September 4, 2010
Comments
-
If Petersen is as good at developing players as I think he is, we are going to see many pleasant surprises at several positions by mid to late September.
-
I'm less worried about the non-QB positions as I am about the QB positions.DerekJohnson said:If Petersen is as good at developing players as I think he is, we are going to see many pleasant surprises at several positions by mid to late September.
-
If Peterman is so good at developing players, WTF happened to the UW offense last year?DerekJohnson said:If Petersen is as good at developing players as I think he is, we are going to see many pleasant surprises at several positions by mid to late September.
-
If Petersen thinks there is any chance we don't roll over Boise St, he better be sleeping in his office figuring out a way to make it happen.
Win or GTFO. -
QPOTD. What the fuck is there to develop with Miles' arm?AZDuck said:
If Peterman is so good at developing players, WTF happened to the UW offense last year?DerekJohnson said:If Petersen is as good at developing players as I think he is, we are going to see many pleasant surprises at several positions by mid to late September.
-
I mostly like Petersen. He's shown he has a keen eye for talent, he runs a disciplined program, and he preaches fundamentals. He won't let players slack off and ignore every non starter on the team. All of this will lead to better depth and player development.
I just don't think the players will develop right away. The OL will be young guys and bums. The entire front 7 save Feeney is gone. And QB will likely be below average this year, barring a surprise. The offensive system at the least needs some tweaks, maybe even a total overhaul.
Coaching matters, but this team probably won't be very good. Talent and experience matters as well. This roster is lacking in both. I think Bill made the best point in the thread that by the end of the year, there should be something to look forward to.
If by 2016, we still are getting below average QB play and the team is still soft, we will know Petersen isn't the guy. I will bitch and be pissed if Petersen loses to Boise like I do after most losses, but it will take a 4-8 type season with multiple plungers for me to completely quit on Petersen before 2016.
@RaceBannon, I find it interesting you have a minimum win count for 2015, but said 2014 didn't matter whenever UW lost. -
You could see carrolls first trojan team was going to be good as well. Even though they finished year 1 at 6-6 and then started year 2 0-2 or 1-2 there simply was a feeling they were ready to take off.RaceBannon said:
I agree with thisFire_Marshall_Bill said:Petersen needs to start proving it by the end of next year. It's not the best analogy but you could see the Seahawks were going to be good in the future at the end of the 2002 and 2011 seasons. That's the vibe that's needed.
-
Wow Race I am impressed I take back the title of king apologist for Petersen I bestowed on u.
If he is a good coach he should produce next year. -
Bob Stoops won a natty in year two with a roster full of nobodies.RoadDawg55 said:
Except we don't have a QB, a new OL that isn't particularly exciting, and the best players on defense are all gone. And the game is on the blue turf where Boise has always been great. Besides all of that, I love our chances.Gladstone said:Blows my mind that some of the dooglier posters on here are already writing bsu off as a loss. Embarrassing. 2 offseasons with the team by this point. If the game isn't at worst a toss up then Petersen isn't remotely who we thought he was.
But I guess we can doog it up and pretend this will be a good team after another off season natty.
Good coaches win.
I still am standing by 3 years, although I expect big mo to be rolling by end of year 2. -
And the RBs?haie said:
QPOTD. What the fuck is there to develop with Miles' arm?AZDuck said:
If Peterman is so good at developing players, WTF happened to the UW offense last year?DerekJohnson said:If Petersen is as good at developing players as I think he is, we are going to see many pleasant surprises at several positions by mid to late September.
I mean, how bare was the cupboard? -
@RaceBannon ? King apologist? What fucking bored are you reading?beelzebub said:Wow Race I am impressed I take back the title of king apologist for Petersen I bestowed on u.
If he is a good coach he should produce next year.
