had with a former UW player who essentially said that it would take CP 3 years to build the program due to the shitty way Sark ran it. The way Grinolds stated "If I would have told all of you it would be another 3 years, how many of you would have gone crazy?", he was insinuating that if Sark had stayed, UW would be a national title contender this year, but since everyone wanted him gone, you all are stuck with rebuilding again.

let's just put this way, if Sark is at USC in another 3 years I'll be stunned... no way in hell he has UW in contention for a Pac12 championship regardless of how much tim he had here.

Vegasdawg · October 2014

It could take three years to have a full roster of those who have been coached up under Peterman's system and recruited to fit the program. We definitely need to sign more speed.

KenND · October 2014

Meek said:

bananasnblondes said:
Grinolds posted this in response to someone else posting a talk they had with a former UW player who essentially said that it would take CP 3 years to build the program due to the shitty way Sark ran it. The way Grinolds stated "If I would have told all of you it would be another 3 years, how many of you would have gone crazy?", he was insinuating that if Sark had stayed, UW would be a national title contender this year, but since everyone wanted him gone, you all are stuck with rebuilding again.
let's just put this way, if Sark is at USC in another 3 years I'll be stunned... no way in hell he has UW in contention for a Pac12 championship regardless of how much tim he had here.

Sark is going to win enough that it will be difficult for Haden to justify firing him, especially since Sark is Haden's hire.

MisterEm · October 2014

KenND said:

Meek said:

bananasnblondes said:
Grinolds posted this in response to someone else posting a talk they had with a former UW player who essentially said that it would take CP 3 years to build the program due to the shitty way Sark ran it. The way Grinolds stated "If I would have told all of you it would be another 3 years, how many of you would have gone crazy?", he was insinuating that if Sark had stayed, UW would be a national title contender this year, but since everyone wanted him gone, you all are stuck with rebuilding again.
let's just put this way, if Sark is at USC in another 3 years I'll be stunned... no way in hell he has UW in contention for a Pac12 championship regardless of how much tim he had here.
Sark is going to win enough that it will be difficult for Haden to justify firing him, especially since Sark is Haden's hire.

Who said Haden ' s job is secure?

SC cared enough about football to leave Lane on the tarmac. I lust for the day UW cares for football again.

Meek · October 2014

yes, agreed. Haden won't be involved in the decision. Sark's record will cost Haden his job and then Sark will be met by The Smoking Man before he boards the shuttle bus to Joey's.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Grinolds says that it will take three years...

Comments