Petersen and Smith
Comments
-
I don't think Browning sucks ... he's a freshman. He's going to make some mistakes and make some decent plays. He's averaging 7.4 yards per attempt on the year and outside of Stanford and Utah, the most difficult defenses he will see on the year he's already played. If you think Browning and Miles are comparable at all, you're insane.
Yes, Oregon's secondary sucks. My biggest criticism in the game was that we didn't take more shots down the field.
The biggest problem with the offense from an execution standpoint is that they are not able to consistently execute 8, 10, 12 play drives. This is where the youth comes into play. Somewhere a mistake gets made whether it is a penalty, sack, trying to cut outside into a loss instead of taking it up the field and taking what is there. Where we find ourselves in drive killers is when we get behind the chains.
I do think that we may have a few more play makers than we're showing and I don't think that the offense is maximizing it's potential through scheme.
The part that I'm really struggling after the last couple days of reading this board is that everybody is surprised by the offensive performance. Yes Oregon sucks, but by our standards, we had a fairly good offensive game. We're not going to score 40+ points without a lot of help on defense or special teams. We didn't get a turnover or special teams play that gave us a short field(s) to work with. Probably our ceiling with that set of variables right now is about 27-30 points.
For those saying that I'm just being analytical here for the sake of being analytical, or for those saying that I'm being doogish, or not seeing things here, what is it that you're seeing that I'm not seeing? I just don't think that by going heavier on the run was going to necessarily find us another TD because I don't think the OL is good enough to carve out enough holes to get us consistent runs down the field. Everything will break right a few times during the game and Gaskin will get some big gainers. But when I see the offense at its most consistent this year, it's mixing in the run with the short to intermediate passing game behind the LBs. -
Can't flag, yada yada yada.DerekJohnson said:
You're a great poster, but sometimes you don't see the forest for the trees.Tequilla said:Might be post of the week but is Gaskin capable of 32 carries at this point in time of his career? Is it something that the coaching staff is interested in?
Missing Washington in this game was HUGE and probably resulted in 5-7 of those Browning attempts instead of being run plays at least.
We averaged 6 yards per play in the game ... problem wasn't our ability to move the ball. It was our inability to finish drives and have explosive plays. -
Double his carries and he breaks another couple for 100 more yards. .
There may be a few 3 and outs mixed in, but we are already getting those without the benefit of the big gainers.. -
Good job at missing the point before going off on some tl,dr nonsense.Tequilla said:I don't think Browning sucks ... he's a freshman. He's going to make some mistakes and make some decent plays. He's averaging 7.4 yards per attempt on the year and outside of Stanford and Utah, the most difficult defenses he will see on the year he's already played. If you think Browning and Miles are comparable at all, you're insane.
Yes, Oregon's secondary sucks. My biggest criticism in the game was that we didn't take more shots down the field.
The biggest problem with the offense from an execution standpoint is that they are not able to consistently execute 8, 10, 12 play drives. This is where the youth comes into play. Somewhere a mistake gets made whether it is a penalty, sack, trying to cut outside into a loss instead of taking it up the field and taking what is there. Where we find ourselves in drive killers is when we get behind the chains.
I do think that we may have a few more play makers than we're showing and I don't think that the offense is maximizing it's potential through scheme.
The part that I'm really struggling after the last couple days of reading this board is that everybody is surprised by the offensive performance. Yes Oregon sucks, but by our standards, we had a fairly good offensive game. We're not going to score 40+ points without a lot of help on defense or special teams. We didn't get a turnover or special teams play that gave us a short field(s) to work with. Probably our ceiling with that set of variables right now is about 27-30 points.
For those saying that I'm just being analytical here for the sake of being analytical, or for those saying that I'm being doogish, or not seeing things here, what is it that you're seeing that I'm not seeing? I just don't think that by going heavier on the run was going to necessarily find us another TD because I don't think the OL is good enough to carve out enough holes to get us consistent runs down the field. Everything will break right a few times during the game and Gaskin will get some big gainers. But when I see the offense at its most consistent this year, it's mixing in the run with the short to intermediate passing game behind the LBs. -
You aren't going to agree with me because I'm way too measured for your taste and I'm not going to agree with you because you run into I5 traffic at rush hour for my taste.
