Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Husky Fan Podcast: A Major Debate then 2 minutes on Arizona

1457910

Comments

  • HeretoBeatmyChest
    HeretoBeatmyChest Member Posts: 4,295
    @Houhusky

    You generalize that the OL will have the same problems it had under Sark, Ty, etc.

    The one big difference is we have a real strength program now and the coach played as an OL. That should have a big impact on the OL over time. Only one guy is playing as a true freshman (Adams) and overall the OL hasn't had any injuries (knock on wood). Another difference is recruiting. Sark's two blue chip recruits played early and their careers were ruined. In his first few classes Pete got more 4* OL then Sark for his entire tenure. The non blue chip guys do have good size and length and can be developed into something.

    So we have better recruiting, better strength program and then Strausser over Coz who everyone hear hates. Unfortunately we don't have a mobile QB who can mitigate the problems of a developing OL. UCLA had that as it took Mora a few years to build a good OL there.

    Again with the quality win shit? You are looking at it subjectively. So because WSU has a better record than USC, than beating WSU would be more of a quality win? Arizona has a better record than USC, would that be more of a quality win? What if we beat Cal by 1, Oregon by 1 and lost to USC by 25. We'd be 4-3 but would we really be a better team than what we have at present? We could be 9-4 next year but have the same SRS as this year. Most people don't care about the metrics and thats why most people don't know how to properly analyze a sport that gives us so few data points that are inconsistent with each other given the varied schedules. (And the metrics have stronger predictive value than W/L which is why no one should dismiss them.)

    Your arguments are mostly typical emotional fan responses on small things outside of the big picture. Pete had to play Miles last year bc he was the best option. No one knew he'd suck until most of the season was over. He was the best guy available. Those pining for Lindquist have no idea how truly awful he is. He's playing Browning now bc he's the best guy. Next year will be a huge data point for everything but QB will be a big one. Browning's QBR is similar to Goff and Matt Barkley as freshman.

    The bottom line. This was a major rebuilding season. Returned among the fewest starters nationally, lost its 5 best players (if you include Ross) and had to start true freshman at QB, OL with the rest of the OL being Sark's 2nd rate recruits. In the spring on our podcasts we were talking about this being a 4-5 win team. Cornell was saying 4 wins and we'd get blown out by Boise. Now Pete needs to win 8 games for him to think its a good year? People here have moved the goalposts for this year.

    Most of the current frustration is bc we haven't been good in a long time and folks are carrying that angst. Deep down, posters here so badly want UW to be good that they have a negative lens for everything because they don't want to be disappointed again. If we went 10-3 in 2013 and 10-4 last year people likely would be more optimistic and accept that 2015 would be a rebuilding year. Had we beat Arizona and OSU last year we likely would have been #25-#30 SRS. We will see where things finish but dropping to #41 in a major rebuilding year is damn good for any team who is not a major power and for a program like UW who has basically had one good season in 14 years (2013) and even that was underachieving. Now it is reasonable to think Pete will max out at 8-9 wins the next few years with this group. That is fair but its incredibly difficult to make an argument that this year has been a failure or is below expectations.

    At worst, the current young group will compete for the north over the next few years. Most of the best players are young and will get better. That means 8/9 wins. At best, this team will win the north next year and the conference the year after. Regardless, the program will improve the next two years enough for our recruiting to bump up from the 3.1-3.2 level to +3.3. (When Stanford and Oregon started winning, their recruiting improved and they were at 3.4-3.5 consistently). Recruiting is going well but its failed to get above that key 3.3 level. It will start to exceed it within two years and the next group of players will be more talented.

    I'm shocked that most people would bet on Pete not even winning the north once. If you polled people nationally, the overwhelming response would be yes, whereas on this board it would be no. Thats purely a reflection of how emotionally damaged everyone here is.
  • HeretoBeatmyChest
    HeretoBeatmyChest Member Posts: 4,295
    godawgst said:

    Love the passion and podcast from you guys. Thanks for putting in the time on the show. I believe this this team will compete for the Pac-12 North next year provided the offense can take the next step and be just average, and the defense can generate more turnovers and learn to get off the field on 3rd and long.

    At the start of the year, everyone thought this was a 6 win team (+/- a win) and unless it goes in the shitter they will be right there.