You're a fucking imbecile btw. -
Washington was certainly better albeit still not a complete back and Coleman is too slow to be a D1 back, imo.AZDuck said:
And the RBs?haie said:
QPOTD. What the fuck is there to develop with Miles' arm?AZDuck said:
If Peterman is so good at developing players, WTF happened to the UW offense last year?DerekJohnson said:If Petersen is as good at developing players as I think he is, we are going to see many pleasant surprises at several positions by mid to late September.
I mean, how bare was the cupboard? -
I'll maintain till the day I die I'm faster than Coleman. In no way do I think I'm excelling at a D1 level.haie said:
Washington was certainly better albeit still not a complete back and Coleman is too slow to be a D1 back, imo.AZDuck said:
And the RBs?haie said:
QPOTD. What the fuck is there to develop with Miles' arm?AZDuck said:
If Peterman is so good at developing players, WTF happened to the UW offense last year?DerekJohnson said:If Petersen is as good at developing players as I think he is, we are going to see many pleasant surprises at several positions by mid to late September.
I mean, how bare was the cupboard?
If he is a 4 star, I'm a 4 star, and that is scary. -
Glad I don't spoon my grandmother like u douche bagSpoonieLuv said:
@RaceBannon ? King apologist? What fucking bored are you reading?beelzebub said:Wow Race I am impressed I take back the title of king apologist for Petersen I bestowed on u.
If he is a good coach he should produce next year.
You're a fucking imbecile btw. -
Good onebeelzebub said:
Glad I don't spoon my grandmother like u douche bagSpoonieLuv said:
@RaceBannon ? King apologist? What fucking bored are you reading?beelzebub said:Wow Race I am impressed I take back the title of king apologist for Petersen I bestowed on u.
If he is a good coach he should produce next year.
You're a fucking imbecile btw.
-
That was then. This is now.RoadDawg55 said:I mostly like Petersen. He's shown he has a keen eye for talent, he runs a disciplined program, and he preaches fundamentals. He won't let players slack off and ignore every non starter on the team. All of this will lead to better depth and player development.
I just don't think the players will develop right away. The OL will be young guys and bums. The entire front 7 save Feeney is gone. And QB will likely be below average this year, barring a surprise. The offensive system at the least needs some tweaks, maybe even a total overhaul.
Coaching matters, but this team probably won't be very good. Talent and experience matters as well. This roster is lacking in both. I think Bill made the best point in the thread that by the end of the year, there should be something to look forward to.
If by 2016, we still are getting below average QB play and the team is still soft, we will know Petersen isn't the guy. I will bitch and be pissed if Petersen loses to Boise like I do after most losses, but it will take a 4-8 type season with multiple plungers for me to completely quit on Petersen before 2016.
@RaceBannon, I find it interesting you have a minimum win count for 2015, but said 2014 didn't matter whenever UW lost. -
On the bright side, I did get totally hammered on 09/04/10. It was my fortieth birthday.
-
Race didn't raise his expectations until he did.RaceBannon said:
That was then. This is now.RoadDawg55 said:I mostly like Petersen. He's shown he has a keen eye for talent, he runs a disciplined program, and he preaches fundamentals. He won't let players slack off and ignore every non starter on the team. All of this will lead to better depth and player development.
I just don't think the players will develop right away. The OL will be young guys and bums. The entire front 7 save Feeney is gone. And QB will likely be below average this year, barring a surprise. The offensive system at the least needs some tweaks, maybe even a total overhaul.
Coaching matters, but this team probably won't be very good. Talent and experience matters as well. This roster is lacking in both. I think Bill made the best point in the thread that by the end of the year, there should be something to look forward to.
If by 2016, we still are getting below average QB play and the team is still soft, we will know Petersen isn't the guy. I will bitch and be pissed if Petersen loses to Boise like I do after most losses, but it will take a 4-8 type season with multiple plungers for me to completely quit on Petersen before 2016.
