New Husky Fan Podcast Episode
We talk about Gladstone's question and Pete's future over the next few years if he struggles. While we don't believe W/L will improve this year we each note one or two things that would indicate the chance for a leap in year 3. We also note the coaches that made huge leaps in year 3 or 4. We also weigh playing Browning as a true freshman.
In addition we rip on baseball, the Mariners, 710, cover the NBA Finals and Roadie cites a WSJ article.
Shoutouts to Derek, PuppySteel, Race, RavennaDawg, Gladstone, Tequilla
Comments
-
Morning wood AND a Husky Podcast!?
Today is going to be special!!
Sounding good fellas.
Send my $10 to Derek Johnson! -
What the fuck? My love of nachos alone should be worthy of a shoutout.HeretoBeatmyChest said:http://traffic.libsyn.com/huskyfanpodcast/June8.2015HuskyFanPodcast.mp3
We talk about Gladstone's question and Pete's future over the next few years if he struggles. While we don't believe W/L will improve this year we each note one or two things that would indicate the chance for a leap in year 3. We also note the coaches that made huge leaps in year 3 or 4. We also weigh playing Browning as a true freshman.
In addition we rip on baseball, the Mariners, 710, cover the NBA Finals and Roadie cites a WSJ article.
Shoutouts to Derek, PuppySteel, Race, RavennaDawg, Gladstone, Tequilla -
Holy shit did I just win $10?
-
Did SRS get a shout-out?
-
Road dog can read?
-
Lil' Jimmy sounds like he wants to end his life. Hang in there, man!
-
I WANT MY 10 BUCKS
-
Whoa, my first ever FREE PUB!!!!!11111one
And I won't calm myself damn you, I'm tired of sucking for 15 fucking years. RD's comment about Pete not being on the hot seat at 2-3 wins was amusing.
Otherwise, great listen as always and everyone had really interesting things to say. Jimmy sounded like he was on his deathbed though lol -
Had to listen to get to the free pub ...
To clarify the whole .600 winning percentage with 100 games left comment by channeling my inner John Nash, basically what was needed to get there was being slightly better than .500 in games started by non-Felix starters and then winning at a .750+ level with Felix starting. With the quality of the pitching staff, that wasn't a huge stretch. Apparently with the quality of the offense, expecting anything other than TSIO is entirely FS. -
I laughed my ass off when chest asked if little jimmy took a few quaaludes before the show. Then my quaaludes kicked in and I passed the fuck out. Probably have to relisten.
My 2 cents on Petes job security is that if we have Hawkins 2.0 on our hands, we better make sure he has failed before we hit the reset button. I get the entire 3 years or GTFO, but here is the reality.
Sark was a salesman (a damn good one) who went from a cell phone kiosk to an NFL head coaching offer in like 5 years. He didn't have the resume, inherited a relatively talented roster in retrospect, and produced medioce results while using the program as training wheels with the safety net of 0-12 to fool the nation he was good. It was a brilliant career move on his part, quite honestly a tip of the cap. But there was a legitimate call for his firing after year 3.
Enter Petersen. We know the resume. He gets as much time as he needs in my book barring complete Ty like implosion. I'm so apathetic to the program right now, I can't give him the quick hook no matter how many stats back up a call to fire him. If Chris fucking Petersen can't get us back to relevance, I seriously might be done.
In year 3 if we don't win the North i'll be pissed, but i'll give him to year 5 because i have absolutely zero faith in the next man we hire and am willing to gamble Petersen's mediocre start as an outlier to greater things than a complete reset of another regime that will fail because we are the new WASHINGTON and that's what we're good at.
This program needs him to succeed, I think he will, but if he doesn't, holy shit my money will start going elsewhere unless we poach Saban. -
Exactly.Doogles said:I laughed my ass off when chest asked if little jimmy took a few quaaludes before the show. Then my quaaludes kicked in and I passed the fuck out. Probably have to relisten.
My 2 cents on Petes job security is that if we have Hawkins 2.0 on our hands, we better make sure he has failed before we hit the reset button. I get the entire 3 years or GTFO, but here is the reality.
