Fair point about Cooper. But up to that point in his career, he had not fumbled the football in his entire career. Washington (the starter) has a history of fumbling problems and Coleman was a freshman. I get it from your perspective. I get it from the coaches perspective as well. I tend to chalk that up to winning players/teams making winnings plays and losing players/teams make losing plays.
Regarding 4-1 to end the year, what part of that is LOL worthy?
Arizona, Washington State, and Oregon State are either comparable to, or significantly worse than, Utah State from a SOS perspective. Neither of these 3 teams have beat anybody worth a damn. The Cougs best win is either at Arizona or Oregon (missing 2 of its most important offensive players). Arizona's 5 wins have been against teams with SRS of 90 or below + a D2 win. Oregon State's only D1 win was against 102nd ranked San Jose St. These are 3 TERRIBLE football teams.
Arizona State is a team that has talent but can't seem to get out of its own way. Statistically, they are good in areas but outside of the UCLA game this year, they've lost by 2 scores to the 3 semi-legit teams that they played this year and allowed an Oregon team that statistically they beat up to beat them at home in a game that they went into the game thinking it was a win or else game. Follow that up with a trip to Pullman next weekend (in what could very well be a loss) and you may have a team that is quickly throwing in the towel on a season where some picked them for national championship aspirations.
Utah's a good football team. But they can be offensively challenged and the defense has a good chance to keep the game close. Of the 5 games remaining, this would be the game that I don't think that we win.
I don't get all of the long-term pessimism though in the program ... barring Smith not being door.ass.out in the offseason.
Yes, the offense sucks right now ... not unexpected. We've played the most difficult portion of the schedule to start. It gets far easier from here on out. A good finish is definitely a realistic possibility.
Agree with your last point ... and that's a huge area of concern for me.
But as it comes to the program and what Pete is doing, it's also not fair for me to put 12-15 years of frustrations that he wasn't responsible for on his shoulders.
I get that it is easier said than done, but trying to separate what's happened and can't change versus sitting back and judging what is happening in the here and now on its own merits is the only way to avoid the pitfalls of jumping off the ledge every other week.
I really do question what happens if say next year we go 10-2 what the reaction will be when we lose those 2 games. I think so many here so desperately want to have a huge winner (in part because those assholes in Eugene have thrown it in our face for so long) that we need a natty to throw it back on them. Not that I disagree with that, but I guess if there's anything getting older and living through the last 15 years has taught me, it's I guess a little bit of perspective:
Back when I was a kid, growing up with the 1990-1992 teams, you never thought about losing. The week the Billy Joe stuff came out, he got suspended, and we lost at Arizona was one of the worst days I can remember as a kid. I hadn't been stomach punched by a game like that as a kid. The last loss prior to that was in 1990 when Greg Lewis got hurt and we lost a game to UCLA at home in the rain ... only thing that that loss told me was that Greg Lewis was really good and our offense wasn't without him. But by 1992, the thought of UW losing another game ever just didn't occur to me.
The only other game where I remember losing my shit on a bit was losing at Oregon in 2000 knowing that we had a good team and that the loss had a good chance to cost us a trip to the Rose Bowl and a National Championship.
But the losses over the years in key spots (both by UW and TCU), as well as the down period for UW, has taught me that winning isn't easy and is far from a given. When sitting in the Top 10, you're going to get everybody's best shot and you are going to lose a game from time to time that you shouldn't. There's going to be some great moments in there as well as your team shows the character and fight in coming back when down and out to win a game that you shouldn't win. And sometimes you'll play another good team and they'll make one more play in the game than you do.
Right now, all I want from the program is to get itself back into a position where it is competing for the conference championship. I'll worry about more than that once we're back there. But I'm going to enjoy the ride on the way up as you see things that are building the foundation for the future because that ride is going to be starting before most realize it. And trust me, after what I've gone through the last 2 years with TCU, it's a fun ride when it happens.
Most people on here would settle for 9-3 (6-3) and a meaningful game on or past Veteran's Day. Nobody expects a "natty" next year.
