Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Colin Cowherd with (fairly) honest take on UW
Passion
Member Posts: 4,622
I didn't know Cowherd had season tickets to UW football. Anyway, his conversation with "Brock and Danny" on KIRO Sports is the most honest assessment I've heard.
Brock: Given the product on the field, stadium aside, did it change your expectation level at all given what you saw on the field?
Cowherd: Well, I thought going into the season that there were a couple of swing games, and this was one of them. I thought this was a game that they could lose but needed to win.
People asked me before the game who I liked, and I thought Washington. I thought Washington would blow them out 33-13. Because Washington simply returned twice as many starters. Home game. New Stadium, and let’s be honest, boise state not only lost seniors, they lost some leaders. They just were not going to be the same team.
What Washington has done, when Steve Sarkisian took over the program, there were a lot of things they were missing. More than anything they were missing speed. Well, clearly offensively they’re a very skilled team, and on defense their linebackers now can run. You can win a national championship with their speed.
Now are they as good defensively in the trenches? No, they’re not LSU and I think that is the next wave. The first thing Sark was reconnect to California and get our speed back. They’re plenty fast. They’re as fast as your top-15 teams. They’ve got a lot of skill players. A lot of kids that can run catch. They’re fine.
Now are they good enough in the trenches to beat the ohio states and the traditional powers? I don’t think they’re quite there yet. I think they’re a little undersized on the defensive line. They don’t play usc though and they may not face a team like that until a bowl game. Stanford a little bit. I don’t think they match up particularly well against Stanford in the trenches.
Brock: Given the product on the field, stadium aside, did it change your expectation level at all given what you saw on the field?
Cowherd: Well, I thought going into the season that there were a couple of swing games, and this was one of them. I thought this was a game that they could lose but needed to win.
People asked me before the game who I liked, and I thought Washington. I thought Washington would blow them out 33-13. Because Washington simply returned twice as many starters. Home game. New Stadium, and let’s be honest, boise state not only lost seniors, they lost some leaders. They just were not going to be the same team.
What Washington has done, when Steve Sarkisian took over the program, there were a lot of things they were missing. More than anything they were missing speed. Well, clearly offensively they’re a very skilled team, and on defense their linebackers now can run. You can win a national championship with their speed.
Now are they as good defensively in the trenches? No, they’re not LSU and I think that is the next wave. The first thing Sark was reconnect to California and get our speed back. They’re plenty fast. They’re as fast as your top-15 teams. They’ve got a lot of skill players. A lot of kids that can run catch. They’re fine.
Now are they good enough in the trenches to beat the ohio states and the traditional powers? I don’t think they’re quite there yet. I think they’re a little undersized on the defensive line. They don’t play usc though and they may not face a team like that until a bowl game. Stanford a little bit. I don’t think they match up particularly well against Stanford in the trenches.
Comments
-
Boise state is awfully young.
-
Not getting DeAndre Coleman was a huge loss. Kid out of Garfield HS, preseason all-pac 12 this year. Him and Shelton would be awesome in the middle with Jamora on the edge. Daeshon Hall also would have helped quite a bit. Hall-Coleman-Shelton-Jamora would have been quite the DL.
At least we have no seniors and Mathis, Farria and Qualls provide a good foundation. It remains to be seen if Qualls can be that run-stuffing DT of the future. -
With the speed and athleticism of Qualls, I would be surprised if he doesn't end up a pass rushing DT.
-
Not getting DeAndre Coleman was a huge loss. Kid out of Garfield HS, preseason all-pac 12 this year. Him and Shelton would be awesome in the middle with Jamora on the edge. Daeshon Hall also would have helped quite a bit. Hall-Coleman-Shelton-Jamora would have been quite the DL.
Rememeber when Dawgman claimed that Coleman was an academic casualty and would never get into Cal?
Another swing and a miss! -
Remember when Dawgman got something right?
Nope... -
I would like to see Dawgman and Ruth have a slapping contest.
-
-
I was still there and remember asking 81% why Cal would choose Coleman if he had bad academics. It was stupid to say from day 1
-
Kimmy, 81% and F3 can never support their bullshit. I love it when someone actually argues with them and they always struggle so badly.RaceBannon said:I was still there and remember asking 81% why Cal would choose Coleman if he had bad academics. It was stupid to say from day 1
-
Huh?He_Needs_More_Time said:
Kimmy, 81% and F3 can never support their bullshit. I love it when someone actually argues with them and they always struggle so badly.RaceBannon said:I was still there and remember asking 81% why Cal would choose Coleman if he had bad academics. It was stupid to say from day 1
-
Sark tried. That's all we can ask for.
-
It would probably looks something like this:TitusPullo said:I would like to see Dawgman and Ruth have a slapping contest.
-
I actually listened to a bit of their show on Saturday. It was Kim, Curtis Crabtree and I think F3. A couple callers pointed out that Sark admitted to being too emotional in his playcalling.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Kimmy, 81% and F3 can never support their bullshit. I love it when someone actually argues with them and they always struggle so badly.RaceBannon said:I was still there and remember asking 81% why Cal would choose Coleman if he had bad academics. It was stupid to say from day 1
Crabtree and F3 were fairly objective, especially Crabtree. By the way, I have no fucking idea who Crabtree is.
Kim was on auto-defense mode defending Sark, throwing out red herrings and just being an assclown about it. No objectivity at all. It was embarassing.
-
F3 though during that same game was ragging on Price though on Doogman. Kim likes to always say we have the agenda but it's obvious to anyone with an IQ over 50 that he is the one with an agenda.CFetters_Nacho_Lover said:
I actually listened to a bit of their show on Saturday. It was Kim, Curtis Crabtree and I think F3. A couple callers pointed out that Sark admitted to being too emotional in his playcalling.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Kimmy, 81% and F3 can never support their bullshit. I love it when someone actually argues with them and they always struggle so badly.RaceBannon said:I was still there and remember asking 81% why Cal would choose Coleman if he had bad academics. It was stupid to say from day 1
Crabtree and F3 were fairly objective, especially Crabtree. By the way, I have no fucking idea who Crabtree is.
Kim was on auto-defense mode defending Sark, throwing out red herrings and just being an assclown about it. No objectivity at all. It was embarassing.
I honestly don't get why people still post there and go to Kim for information. -
Some folks feel more comfortable when their wallets are lightened.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