Sark was a salesman (a damn good one) who went from a cell phone kiosk to an NFL head coaching offer in like 5 years. He didn't have the resume, inherited a relatively talented roster in retrospect, and produced medioce results while using the program as training wheels with the safety net of 0-12 to fool the nation he was good. It was a brilliant career move on his part, quite honestly a tip of the cap. But there was a legitimate call for his firing after year 3.
Enter Petersen. We know the resume. He gets as much time as he needs in my book barring complete Ty like implosion. I'm so apathetic to the program right now, I can't give him the quick hook no matter how many stats back up a call to fire him. If Chris fucking Petersen can't get us back to relevance, I seriously might be done.
In year 3 if we don't win the North i'll be pissed, but i'll give him to year 5 because i have absolutely zero faith in the next man we hire and am willing to gamble Petersen's mediocre start as an outlier to greater things than a complete reset of another regime that will fail because we are the new WASHINGTON and that's what we're good at.
This program needs him to succeed, I think he will, but if he doesn't, holy shit my money will start going elsewhere unless we poach Saban.
Chris Petersen is as good a coach as UW could ever reel in given our recent history. That's no dig at him but really shows how much of a Don James coat tail ride this University has been allowed. Petersen would have been a big get for Oregon when Kelly took over and probably even at his departure. He would probably have even a longer leash at USC than Sark will enjoy. This is obviously not a program that is going to snatch Nick Saban, Urban Meyer, Les Miles or even your current sizzle coordinator like Jimbo FIsher or Will Muschamp (hardy har har) and, while not among the creme-de la creme, Peterman was an elite caliber coaching prospect when he was hired.
If it doesnt work with him then we may as well figure out how to convert that new stadium to a soccer arena because football will be will be a dirtier word than Bruce Jenner before we are ever relevant again. -
If Petersen wins two or three this year, "we" will want him fired. We also know he won't be fired.Gladstone said:Whoa, my first ever FREE PUB!!!!!11111one
And I won't calm myself damn you, I'm tired of sucking for 15 fucking years. RD's comment about Pete not being on the hot seat at 2-3 wins was amusing.
Otherwise, great listen as always and everyone had really interesting things to say. Jimmy sounded like he was on his deathbed though lol -
I'll have to go back and listen again but I thought you said he wouldn't be on the hot seat at that point. He definitely would be 100% on the hot seat if we win 2-3 games this year. No question.
If I misheard and you were talking about firing him then yeah I agree. -
Only way Pete gets on the hot seat is if he loses boosters, attendance, money, etc. Hard to imagine that he'll be hurt by lack of performance given the staunch support that Romar gets when there is overwhelming reasons to end that experiment.
While it's very possible that Petersen will get a ton of shit if the QB position and Smith are disasters this season, those are easy fixes by firing Smith and then turning everything over to Browning afterwards.
There's more talent on this team than I think people are willing to talk about because of the black cloud on the offense/QB.
One thing that I do think is worth talking about from the podcast is this notion that Petersen is taking on the Stanford model and the idea that the Stanford model is successful with or without a QB. Since Luck left for the NFL, Stanford has been an above average team in the conference with what is a very average PAC QB. Make no mistake that in today's world of college football where 30+ points per game are more of a norm than an exception, that having quality QB play is paramount. If you have a all-conference (or better) caliber of QB, you have a chance to win your conference for sure. I can't think of many situations in the last 5 years or so where there has been a high caliber team that didn't have at least above average QB play. You can be an above average team with average QB play if the rest of your team is an upper end of the conference team and you can be a contender with above average QB play if you have an elite supporting cast. Until the UW gets back to having the kind of quality QB play that is needed to compete at a high level (and really, this has been as much of the root cause of the problem since the early 2000s as anything else), the program will continue to be relatively mediocre. -
Im having a flashback now to the Stanford segment. I'm in the camp that Hogan is not terrible or average, but probably above average. He struggled early on when the line play sucked for them (SHOCKER) but once that was cleaned up he excelled.Tequilla said:Only way Pete gets on the hot seat is if he loses boosters, attendance, money, etc. Hard to imagine that he'll be hurt by lack of performance given the staunch support that Romar gets when there is overwhelming reasons to end that experiment.