But yes, I watch the games. I see a team trying to achieve balance. I see an offense that isn't particularly well coordinated with a play caller that at times is overmatched and doesn't think far enough ahead with a plan. I'm also one of the first people to say that Smith and the offense doesn't have a specific identity ... which is also a popular topic around here now. This is a team that could stand to try to take a few more shots to take advantage of teams trying to jump the running and short passing game ... whether they work or not is inconsequential at this point ... that there's a threat needs to be established.
I also said before the season that the defense was going to be significantly better than many thought ... that also has played out.
I believe I also said before the season that winning was going to be tied to controlling the field, playing to the strengths of the team, and being opportunistic. I'll defer to @CokeGreaterThanPepsi for numbers that he came up that we talked about last week, but not only is UW last in the conference in plays run, but significantly so. It's very clear at least to me that the coaching staff has decided that our best path to winning is to shorten the game and play to the defense.
The fact of the matter is that we didn't get any turnovers this week and no short fields. Given the limitations on this offense (numerous), that's going to be an uphill battle to get significant points on the board.
And since I know this was only a few weeks ago, but my position on Smith is well established and known. He has shown no reason to be retained next year. Pease should be on the same bus out of town. At the same time, I'm not going to bash the guy because he's the popular punching bag. He's down the list this week when it comes to reasons that UW lost.
And had Browning been able to finish out the game, I do think that we had a legitimate chance to get the score to win. Unfortunate that he wasn't able to do so. -
Then why the fuck aren't they calling more run plays?Tequilla said:You aren't going to agree with me because I'm way too measured for your taste and I'm not going to agree with you because you run into I5 traffic at rush hour for my taste.
But yes, I watch the games. I see a team trying to achieve balance. I see an offense that isn't particularly well coordinated with a play caller that at times is overmatched and doesn't think far enough ahead with a plan. I'm also one of the first people to say that Smith and the offense doesn't have a specific identity ... which is also a popular topic around here now. This is a team that could stand to try to take a few more shots to take advantage of teams trying to jump the running and short passing game ... whether they work or not is inconsequential at this point ... that there's a threat needs to be established.
I also said before the season that the defense was going to be significantly better than many thought ... that also has played out.
I believe I also said before the season that winning was going to be tied to controlling the field, playing to the strengths of the team, and being opportunistic. I'll defer to @CokeGreaterThanPepsi for numbers that he came up that we talked about last week, but not only is UW last in the conference in plays run, but significantly so. It's very clear at least to me that the coaching staff has decided that our best path to winning is to shorten the game and play to the defense.
The fact of the matter is that we didn't get any turnovers this week and no short fields. Given the limitations on this offense (numerous), that's going to be an uphill battle to get significant points on the board.
And since I know this was only a few weeks ago, but my position on Smith is well established and known. He has shown no reason to be retained next year. Pease should be on the same bus out of town. At the same time, I'm not going to bash the guy because he's the popular punching bag. He's down the list this week when it comes to reasons that UW lost.
And had Browning been able to finish out the game, I do think that we had a legitimate chance to get the score to win. Unfortunate that he wasn't able to do so. -
Fuck what you think could have happened. The offense dug themselves a hole in the first half with shitty play calls, gutless decisions and browning not being all that great passing the ball.Tequilla said:You aren't going to agree with me because I'm way too measured for your taste and I'm not going to agree with you because you run into I5 traffic at rush hour for my taste.
But yes, I watch the games. I see a team trying to achieve balance. I see an offense that isn't particularly well coordinated with a play caller that at times is overmatched and doesn't think far enough ahead with a plan. I'm also one of the first people to say that Smith and the offense doesn't have a specific identity ... which is also a popular topic around here now. This is a team that could stand to try to take a few more shots to take advantage of teams trying to jump the running and short passing game ... whether they work or not is inconsequential at this point ... that there's a threat needs to be established.
I also said before the season that the defense was going to be significantly better than many thought ... that also has played out.
I believe I also said before the season that winning was going to be tied to controlling the field, playing to the strengths of the team, and being opportunistic. I'll defer to @CokeGreaterThanPepsi for numbers that he came up that we talked about last week, but not only is UW last in the conference in plays run, but significantly so. It's very clear at least to me that the coaching staff has decided that our best path to winning is to shorten the game and play to the defense.