@RaceBannon, I find it interesting you have a minimum win count for 2015, but said 2014 didn't matter whenever UW lost. -
Why is this interesting? Year 1 was about purging the Sark blight and installing his system/culture. Time to show something. Year 2 is almost always a telltale sign if coaches are the guy or not. Laying an egg week 1 in a huge OOC game would be a disaster.RoadDawg55 said:
@RaceBannon, I find it interesting you have a minimum win count for 2015, but said 2014 didn't matter whenever UW lost. -
Geez you sound old, do you like Foghat?TTJ said:On the bright side, I did get totally hammered on 09/04/10. It was my fortieth birthday.
-
So because it's year two, we should automatically be better despite the previously stated reasons why that might be difficult?Gladstone said:
Why is this interesting? Year 1 was about purging the Sark blight and installing his system/culture. Time to show something. Year 2 is almost always a telltale sign if coaches are the guy or not. Laying an egg week 1 in a huge OOC game would be a disaster.RoadDawg55 said:
@RaceBannon, I find it interesting you have a minimum win count for 2015, but said 2014 didn't matter whenever UW lost.
I'm not conceding defeat to Boise because I don't know that much about them, but stating "it's year two and if we can't beat them than Petersen isn't the guy" without looking at any context is pretty shortsighted.
"Year 2 is almost a telltale sign if coaches are the guy or not." I remember your post (it was a good one) talking about this, but the situations are not the same. Yes, Urban Meyer, Saban, Pete Carroll, Jim Tressell, and Stoops took off in year two. Each and every one of those coaches had more experience and talent on their rosters. All of those coaches had better QB's. None of them were the coach of a team picked 8th in the conference like UW was in the early Pac 12 preview.
There are other coaches that took off a little later such as Harbaugh, Dantonio, and Jimbo Fisher. Fuck, I will even throw in a hated Don James comparison. DJ went 5-6 in year two. He lost 2 of 3 non conference games and they were all at home. -
I generally side with @RoadDawg55 on this. We don't have the upperclassmen to support the "Year 2" concept. Carroll for example inherited Carson Palmer, Troy Polomalu, Shaun Cody, Mike Patterson, Keary Colbert, Jacob Rogers, and bunch of other guys who played in the NFL. Peterson did not.
I think what you look for this year is improvement, discipline, not beating themselves, consistency, player development and improvement, good attitude, etc. I think the D will be better than expected (secondary returns, 2 of 3 LBs have talent and played, and I like the young DL...size that opens eyes and talent) although they'll be too young to win the big games. The O will go as far as the QB. Average QB play would be great. With the O, all we have is hope, and hope ain't a strategy.
That's what I'm looking for. We can't get the talent quick enough like USC or UCLA to turn it around in a season. I think Mich St is the blueprint but with better skill position talent eventually. -
ThomasFremont said:
"They win the epic Holiday Bowl classic over Nebraska. I back track and say Sark may have turned it around. Most say fuck off Race."
That was the closest we came to full blown HHB civil war. Only another off-season natty kept us fromstormingflooding iDawg's basement and tearing down the podcast equipment. -
"Year 2 is almost a telltale sign if coaches are the guy or not."
Huh.
@HeretoBeatmyChest , TRUE?!?!!!?? -
Don't plagiarism Barbara Hedges' shit, fucko.RaceBannon said:
That was then. This is now.RoadDawg55 said:I mostly like Petersen. He's shown he has a keen eye for talent, he runs a disciplined program, and he preaches fundamentals. He won't let players slack off and ignore every non starter on the team. All of this will lead to better depth and player development.
I just don't think the players will develop right away. The OL will be young guys and bums. The entire front 7 save Feeney is gone. And QB will likely be below average this year, barring a surprise. The offensive system at the least needs some tweaks, maybe even a total overhaul.
Coaching matters, but this team probably won't be very good. Talent and experience matters as well. This roster is lacking in both. I think Bill made the best point in the thread that by the end of the year, there should be something to look forward to.
