#FirePetersen

Houhusky said:

CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:

FremontTroll said:

TyronesGhost said:

Tequilla said:

I tend to be of the opinion that the fuckers in Vegas know what the fuck they are doing ...

They had UW pegged for 9 wins last year ... we had 8 and pissed away the Arizona game. Bottom line business says Petersen was -1 last year versus unbiased expectations.

They had UW pegged for 4 wins this year ... we already have 3. It's looking like Petersen will exceed expectations this year.

and Tyrone running the program. That's what a disaster looks like.

You called Tequilla? Let me tell you about failed expectations. I know about failed expectations.


---Numero uno (i'm fluent in your tortilla speak)

You said yourself that Petersen underperformed last year. -1. So he did worse than expected.

---Adios Seniors

We are losing Littleton, Feeney, Clay and Tupou on defense which are all major contributors. We may take a step back this year, and while the defense looks good now..it could be the last bit of talent before we step into an unknown world.

---TacoBell#3 Combo

In 2013 we were #3 in the Pac 12 in recruiting. We're now in the 6-8 range. I don't care about his bs OKG motto or whatever. Bottom line is Petersen won 8 games with Sarks drunk recruiting...if he fails to recruit better than Sark we are hosed. Because if he can't win with top quarter Pac-12 classes for upper classmen. He isn't going to win with middle of the pack classes either. This isn't boise. This is a Power 5.

So what's he's show me is...

- He will perform below unbias expectations.
- We are graduating some of our biggest contributors to Kawasaki's defense this year.
- He's recruiting lower than what we had when he showed up.

That all leads me to believe he's going to make us worse than what Sark did.

Awful analysis.

Littleton and Feeney are the big losses. Tupou and Clay are just guys who are easily replaceable. Its nice that they are contributing but nobody expected them to theyve just been coached up.

We lost far more talemt last year and the defense got better. DE/BUCK/OLB is where we have the most CP recruits in the pipeline so somebody will step up.

You're going to the Sark was a great recruiter well? Why because everybody says so? One of the primary reasons we didn't have depth last year and we are so young this year is because the 2012 class was a total bust filled with Sark washouts. It's already abundantly clear that CP will have a higher hit rate with the 2 and 3* guys.

There are many areas of concern but recruiting and the defense are not among them.

Basically my exact thoughts as well. For me all my concerns are on offense, which is not good at all.

The defense is sound and being well coached, it is sustainable as evidenced by getting better after losing the top end talent they lost last year. Plus, the recruiting on defense is going very well.

The offense and everything about it is my main and (quite, honestly) only major concern right now. Recruiting does matter, but evaluation and development are what truly matter. Sark "recruited" well by stars, but his evaluation, especially on offense was pure shit. Couple that with losing 50% of a class within 2 years of entering school and you are fucked.

People forget that even Sark had positives going on with his team, all shitty teams have one or two things they can point to and say they have going for them. Remember Price in 2011 (as a RS Sophomore) breaking the UW single season TD passing record, throwing for 4 TDs and rushing for 3 against a ranked Baylor team in the bowl game... There are always a few positives, even for the shitty coaches.

Im not saying your are wrong, but it is going to be difficult to find anything positive to say after the tree DPs (Double plungers) our ass on national TV on ESPNs prime time midnight game.

What if I don't think we are getting plungered?

Petersen hasn't done anything to deserve patience. He's been doing poorly since he came on board. I'm talking about on-field results because everything else is bullshit. Saying he only needs an offense is true on the surface, but we'll see. Will Muschamp only needed an offense at Florida.

The coaching decisions, especially in close games are equally concerning. The good coaches win the majority of close games. Petersen has lost almost every one. Petersen does what he wants to do, regardless of whether it helps to win the game. He's still running his shitty offense after years of struggle. Browning throws 30+ times no matter what.

RoadDawg55 said:

Petersen hasn't done anything to deserve patience. He's been doing poorly since he came on board. I'm talking about on-field results because everything else is bullshit. Saying he only needs an offense is true on the surface, but we'll see. Will Muschamp only needed an offense at Florida.

The coaching decisions, especially in close games are equally concerning. The good coaches win the majority of close games. Petersen has lost almost every one. Petersen does what he wants to do, regardless of whether it helps to win the game. He's still running his shitty offense after years of struggle. Browning throws 30+ times no matter what.

Actually record in close games is mostly luck and is not predictive. A good record in close games along with a highly positive turnover differential is a hallmark set up for an overachieving team due for a crash.

Just for an example that I saw recently...Bret Bielema started his career 21-12 in one-possession games. He then lost 13 in a row before beating Tennessee a couple weeks ago. Nick Saban is 7-7 in one possession games since 2010.

There is just only so much that a head coach can do to influence a game with time management and coaching strategy- the game is played on the field with an oblong and slippery pig skin that tends to bounce in the most unpredictable ways. What I'm saying is- there is a lot of luck involved.

THAT BEING SAID...CP has clearly negatively influenced UW's chances of winning multiple games with his clock management, 4th down decision-making, and general offensive scheme.

We can expect that the bad luck involved in some of the losses (Arizona namely) will even out over the long run HOWEVER if the coach is still making bad decisions that open up the possibility of luck going against UW that is still highly concerning.