The fact of the matter is that we didn't get any turnovers this week and no short fields. Given the limitations on this offense (numerous), that's going to be an uphill battle to get significant points on the board.
And since I know this was only a few weeks ago, but my position on Smith is well established and known. He has shown no reason to be retained next year. Pease should be on the same bus out of town. At the same time, I'm not going to bash the guy because he's the popular punching bag. He's down the list this week when it comes to reasons that UW lost.
And had Browning been able to finish out the game, I do think that we had a legitimate chance to get the score to win. Unfortunate that he wasn't able to do so.
Fuck this hypothetical "if he had been in the game in the last drive" bull shit. Who gives a shit even if it happened. (which I highly fucking doubt because I have eyes) It doesn't excuse the fucking shittiness of the first 3 quarters of play where UW found themselves completely inept against one of the worst defenses in the nation in probably the biggest home game of the season. -
Run the god damn ball especially with a true fresh. and pedestrian, non-burner wideouts. Establish the run. Control the fucking clock. The line is good enough to get them 4 YPC. That's all you need to set up 3rd and short. It doesn't need to be more complex than that.
-
Not cute enough to make coaches look brilliant. Need 3 men in motion and sideways passing to move the needle.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:Run the god damn ball especially with a true fresh. and pedestrian, non-burner wideouts. Establish the run. Control the fucking clock. The line is good enough to get them 4 YPC. That's all you need to set up 3rd and short. It doesn't need to be more complex than that.
HTH -
Thank you... I need a good LMAO moment this AM.
Granted, he would have needed to have seats in Sec. 108 Row 12 to catch it.FremontTroll said:
....who was blanketed by a LINEBACKER.section_332 said:3rd and 1 and the play call is a 25 yard shot to jaydon fuck face.
That sums up SmithFS -
"But we don't have the talent to beat Oregon, yet." Loses by 6 after plunger-fkin the game with poor coaching decisions.
PS: Completely agree. 18 FKING CARRIES!!!!!doogsinparadise said:Browning 32 attempts, Gaskin 18 carries is all that has to be said. Reverse those and you're probably looking at a win.
-
holy shit, that's a felony -
Excellent post.
It's also not wise to be "stubborn" in the passing game when your QB is a true frosh and so is your LT. Buckner was abusing Trey Adams and the true frosh QB eventually got hurt.
Washington missing the game was also key. Gaskin is also a true frosh and so I'd rather instead of giving Gaskin another 14 carries, it would've been better to give Washington 8-10 carries and 4-6 balls in the passing game (like the pass in the EZ that Cooper dropped).
Washington would've also helped in the screen game. One way to take advantage of Buckner licking his chops against Trey Adams is to use that against him by letting him rush upfield quickly.
I also can't remember, did we try to trap Bucker? At the snap, Trey Adams could head for the ROLB or SS and then Coleman Shelton or Tufunga could've pulled to blast Buckner.greenblood said:Stubborn is what Sark did with the passing game. Continuing to force the running game isn't being stubborn, it's being patient. You have that ability when you have a defense of Washington's calibur. The defense keeps you in the game, and in the second half, when the opponent is tired out, you have your way with them. This has been the Stanford blue print since Harbaugh arrived. It's especially ideal when you have a quarterback that isn't yet ready to win you football games. But don't ask me, I'm just an unemployed basement dweller, living on free rent and endless Hot Pockets.
-
Having the offensive scheme be "no scheme offense" and not fixing it 1.5 years ago is what is fucking key.HFNY said:Excellent post.
It's also not wise to be "stubborn" in the passing game when your QB is a true frosh and so is your LT. Buckner was abusing Trey Adams and the true frosh QB eventually got hurt.
Washington missing the game was also key. Gaskin is also a true frosh and so I'd rather instead of giving Gaskin another 14 carries, it would've been better to give Washington 8-10 carries and 4-6 balls in the passing game (like the pass in the EZ that Cooper dropped).
Washington would've also helped in the screen game. One way to take advantage of Buckner licking his chops against Trey Adams is to use that against him by letting him rush upfield quickly.