While it's very possible that Petersen will get a ton of shit if the QB position and Smith are disasters this season, those are easy fixes by firing Smith and then turning everything over to Browning afterwards.
There's more talent on this team than I think people are willing to talk about because of the black cloud on the offense/QB.
One thing that I do think is worth talking about from the podcast is this notion that Petersen is taking on the Stanford model and the idea that the Stanford model is successful with or without a QB. Since Luck left for the NFL, Stanford has been an above average team in the conference with what is a very average PAC QB. Make no mistake that in today's world of college football where 30+ points per game are more of a norm than an exception, that having quality QB play is paramount. If you have a all-conference (or better) caliber of QB, you have a chance to win your conference for sure. I can't think of many situations in the last 5 years or so where there has been a high caliber team that didn't have at least above average QB play. You can be an above average team with average QB play if the rest of your team is an upper end of the conference team and you can be a contender with above average QB play if you have an elite supporting cast. Until the UW gets back to having the kind of quality QB play that is needed to compete at a high level (and really, this has been as much of the root cause of the problem since the early 2000s as anything else), the program will continue to be relatively mediocre.
Knocking Hogan is akin to knocking Russel Wilson. He does what he's asked to do. I bet you he gets late round drafted, he almost went out after this year. If we had Hogan over Miley last year we beat stanford, arizona, and OKST assuming we still played them in whatever bowl. -
Good thread here and great posts by @SpoonieLuv and @Doogles.
Petersen is the best this school can do in hiring a football coach. It's really fucking hard to get a great coach, there are very few slam dunk hires but we got one.
Not to keep beating this drum but there are many great fucking coaches who don't do shit until year 3 or 4. We all will be pissed at 4-8 or 5-7 but that does not mean Petersen is off track.
In any event the offense has to get better or Smith has to go if it doesn't improve. He was a total fucking reach of a hire. And its not like this school doesn't have the resources to seriously upgrade the position. The hiring of Wilcox saved Sark's fledgling career. If the offense and QB play doesn't improve they need to make a change. The offense/QB cannot still be an impediment in year 3. -
This is basically exactly my thoughts. It really comes down to the fact that this is the absolute best hire we could have asked for and I am willing to give Peterman his time because if he can't get us back then we are absolutely fucked.Doogles said:I laughed my ass off when chest asked if little jimmy took a few quaaludes before the show. Then my quaaludes kicked in and I passed the fuck out. Probably have to relisten.
My 2 cents on Petes job security is that if we have Hawkins 2.0 on our hands, we better make sure he has failed before we hit the reset button. I get the entire 3 years or GTFO, but here is the reality.
Sark was a salesman (a damn good one) who went from a cell phone kiosk to an NFL head coaching offer in like 5 years. He didn't have the resume, inherited a relatively talented roster in retrospect, and produced medioce results while using the program as training wheels with the safety net of 0-12 to fool the nation he was good. It was a brilliant career move on his part, quite honestly a tip of the cap. But there was a legitimate call for his firing after year 3.
Enter Petersen. We know the resume. He gets as much time as he needs in my book barring complete Ty like implosion. I'm so apathetic to the program right now, I can't give him the quick hook no matter how many stats back up a call to fire him. If Chris fucking Petersen can't get us back to relevance, I seriously might be done.
In year 3 if we don't win the North i'll be pissed, but i'll give him to year 5 because i have absolutely zero faith in the next man we hire and am willing to gamble Petersen's mediocre start as an outlier to greater things than a complete reset of another regime that will fail because we are the new WASHINGTON and that's what we're good at.
This program needs him to succeed, I think he will, but if he doesn't, holy shit my money will start going elsewhere unless we poach Saban.
And I think he will get us back, so, yeah. -
Good point on Hogan in that it is hard at times to figure out where he is at. He can look great one day and WTF the next. It's very possible that I'm underselling him a bit by saying he is average and he very well may be above average. He's certainly better than Price which would make him no worse than the 2nd best UW QB in the last 10+ years
-
31-10. Two Pac 12 championships, two Rose Bowl appearances, one Rose Bowl win. That is well above average and after 15 years of bullshit, that kind of success is a wet dream for a Husky fan.Tequilla said:Only way Pete gets on the hot seat is if he loses boosters, attendance, money, etc. Hard to imagine that he'll be hurt by lack of performance given the staunch support that Romar gets when there is overwhelming reasons to end that experiment.
