After UCLA: Inside the Mind of CokeGreaterThanPepsi
Comments
-
The talent on the worst offense in the conference is going to look shitty. That's a given. The question is how much of that is because of coaching? The talent is suspect, combine that with sub par coaching, and we are seeing the result.
The concerning thing is nobody on the offense looks improved from last year. Some guys have regressed. The OL looks the same as last year, possibly worse. -
The OL was never viewed as a great pass blocking unit.
From a run blocking standpoint, the numbers are very good when Shaq is running behind the OL ... it's very average (or below) when Shaq isn't back there. How much of that is on the RBs versus the OL? -
From an outside perspective, "We weren't as talented as we thought," is 2014's version of "But he took over Owen-12. . . ." excuses made for Sark from 2009 and 2010.
Just as the 0-12 Huskies squad was not nearly as talentless as its record suggested, this year's has more than enough talent to not be the worst offense in the league. The beavs are the true worst offense in the league from a talent only perspective.
Both revisionist viewpoints were/are wholly about excusing bad coaching jobs. -
YRYK, but you're still a cunt.Canard said:From an outside perspective, "We weren't as talented as we thought," is 2014's version of "But he took over Owen-12. . . ." excuses made for Sark from 2009 and 2010.
Just as the 0-12 Huskies squad was not nearly as talentless as its record suggested, this year's has more than enough talent to not be the worst offense in the league. The beavs are the true worst offense in the league from a talent only perspective.
Both revisionist viewpoints were/are wholly about excusing bad coaching jobs. -
Most people were not judging Sark his first year. Beating USC and shit was promising. He closed his second year on hot streak and won the Holiday Bowl. He had a lot of support. There were plenty of cracks in his facade but it was in his third year when it was clear he couldn't coach.
Judging Peterman or comparing him to Sark at this point is fucking stupid.
Sark couldn't recruit. The O line does suck. Talent is spotty and unreliable and soft from years of losing.
Of course it would be great if Peterman cleaned it up in nine games. But he didn't.
Doesn't mean he will or won't it just means he gets his three years. -
Basically where I am at after countless arguments in my mind. Poont of the article was that this was the first game where doubt crept in my mind. I still believe we will be fine in the long run but I freaked out a bit this week. Plus I am done with Jonathan Smith.RaceBannon said:Most people were not judging Sark his first year. Beating USC and shit was promising. He closed his second year on hot streak and won the Holiday Bowl. He had a lot of support. There were plenty of cracks in his facade but it was in his third year when it was clear he couldn't coach.
Judging Peterman or comparing him to Sark at this point is fucking stupid.
Sark couldn't recruit. The O line does suck. Talent is spotty and unreliable and soft from years of losing.
Of course it would be great if Peterman cleaned it up in nine games. But he didn't.
Doesn't mean he will or won't it just means he gets his three years. -
Jonathan Smith will be the most interesting story line of this offseason IMO
-
This thread needs Chezebrelephaffe.
-
This guy has mastered the script.RoadDawg55 said:I'm done dooging it up for Petersen until I see results. I know some disagree with me, but I think many on this board are looking for reasons to convince themselves that Petersen is the guy. Blaming Sark is the same thing Sark supporters did with Ty. And Ty supporters did with Gilby and Rick. Petersen's resume is the reason why he was a great hire. Nothing more. It does not ensure success at UW.
-
Pepsi.