I also can't remember, did we try to trap Bucker? At the snap, Trey Adams could head for the ROLB or SS and then Coleman Shelton or Tufunga could've pulled to blast Buckner.greenblood said:Stubborn is what Sark did with the passing game. Continuing to force the running game isn't being stubborn, it's being patient. You have that ability when you have a defense of Washington's calibur. The defense keeps you in the game, and in the second half, when the opponent is tired out, you have your way with them. This has been the Stanford blue print since Harbaugh arrived. It's especially ideal when you have a quarterback that isn't yet ready to win you football games. But don't ask me, I'm just an unemployed basement dweller, living on free rent and endless Hot Pockets.
There is no framework to build around other than shitty pre snap motion. If you don't have a base, a framework, to build around it is going to be impossible to improve.
A mediocre blind RB converted from WR who can only catch screens and hit running lanes the size of the Montlake Cut wasn't going to make a difference.
Losers find a way to lose. -
Most of our passes are short/intermediate throws over the middle that take advantage of LBs trying to play the run.
The easiest time for a QB to throw the football is on early downs ... I'd much rather see Browning throw the ball on 1st and 10 than in 3rd and 8's. -
We get in a lot of 3rd and 8's anyways. Everything you have said in this thread is fucking retarded. You try and dig deeper and you end up posting a bunch of bullshit. This isn't debate club. You don't have to do this same shit after every game. You think you are smart, but you aren't. Football is simple.Tequilla said:Most of our passes are short/intermediate throws over the middle that take advantage of LBs trying to play the run.
The easiest time for a QB to throw the football is on early downs ... I'd much rather see Browning throw the ball on 1st and 10 than in 3rd and 8's.
Simple fact: The past three games we have ran the ball much better than threw it.
Browning has among the worst numbers of any Pac 12 QB, especially since conference play began. The only QB that has been worse is Oregon State's, but he can actually run.
Our defense is right up at the top of the conference.
So why do we HAVE to throw the ball 30 plus times every game? I've watched other winning coaches check their ego's at times and throw it only 10-15 times, if that is what is needed to win the game. I've seen Saban, Meyer, Harbaugh, Shaw (vs Oregon 2013), Tressell, Les Miles, etc, do it when necessary, and all of them had QB's that were way better, or at least playing much more efficiently than Browning is. I'll wait for your tl,dr bullshit on why all those scenarios were so much different. I can't see Petersen ever doing that, and it's a problem.
I have nothing against throwing the ball or being balanced. I get that three yards and a cloud of dust isn't sexy and that it can be frustrating sometimes. It's fine that Petersen would ideally want balance. What I have a problem that we need to do that just for the sake of doing that with no rhyme or reason in regards to winning the game. -
I'm all for pounding it 45-50 times a game if you can get consistent push with your OL and limiting the passing game to shots. But not only do you need to have a consistent OL with that, but you need to have depth at RB.
Fact of the matter is that Gaskin isn't going to run the ball 30+ times for this team this year. I'll be shocked if he does. IF there was a game to do it, it would have been the Oregon game. But with Washington hurt, it was abundantly clear that they had zero confidence in the RBs behind Gaskin/Washington to be effective.
This is a team that is going to run about 60 plays a game and on Saturday they tried to be balanced in part to take advantage of Oregon's weak pass defense and other part is because they lacked options behind Gaskin. They ran more than they threw against USC and my general sense is that if they can be successful in doing so that they'll do that. But at the same time, with a young OL, asking them to be successful with 8 or 9 in the box isn't a recipe for success either. The offense has to have Browning throwing the ball to be successful. The area where I think they need to get a little more aggressive offensively is taking shots down the field and using some down/distance situations to their advantage. An example being the 3rd and short shot to Mickens when he was against a LB in coverage ... that's the type of situation that you want to get and a defense is going to expect us to either run the ball or go for a short pass there.
I get your point and don't disagree about perhaps moving the ratio into more of a 55-60% range of runs versus passes. I'm also guessing that the coaches are looking at the quick throws over the middle to the TEs, the RB screens and flat throws to Washington, etc. as extensions of the running game and trying to find ways to take pressure off of the OL.
There's a lot of problems with the offense, I've got more on that to say elsewhere. On the pod, you got pushed by @HeretoBeatmyChest to provide solutions and you really didn't have any other than to turn the program into Wisconsin's offense ... although the problem with that is Wisconsin almost always is sitting with experienced OL in the program and multiple RBs that are plug and play. That's not what we are sitting with.