While it's very possible that Petersen will get a ton of shit if the QB position and Smith are disasters this season, those are easy fixes by firing Smith and then turning everything over to Browning afterwards.
There's more talent on this team than I think people are willing to talk about because of the black cloud on the offense/QB.
One thing that I do think is worth talking about from the podcast is this notion that Petersen is taking on the Stanford model and the idea that the Stanford model is successful with or without a QB. Since Luck left for the NFL, Stanford has been an above average team in the conference with what is a very average PAC QB. Make no mistake that in today's world of college football where 30+ points per game are more of a norm than an exception, that having quality QB play is paramount. If you have a all-conference (or better) caliber of QB, you have a chance to win your conference for sure. I can't think of many situations in the last 5 years or so where there has been a high caliber team that didn't have at least above average QB play. You can be an above average team with average QB play if the rest of your team is an upper end of the conference team and you can be a contender with above average QB play if you have an elite supporting cast. Until the UW gets back to having the kind of quality QB play that is needed to compete at a high level (and really, this has been as much of the root cause of the problem since the early 2000s as anything else), the program will continue to be relatively mediocre. -
Sark got 5 years and wasn't going anywhere until he chose to LEAVE! Ty got 4 years. Romar is still the basketball coach. Disgruntled fans will call in and complain if Petersen wins 3 games. Poasters here and on dawgman will call for Petersen to be fired, but he isn't going anywhere and will get 4-5 years, even if we continue to suck. It seems to take catastrophe level disasters for a coach to get fired at UW. Mediocrity has long been accepted.Gladstone said:I'll have to go back and listen again but I thought you said he wouldn't be on the hot seat at that point. He definitely would be 100% on the hot seat if we win 2-3 games this year. No question.
If I misheard and you were talking about firing him then yeah I agree.
-
I don't know where you guys see Stanford. Not that UW couldn't be successful with another style, but the roster makeup and offense Smith ran last year doesn't look like its heading that direction.Tequilla said:Only way Pete gets on the hot seat is if he loses boosters, attendance, money, etc. Hard to imagine that he'll be hurt by lack of performance given the staunch support that Romar gets when there is overwhelming reasons to end that experiment.
While it's very possible that Petersen will get a ton of shit if the QB position and Smith are disasters this season, those are easy fixes by firing Smith and then turning everything over to Browning afterwards.
There's more talent on this team than I think people are willing to talk about because of the black cloud on the offense/QB.
One thing that I do think is worth talking about from the podcast is this notion that Petersen is taking on the Stanford model and the idea that the Stanford model is successful with or without a QB. Since Luck left for the NFL, Stanford has been an above average team in the conference with what is a very average PAC QB. Make no mistake that in today's world of college football where 30+ points per game are more of a norm than an exception, that having quality QB play is paramount. If you have a all-conference (or better) caliber of QB, you have a chance to win your conference for sure. I can't think of many situations in the last 5 years or so where there has been a high caliber team that didn't have at least above average QB play. You can be an above average team with average QB play if the rest of your team is an upper end of the conference team and you can be a contender with above average QB play if you have an elite supporting cast. Until the UW gets back to having the kind of quality QB play that is needed to compete at a high level (and really, this has been as much of the root cause of the problem since the early 2000s as anything else), the program will continue to be relatively mediocre.
-
One could even say that mediocrity is the goal. Ty was too shitty but Sark was just right.RoadDawg55 said:
Sark got 5 years and wasn't going anywhere until he chose to LEAVE! Ty got 4 years. Romar is still the basketball coach. Disgruntled fans will call in and complain if Petersen wins 3 games. Poasters here and on dawgman will call for Petersen to be fired, but he isn't going anywhere and will get 4-5 years, even if we continue to suck. It seems to take catastrophe level disasters for a coach to get fired at UW. Mediocrity has long been accepted.Gladstone said:I'll have to go back and listen again but I thought you said he wouldn't be on the hot seat at that point. He definitely would be 100% on the hot seat if we win 2-3 games this year. No question.