If by 2016, we still are getting below average QB play and the team is still soft, we will know Petersen isn't the guy. I will bitch and be pissed if Petersen loses to Boise like I do after most losses, but it will take a 4-8 type season with multiple plungers for me to completely quit on Petersen before 2016.
@RaceBannon, I find it interesting you have a minimum win count for 2015, but said 2014 didn't matter whenever UW lost. -
Peterman himself said it takes 20 games.RoadDawg55 said:
So because it's year two, we should automatically be better despite the previously stated reasons why that might be difficult?Gladstone said:
Why is this interesting? Year 1 was about purging the Sark blight and installing his system/culture. Time to show something. Year 2 is almost always a telltale sign if coaches are the guy or not. Laying an egg week 1 in a huge OOC game would be a disaster.RoadDawg55 said:
@RaceBannon, I find it interesting you have a minimum win count for 2015, but said 2014 didn't matter whenever UW lost.
I'm not conceding defeat to Boise because I don't know that much about them, but stating "it's year two and if we can't beat them than Petersen isn't the guy" without looking at any context is pretty shortsighted.
"Year 2 is almost a telltale sign if coaches are the guy or not." I remember your post (it was a good one) talking about this, but the situations are not the same. Yes, Urban Meyer, Saban, Pete Carroll, Jim Tressell, and Stoops took off in year two. Each and every one of those coaches had more experience and talent on their rosters. All of those coaches had better QB's. None of them were the coach of a team picked 8th in the conference like UW was in the early Pac 12 preview.
There are other coaches that took off a little later such as Harbaugh, Dantonio, and Jimbo Fisher. Fuck, I will even throw in a hated Don James comparison. DJ went 5-6 in year two. He lost 2 of 3 non conference games and they were all at home.
I've always listened to both my dad's when they say it takes 3 years. -
As it relates to BSU, I'm not saying a loss is out of the question or even unacceptable. Some people are dismissing it as a foregone conclusion that we will get beat. I'm saying give the 92-12 coach another offseason + a world of motivation against his former team and I think we have more than a fighter's chance.RoadDawg55 said:
So because it's year two, we should automatically be better despite the previously stated reasons why that might be difficult?Gladstone said:
Why is this interesting? Year 1 was about purging the Sark blight and installing his system/culture. Time to show something. Year 2 is almost always a telltale sign if coaches are the guy or not. Laying an egg week 1 in a huge OOC game would be a disaster.RoadDawg55 said:
@RaceBannon, I find it interesting you have a minimum win count for 2015, but said 2014 didn't matter whenever UW lost.
I'm not conceding defeat to Boise because I don't know that much about them, but stating "it's year two and if we can't beat them than Petersen isn't the guy" without looking at any context is pretty shortsighted.
"Year 2 is almost a telltale sign if coaches are the guy or not." I remember your post (it was a good one) talking about this, but the situations are not the same. Yes, Urban Meyer, Saban, Pete Carroll, Jim Tressell, and Stoops took off in year two. Each and every one of those coaches had more experience and talent on their rosters. All of those coaches had better QB's. None of them were the coach of a team picked 8th in the conference like UW was in the early Pac 12 preview.
There are other coaches that took off a little later such as Harbaugh, Dantonio, and Jimbo Fisher. Fuck, I will even throw in a hated Don James comparison. DJ went 5-6 in year two. He lost 2 of 3 non conference games and they were all at home. -
I know I'm not chalking up the Boise game as a loss, but I also understand that it will be a difficult game and a loss wouldn't be surprising.
-
It'll also be interesting...or not interesting either wayTequilla said:I know I'm not chalking up the Boise game as a loss, but I also understand that it will be a difficult game and a loss wouldn't be surprising.
-
This is going to be a slow rebuild and Petersen will do it on his own terms as we saw last year. Look for something like Stanford under Harbaugh where you didn't start to see visible or obvious improvement until year 3 and finished 8-5. After that UW will be the best program in the league for the next 10 years.