I get the frustration. I'm sure that you're looking at it from the standpoint that I'm just straight up apologizing and excusing the performance. I'm not. Just not going to sit and beat a dead horse week after week after week. It's pointless at this point to say that Smith sucks ... already known. It's pointless to say that Petersen's offenses have struggled --> not worked over the last 4 years ... stats and data are showing that out. Almost every coach at some point has to look to in the mirror over their career and be able to adjust, adapt, and grow on the fly to survive. We're at that point in Petersen's tenure right now offensively. We'll know what kind of chops he's got going forward by the moves he makes in the offseason. Makes minimal or no moves and you have a good idea of where this is heading. Makes significant moves, then you have to let it play out to see if the changes take hold.
As for the sexy, the sizzle, etc., if anything, I would think that most people know that I don't give a shit about any of that. I'm all about results and if that means running it every single play I'm fine with it. There's a certain beauty that comes from watching a team like Navy march up and down the field. The reality is that if you win with it, I'm all for it.
-
I don't want to have Wisconsin's offense. I'm just saying it would be nice to stick with what is working. It would be nice to make Browning earn the right to throw 30+ passes each week instead of just doing it for the sake of doing it. It would be nice to have a coach who wasn't a pussy who thinks running it 30 times is being "stubborn" in the run game. I get what he means by "stubborn" but it's also quite telling if you read between the lines.
Like I said before, there will never be a game where he talks about not having enough passing attempts. I think passing it 30+ times with arguably the worst QB in the conference and an OL that doesn't always protect well is "stubborn", but that's just me. -
Gaskin's carries for the game (down, distance, and result):
2nd and 10 Wash 24, 3 yards
1st and 15 Wash 33, 8 yards
1st and 10 Ore 48, 2 yards
1st and 10 Wash 5, 35 yards
2nd and 6 Wash 19, 3 yards
2nd and 1 Wash 31, 1 yard
1st and 10 Wash 32, 3 yards (holding on play)
2nd and 10 Wash 45, 2 yards
1st and 10 Ore 11, -1 yard
2nd and 10 Wash 19, 9 yards (Coleman ran for no gain on next play)
1st and 10 Wash 28, 72 yards TD
1st and 10 Wash 29, no gain
1st and 10 Wash 44, 3 yards
2nd and 7 Wash 47, 8 yards
1st and 10 Ore 29, 3 yards
1st and 10 Ore 15, 2 yards
1st and Goal Ore 6, 4 yards
2nd and Goal Ore 2, -1 yards
Gaskin's going to be a great player for us, and I'm not meaning this to be a slight against him, but for those that are suggesting that we need to run the ball more because we are consistent in doing so, the above play by play doesn't really support that. Of Gaskin's 18 carries, only 6 of the 18 carries went for 4 yards or more.
What Gaskin is able to do well for us, and the reason that we need to stick with the running game even when it isn't working is because he's going to bust a couple 35 yard type of plays per game that either turn the field over for us or create the explosive plays we need to score.
But generally speaking, we're not creating a huge push for him on a consistent basis. We don't have the kind of OL like Stanford has at the moment to be able to just turn and hand it off consistently for 3 straight times and have a 12 play drive where 11 of the plays are runs. The numbers are not going to bear that out ... particularly in the Oregon game. -
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You think your post provides context. It doesn't tell anyone anything that they don't know. We all know that not every Gaskin run is going to be successful. Sometimes runs get stuffed. The crazy thing is that when you are "stubborn" with the running game, those short runs can turn into demoralizing longer ones late in the game. I might have even seen it with my own eyes before.Tequilla said:Gaskin's carries for the game (down, distance, and result):
2nd and 10 Wash 24, 3 yards
1st and 15 Wash 33, 8 yards
1st and 10 Ore 48, 2 yards
1st and 10 Wash 5, 35 yards
2nd and 6 Wash 19, 3 yards
2nd and 1 Wash 31, 1 yard
1st and 10 Wash 32, 3 yards (holding on play)
2nd and 10 Wash 45, 2 yards
1st and 10 Ore 11, -1 yard
2nd and 10 Wash 19, 9 yards (Coleman ran for no gain on next play)
1st and 10 Wash 28, 72 yards TD
1st and 10 Wash 29, no gain
1st and 10 Wash 44, 3 yards
2nd and 7 Wash 47, 8 yards
1st and 10 Ore 29, 3 yards
1st and 10 Ore 15, 2 yards
1st and Goal Ore 6, 4 yards
2nd and Goal Ore 2, -1 yards
Gaskin's going to be a great player for us, and I'm not meaning this to be a slight against him, but for those that are suggesting that we need to run the ball more because we are consistent in doing so, the above play by play doesn't really support that. Of Gaskin's 18 carries, only 6 of the 18 carries went for 4 yards or more.