If I misheard and you were talking about firing him then yeah I agree.
I would also predict that if Petermen does become a big winner here he will end up door ass out either because he gets tired of the lack of support or the administration screws him like they did James -
I don't know if success at the UW will see a repeat of what happened with James and the administration. Times are different. Parties involved are different. Egos are different. Attitude of those in Seattle are different.
20-30 years ago winning was nice ... but not a necessity. We were more concerned about keeping people out of our area, shunning attention, and whatnot. Now everything has changed where people are busy beating their chest at any perceived slights from others, a desire/expectation of winning, and an influx of successful businesses leading to a culture that is rapidly shifting.
It will be interesting to see what kind of backlash the Mariners are going to have with the way this season goes and they continue along the status quo. -
Almost completely disagreeTequilla said:I don't know if success at the UW will see a repeat of what happened with James and the administration. Times are different. Parties involved are different. Egos are different. Attitude of those in Seattle are different.
20-30 years ago winning was nice ... but not a necessity. We were more concerned about keeping people out of our area, shunning attention, and whatnot. Now everything has changed where people are busy beating their chest at any perceived slights from others, a desire/expectation of winning, and an influx of successful businesses leading to a culture that is rapidly shifting.
It will be interesting to see what kind of backlash the Mariners are going to have with the way this season goes and they continue along the status quo.
Husky football 20-30 years ago was all about winning. The jokes about wanting to fire Don James are grounded in truth. Since I can first remember Husky football had a rabid win at all cost fan base.
That base is dead or defeated. Sark was very popular. The M's are popular. Winning is second to a fun time and boat races.
I was told not that long ago that I was a lesson in how not to act as a fan because I spoke the truth about what a shithead Emmert was and how he wanted to kill football
The president may change but the culture remains. No way UW rides out what Oregon just went through without killing the program again.
Oregon said fuck you and kept buying players and winning -
I will give DJ the 10 bucks...it was for the first to mention it.
Sorry I don't want uw to be Stanford -
@HeretoBeatmyChest
Here's a difference between the M's and Huskies for you: watching the M's is so fucking boring/awful that during one of their 0-1 losses the TV Crew pans over Husky Stadium with one of them saying, "Ah yes, only a matter of time before college football on Montlake" (or something to that effect).
-
So we're waiting until 2017 now?
Awesome. -
We just found the foreword to Derek's next money grab.RaceBannon said:
Almost completely disagreeTequilla said:I don't know if success at the UW will see a repeat of what happened with James and the administration. Times are different. Parties involved are different. Egos are different. Attitude of those in Seattle are different.
20-30 years ago winning was nice ... but not a necessity. We were more concerned about keeping people out of our area, shunning attention, and whatnot. Now everything has changed where people are busy beating their chest at any perceived slights from others, a desire/expectation of winning, and an influx of successful businesses leading to a culture that is rapidly shifting.
It will be interesting to see what kind of backlash the Mariners are going to have with the way this season goes and they continue along the status quo.
Husky football 20-30 years ago was all about winning. The jokes about wanting to fire Don James are grounded in truth. Since I can first remember Husky football had a rabid win at all cost fan base.
That base is dead or defeated. Sark was very popular. The M's are popular. Winning is second to a fun time and boat races.
I was told not that long ago that I was a lesson in how not to act as a fan because I spoke the truth about what a shithead Emmert was and how he wanted to kill football
The president may change but the culture remains. No way UW rides out what Oregon just went through without killing the program again.
Oregon said fuck you and kept buying players and winning -
Petersen is here as long as Woody is here no matter what.
-
The one change which is a concern is the big money has changed. Back in the day they wanted to win and only win. Now, we hear about how they told Emmert it was the right decision to keep Tyrone. The young big swinging dick boosters loved Sark and were pushing for Nuss for a continuation of that culture.
And because that changed, it allowed a fucking comedy of errors to go on......firing Rick, not making Gilby an interim coach, hiring Tyroan, not firing him in 2007...4 totally absolutely wrong decisions.
None of this shit matters now. Petersen will be here for 12-15 years.