    I'm still in the Chest camp, but if we are having any discussions NEXT year about this offense being still putrid then "houston we have a major problem" with CP as our head coach and I will be giving kudos to Roadie and JC.

    Chester, do you think CP should remove Jonathan Smith as oc/playcaller at the end of the year, and will he if the season plays out like it has so far offensively?

    No knowledge of anything but my guess is Smith is already gone. Just judging from Pete and Smith's interaction and Smith's demeanor in interviews.

    A change in OC though does not necessarily mean the offense will be a lot better.
  • HeretoBeatmyChest
    HeretoBeatmyChest Member Posts: 4,295

    When looking at UW's future chances, you also have to look at the rest of the conference. Stanford will likely regress a little bit next year, but they will still be good. Their downfall has been predicted for 3 or 4 years now and it hasn't happened. I don't think anyone can definitively say UW will be better than Stanford next year.

    Helfrich is kind of a dumbass, but if Oregon can find anyone to play QB, they will probably have the best offense in the conference. A new DC could obviously pay dividends too. They have the best RB's and skill guys in the conference. USC is close.

    Cal is Cal and the Coogs are the Coogs, but those are the teams that are currently UW's peers. Nobody outside of UW fans will be picking UW to win the North next year. They will be picked third, which is basically where we have been the past 5 years.

    The North is wide open and Stanford and Oregon have as many, if not more "if's than UW.

    I expect at least some will pick UW to win the north. If WSU finishes 7-5, they probably will get at least one first place vote.
  • Tequilla
    Tequilla Member Posts: 20,257
    Chest is owning this thread
  • FremontTroll
    FremontTroll Member Posts: 4,744
    Major Rebuilding Year™
  • Tequilla
    Tequilla Member Posts: 20,257
    And @RoadDawg55 once again proves that he can't see the forest through the weeds ...

    I just took a quick look at a 5-year trending of SRS for the 12 teams in the PAC and if I get around to it this weekend I'll put some charts/thoughts together on the topic. As Chest mentioned, we're better per the metrics this year than we were last year (currently 38th versus 41st last year). Moreover, if you look at the 5 year trending of UW, it's been since 2011: 57, 49, 13, 41, 38.

    The last time we had what we thought was a massive rebuilding season (2012) not only were we a better team than we thought (in hindsight), but it also provided the spring board into what should have been a high end team in 2013.

    Think back to what was in place in 2013:

    3-year starter at QB
    Depth at the skill positions
    Foundation built for strong defensive team

    These are characteristics that you're looking for when looking for teams that should be contenders to win their conference/division. But instead, what we found was a mentally soft team that didn't perform well when they were punched in the mouth.

    Now, setting every single thing to the side about what Pete has or has not done well yet, the one thing that I don't think anybody can argue with is that comparatively to the Sarkisian coached teams, the Pete coached teams have shown a consistent ability to play hard for 60 minutes and outscore teams over the 2nd half. When they get punched and knocked down, they have a resiliency to get back up and punch back. That's not by chance. That's a mentality being built into the program. Something that will serve this program well in the long run.

    In the 5 year SRS trends for Washington that I mentioned above, I also think that it is important to note where UW stands in relation to the average SRS of the conference over that period: 52.3, 42.9, 29.8, 36.8, and 44.3. Only in 2013 and 2015 has UW fielded a team that is considered an above average team in the conference. I do think that this is important to keep in mind.

    There has been a lot of talk about record and whatnot (with reason) and included in that has been a consideration of how the Cougs have done this year so far. And, without taking anything away from them, they are only responsible for playing those on the schedule as they come. But at the same time, it's why looking at records midway through the year can be a bit of a challenge and misleading. After all, why according to SRS is UW (an under .500 team) ranked at 38 while the Cougs and their gaudy 5-2 record is at 63? Let's take away the names of the teams that each has played (excluding the D2 teams) and instead compare the SRS's of the teams that they have played YTD and what remains on their schedule:

    UW:

    @ 40: L
    vs 66: W
    vs 28: L
    @ 10: W
    vs 51: L
    @ 8: L

    vs 64: TBD
    vs 11: TBD
    @ 54: TBD
    @ 97: TBD
    vs 63: TBD

    WSU:

    @78: W
    vs 125: W
    @ 28: L
    @ 51: W
    vs 97: W
    @ 64: W

    vs 8: TBD
    vs 54: TBD
    @ 18: TBD
    vs 90: TBD
    @ 38: TBD

    The big takeaways here are that UW's schedule that they've played so far this year has been a challenge. They've probably lost the games that they should have (barring the USC game) and won the games that they should have (barring Oregon, although I think that their numbers are slightly skewed lower with Adams missing most of the year so far). Switch the order of the games with Wazzu where we play Oregon without Adams/Carrington and Cougs play with Adams/Carrington, the results are probably switched. Is that an excuse? No. UW still had enough chances to win the game on their own merits. But it also goes to show that when you play teams and what injuries they have at the time does matter.