What Gaskin is able to do well for us, and the reason that we need to stick with the running game even when it isn't working is because he's going to bust a couple 35 yard type of plays per game that either turn the field over for us or create the explosive plays we need to score.
But generally speaking, we're not creating a huge push for him on a consistent basis. We don't have the kind of OL like Stanford has at the moment to be able to just turn and hand it off consistently for 3 straight times and have a 12 play drive where 11 of the plays are runs. The numbers are not going to bear that out ... particularly in the Oregon game.
You're right though. It's much smarter to let a QB who sucks right now air it out 30+ times every game. It's working really well.
Here's an example of why what you are saying is so incredibly stupid. I'm not trying to be an asshole, but I'm truly amazed how you can do this same shit every single week. If you take out Browning two longest throws, he went 17-28 for 138 yards. That's only 4.9 yards per attempt. You'll say that is stupid, yadda, yadda but you harp about how Gaskin gained 97 yards on two carries and only had 6 runs of over 4 yards. -
You like to talk about missing the point all the time ... yet there you go with the same.
I'm not saying that the run or pass game is necessarily working great. Both are being hurt in my opinion by the OL being green as can be.
You have to stick with the running game for the reasons that you mentioned. I'd be the first one to say as much. I think I've mentioned repeatedly that one of the reasons you have to make sure that you are finding ways to get Gaskin (and Washington) the ball is that these two are your most explosive playmakers.
But at the same time, to act like the run game is working and it is a no brainer to run the ball over and over isn't supported by the facts. Running on 1st and 2nd down, particularly so if predictably done, may very well to lead to a number of 3rd and longs, predictable situations for the defense to exploit a green OL and young QB, and create terrible scenarios.
One thing that I have noticed is a lot of "backward" play calling by Smith ... in many ways similar to what you'd expect from a pitcher that throws offspeed stuff behind in the count and fastball when looking for something with a wrinkle. Now, I'm not saying that Smith is doing this because he's clever (don't twist), but there is some logic to being random to the point where it's difficult to pick up a pattern.
The bottom line is that the OL isn't ready (the product of terrible Seven recruiting which we knew going into the year) and lacks explosive players at the WR position to help create easy throws for a young QB. It's an offense that lacks a lot of consistency and ability to string together long drives into scores. Add to that a play caller that would appear to be in over his head and that's the hand that we've been dealt ... -
You wanna know why FUCK THIS.... here.
5 times we ran back to back run plays. 2 times in the first half, 3 times in the 2nd, with 2 being in the final 12 play scoring drive.
First Half
1st - Myles, then Chico
2nd - Myles, Myles with penalty, then Coleman
2nd Half
3rd - Myles for 9, then Coleman no gain
Final scoring Drive
4th - Myles then Myles
5th - Myles then Myles
http://espn.go.com/college-football/playbyplay?gameId=400757054
Go look for yourself. Our fricking freshman RB had more yards and better YPC than a Heisman-esque Freeman. And yet, we only give it to him in back to back plays 3 times in the game... and abandon him after he breaks his monster?!
Myles Gaskin 18 for 155
Jake Browning 30 attempts for 199
Imagine where Gaskin would be with 12 more attempts!
Seriously, bring up that play-by-play at look at all the 'Jake Browning' crap you see.
Sick of this shit, as our OC and HC are heads up their asses bent on forcing Browning to be the answer when Gaskin could be putting up record numbers and WINS!!! FUCKING WINS!!!
And show me a great RB that doesn't have a handful of short runs without being hailed as a god.
Fuck Smith. Fuck the person enabling him to continue making these calls. Sure, players are young, but coaches are dumb.
This is their job... 24/7/265, and they should know better and put the kids in better positions to win.