We thought we were getting a coach that would take calculated risks and put his team in the best position to win. A coach that would have his team playing with an edge. I don't know if that coach ever existed but he hasn't shown up at Washington.

RoadDawg55 said:

FremontTroll said:

RoadDawg55 said:

Petersen hasn't done anything to deserve patience. He's been doing poorly since he came on board. I'm talking about on-field results because everything else is bullshit. Saying he only needs an offense is true on the surface, but we'll see. Will Muschamp only needed an offense at Florida.

The coaching decisions, especially in close games are equally concerning. The good coaches win the majority of close games. Petersen has lost almost every one. Petersen does what he wants to do, regardless of whether it helps to win the game. He's still running his shitty offense after years of struggle. Browning throws 30+ times no matter what.

Actually record in close games is mostly luck and is not predictive. A good record in close games along with a highly positive turnover differential is a hallmark set up for an overachieving team due for a crash.

Just for an example that I saw recently...Bret Bielema started his career 21-12 in one-possession games. He then lost 13 in a row before beating Tennessee a couple weeks ago. Nick Saban is 7-7 in one possession games since 2010.

There is just only so much that a head coach can do to influence a game with time management and coaching strategy- the game is played on the field with an oblong and slippery pig skin that tends to bounce in the most unpredictable ways. What I'm saying is- there is a lot of luck involved.

THAT BEING SAID...CP has clearly negatively influenced UW's chances of winning multiple games with his clock management, 4th down decision-making, and general offensive scheme.

We can expect that the bad luck involved in some of the losses (Arizona namely) will even out over the long run HOWEVER if the coach is still making bad decisions that open up the possibility of luck going against UW that is still highly concerning.

We thought we were getting a coach that would take calculated risks and put his team in the best position to win. A coach that would have his team playing with an edge. I don't know if that coach ever existed but he hasn't shown up at Washington.

Turnovers and defensive scores have been frequent under Petersen. They have kept us in the game numerous times while the offense puttered around. The Boise and Cal games this year were only close games because of a defense/ST TD. Stanford and ASU last year. We lost anyways so it doesn't really matter, but fans use these "close" games ( all to mediocre teams) are a reason they think we are right there.

True.

The way the team is set up leads to us losing a lot of "close" games in really ugly ways. The losses aren't as close as they look since our offense is completely incapable of putting together a drive when it matters. (this is why the fake punt against Stanford is who gives a fuck for me- we were never going to win that game anyways as exemplified by the 8 identical losses since then.)

RoadDawg55 said:

Tequilla said:

haie said:

Tequilla said:

ThomasFremont said:

Tequilla said:

What I don't get is all the hate at this point ... it's just not constructive. As many have said, if Petersen isn't the guy, it's not going to result in a change after this year ... even if he loses every game from here on out.

Have there been areas of the program where there are frustrations and disappointments? Absolutely. The Smith hire was panned almost universally early on as being a head scratcher and it has been proven out on the field. Same with Pease. Not surprisingly that the two guys on the staff that had the most questionable resumes are the areas where this team is struggling the most.

That being said, there are also an abundance of positives in the program. So unlike some regimes where we could look at and say that everything is broken, that's not the case here. There are some areas where progress and changes need to be made. This is true in almost every single program at some point in time.

Now, if Petersen goes 5-4 next year in conference, then it's a good indication that he isn't the long term answer. The defense should be loaded next year. The lumps that the offense is taking now should be better for it next year. Add an uptick in coaching/scheme to the offense and that can accelerate that. Outside of Stanford, everybody else is in some phase of bad to regressing. There's plenty of reason to expect results next year and results mean being in position to win the North.

Constructive? The thing is fucked, and so are we as fans. The most constructive thing to do is fire him and get the next guy in to see if he can cut it. Or we can wait and see, again, and pray he becomes something he has proven not to be on the field.

Let's fire Nick Holt J. Smith and save the program, right buddy?

Deja vu all over again.

Depth of recruiting
Deteriorating in-state recruiting and relationships with local area coaches
Recruiting turnover (verbals going elsewhere)
Player development
Consistent long-term losing streaks each season with plungerings
Sloppy play/execution
"Penalties don't matter"
Mentally soft program (big time front runners)

Even depth of recruiting hasn't been proven at this point with Petersen. In-state recruiting WILL deteriorate after more mediocre seasons. Player development has been unproven, you have shit to show otherwise. We've been plungered in Peteresen's tenure. Play has been extremely sloppy at times, even on the defense the tackling has been shitty when it's mattered. Penalties do matter to the staff but they've taken stupid ones at times, especially in the Oregon game.

Mentally soft program. See Oregon game last week.

Player Development: Status of DBs from start of last season through last season and into this season. Replacing DL and not seeing drop off. You're blind IMO if you can't see the player development by and large in this program.

Generally I am associating sloppy play with being young.

I don't see a mentally soft program at all. Generally speaking, with the exception of Oregon last year and a bad matchup with UCLA with Kikaha getting injured early, this program has not only consistently been in games, but has been resilient in generally winning the 2nd halves. You would be better served pointing towards slow starts than mentally soft.

I do.

Your eyes are as good as mine.

doogsinparadise said:

Burn him!

@Swaye, might be tim to add dip to the rolls of the dead.