    A second takeaway from the UW standpoint is that the schedule gets very friendly over the next few weeks. Assuming Browning plays, the Arizona game at home looks very winnable as does the game at Oregon State. The Cougs and Arizona are very comparable skill level teams and getting the Cougs at home makes that also very winnable. Arizona State is probably a toss up game on the road. Utah at home is definitely one that on paper we probably aren't supposed to win. However, given the general performance this year, we shouldn't expect to be blown out either.

    The Cougs look like the sexy team right now because they are 3-1 in conference. But by the numbers, they look at best like a 5-4 conference team as they should lose to Stanford, @ UCLA, and at best split the ASU/UW games. In contrast, UW looks to be down on the luck by having a front loaded schedule sitting at 1-3 but there's at least 3 winnable games remaining on the schedule and very possibly a 4th. Switch Utah/Colorado between the two teams and there's not even a debate. As @HeretoBeatmyChest talks about, given that schedules are not comparable anymore, even for teams in the same division, you do have to look just a little further under the rug when trying to figure out where teams are at in the process.

    The only year in the last 4 where UW has gone backwards (so far for 2015) is last year ... which is really when Pete "blew it up" while also inheriting nothing at the QB position that has magnified the shortcomings of Smith (which may be a blessing in disguise in the long run). Even when you go back and look at the losses from last year, generally speaking, UW has been losing to the teams that they are supposed to lose to and beating the teams that they should beat (last year's losses and SRS as follows, recall UW's SRS last year was 41):

    vs Stanford: 20
    @ Oregon: 1
    vs Arizona St: 16
    vs UCLA: 14
    @ Arizona: 22
    vs Oklahoma St: 65

    The only outlier on this list is Oklahoma St who meandered through a forgettable 2014 season before turning to a true frosh QB in November, growing up a bit during the month, getting better with the 15 bowl practices, and is now sitting undefeated this year and ranked 22nd in SRS).

    So really, when you look at it, the biggest complaint (outside of Smith/Pease) that you can have with the program at this point is that it's winning the games that it is supposed to and not finding ways to win a lot of games that it isn't. In my mind, that's something that you don't really start seeing until the depth of a program's culture is fully developed.

    And not that this should be terribly surprising for those that pay attention, but the programs in the conference that are in big trouble right now in terms of trending are Oregon (from 2011-2014, SRS was never outside of 5, 51 this year) and Arizona St (54th this year, has gone up from 7th in 2013 to 16th in 2014). Arizona's downturn this year would be a red flag in my mind that's too early to call on whether or not their injury problems are the main cause or whether it's Rich Rod being Rich Rod. UCLA has also slightly gotten worse since 2013 but the level of talent that they bring in continues to keep them in the top 20. Also, perhaps not surprisingly, Kyle Whittingham is a good coach as over the last few years the fruits of Utah joining the PAC and being able to recruit better athletes (compared to their first few years in the league playing with Mountain West players weekly in the PAC) is paying off as they've gone from 60th in SRS in 2012 to 11th this year.
  • Swaye
    Swaye Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 41,741 Founders Club
    I understand that SRS does matter, and it shows meaning behind the curtain, but for fucks sake, scoreboard baby!?!?!!?

    I get it, we are probably slightly better than our record indicates, but that and 50 cents will get you a cup of coffee. There is no 2nd place in the North SRS trophy. At the end of the day, metrics may say things are trending better (and they may in fact be), but I still see our record, and it sucks. And our record is how we are judged, and ranked, and as it stands we will not be at whatever bowl the 41st best team in the country gets to go to (unless we run the table). If we even get bowl eligible, we will be at the retard paint eating bowel for the 8th place team in the dreck Pac-12 or whatever the fuck.

    Bleh.
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 115,968 Founders Club
    The idea of the grand triple bomb exit is growing more intriguing