-
For that statistic alone and based on what we don't have at wr and a freshman qb, someone should be fired.topdawgnc said:Right now Washington is 11th in the league for rushing attempts.
Ahead of only Wazzu.
Right behind USC.
Last year they were second to only Oregon. -
Jesus
Christ -
You're seeing what you want to see in the play by play numbersTequilla said:Gaskin's carries for the game (down, distance, and result):
2nd and 10 Wash 24, 3 yards
1st and 15 Wash 33, 8 yards
1st and 10 Ore 48, 2 yards
1st and 10 Wash 5, 35 yards
2nd and 6 Wash 19, 3 yards
2nd and 1 Wash 31, 1 yard
1st and 10 Wash 32, 3 yards (holding on play)
2nd and 10 Wash 45, 2 yards
1st and 10 Ore 11, -1 yard
2nd and 10 Wash 19, 9 yards (Coleman ran for no gain on next play)
1st and 10 Wash 28, 72 yards TD
1st and 10 Wash 29, no gain
1st and 10 Wash 44, 3 yards
2nd and 7 Wash 47, 8 yards
1st and 10 Ore 29, 3 yards
1st and 10 Ore 15, 2 yards
1st and Goal Ore 6, 4 yards
2nd and Goal Ore 2, -1 yards
Gaskin's going to be a great player for us, and I'm not meaning this to be a slight against him, but for those that are suggesting that we need to run the ball more because we are consistent in doing so, the above play by play doesn't really support that. Of Gaskin's 18 carries, only 6 of the 18 carries went for 4 yards or more.
What Gaskin is able to do well for us, and the reason that we need to stick with the running game even when it isn't working is because he's going to bust a couple 35 yard type of plays per game that either turn the field over for us or create the explosive plays we need to score.
But generally speaking, we're not creating a huge push for him on a consistent basis. We don't have the kind of OL like Stanford has at the moment to be able to just turn and hand it off consistently for 3 straight times and have a 12 play drive where 11 of the plays are runs. The numbers are not going to bear that out ... particularly in the Oregon game.
Look at it a different way- only 7 of Gaskin's 18 carries went for less than 3 (and one of those was a first down.)
14 of Browning's 30 attempts were incomplete or less than 3 yards (plus he was sacked 5 times.)
We needed to run more. We weren't ever down so far as to need to abandon our game.
In the other thread you were talking about playing conservative and shortening the game- if you want to do that then pound Gaskin. Bullshit assuming he can't handle 30 carries. You dont know that. He is healthy and fresh and was running hard until the end if the game. Run him until he's out of gas.
-
If @Tequilla and @RoadDawg55 had a baby, it would beat itself.
-
What is truly fucked up, here's a couple of quotes of the 2 of the local experts......
“Maybe deep down, Pete doesn’t want to win”
“Pete want’s to get sucked off by announcers for innovative and creative play calls. I have no doubt in my mind”
"Deep down in his heart, he gets off way more passing the ball more than running the ball"
Not worth debating dumbfucks like this. You can't fix stupid. -
Here, look no further.
Pete wants to be Mike Leach.
Offense wise, not lock people in a shed wise.HuskyInAZ said:What is truly fucked up, here's a couple of quotes of the 2 of the local experts......
“Maybe deep down, Pete doesn’t want to win”
“Pete want’s to get sucked off by announcers for innovative and creative play calls. I have no doubt in my mind”
"Deep down in his heart, he gets off way more passing the ball more than running the ball"
Not worth debating dumbfucks like this. You can't fix stupid. -
Petersen is 11-9 with a 5-7 conference record. 1-5 at home in the PAC 12. By all means, keep telling us it's the OL's fault that we have the worst offense in the PAC 12. Last year it was Miles. I'm curious what your dumbass will come up with next year.HuskyInAZ said:What is truly fucked up, here's a couple of quotes of the 2 of the local experts......
“Maybe deep down, Pete doesn’t want to win”
“Pete want’s to get sucked off by announcers for innovative and creative play calls. I have no doubt in my mind”
"Deep down in his heart, he gets off way more passing the ball more than running the ball"
Not worth debating dumbfucks like this. You can't fix stupid. -
Good thread, would be better if the subject material wasn't so depressing. Fuck.