I was at UCLA in 1990. It fucking sucked. Donahue exploited our risk taking defense for big plays. They had no business winning that game (Ballbag). They were 4-7 that year or something.
I also watched '93 tOSU and I knew the nail was in the coffin as Musburger drooled over Big Daddy Wilkinson. UW was no longer elite. It hasn't been since unless you count a gritty 2000 team.
I'm not at all surprised you think that. None of it means a fucking thing if Petersen doesn't win. The fact that this much digging needs to be done to prop Petersen up shows that things aren't going that well. The bottom line is none of you fucks besides Puppy predicted Petersen to be 11-10 (5-8 in Pac 12) at UW after 21 games. It's bad.
Recruiting: How does it compare to the rest of the conference? At UW, Petersen will have to win without the best talent in the conference. So far, I haven't seen much that leads me to believe he can.
We all understand that we are young. We all understand this team wasn't winning 10 games, but it's still disheartening to lose home games to mediocre teams especially when the conference is down. Is there a single genuinely good team outside of Stanford in this conference? There are maybe 1-2 teams that could squeak into the top 25.
Poo pooing Petersen being 2-9 or whatever against winning teams is as doogish as it fucking gets. We have the worst offense in the conference again. This will be Petersen's 4th straight season with a declining win total. It's early, but we have two years of decline at UW from that special 2013 season. The other Boise State coaches all failed after leaving Boise. Your head is in the sand if you dismiss all of these things.
I honestly don't think Petersen will win championships at UW. I know some coaches take off later in their tenures, but many don't. It's context, but it has nothing to do with how Petersen will do at UW.
How are we surpassing Oregon or Stanford?
Oregon is serious about football. Luckily they have Helfrich coaching, but they still have a lot of talent and the proper backing. The game is in Eugene next year and quite frankly, they own this program until proven otherwise. Their program is superior to UW's any way you measure it.
Stanford develops their players better than anyone else in the league. They lose Hogan, but they will still have a lot of studs on the team. They have lost a lot of really good players the past few years and they keep marching on.
Support Petersen if he wins. He hasn't so far so fuck him.
Agreed 100%. After 15 years of shit, I'm in Missouri mode. You have to show me.
I get your frustration ... I really do. It's also why I think the points that Chest has made over the last 1-2 weeks are so important.
I absolutely think that a lot of the frustration from so many isn't really about Pete but more of an indictment on the performance of this program over the past 15 years. It's the impatience of wanting a winner. It's the feeling of hope and optimism that the Pete hire had that hasn't turned into instant gratification.
Before the season, as Chest pointed out, there was a lot of talk about getting to a bowl being a really good season. This was shaping up to be a long year ... it was KNOWN before the season. Now some of the very same people are moving the goal posts ... and some of the people doing this are also the very same people that are quick to the draw on accusing others of moving the goal posts.
If this year ends at 4-8 or 5-7, I think that there's definitely room to be concerned going forward.
If this year ends without a change being made with Smith (and in my mind also Pease), I think that there's room to be very concerned.
As both Chest and Pepsi have called out, there's no doubt that there's some areas where there's room for concern moving forward. But at that point, we're talking about things that have so many variables behind where we are when we get there that's its undoubtedly the proverbial jumping the gun. Judging this year on its merits, all indications are that this year will end up being ahead of schedule ... which ultimately, 2 months ago, we would have all been very pleased with.
It's hard in a world that is growing more and more into impatience and rewarding the here and now to stay patient and the course. We all want the instant fix and the magical wand waved. But it doesn't happen like that often. The program is moving in the right direction. The numbers and metrics are saying as much. Both are emotionless. And particularly in times like these, taking the emotion out of the equation is really what is needed.
Worst offense in the PAC 12 over the past two years. 4 straight years of decline for Petersen. A 5-8 conference record. No emotion involved. Those are cold hard facts. The numbers and metrics say we are a mediocre (at best) team like we have been for awhile.
Dantonio, Briles, and Harbaugh have all been used as examples of coaches taking off in later years. The difference is: Those coaches NEVER took their program backwards. Look it up. All three improved the programs they took over in year one. Even Saban's first year at Alabama, they were better than they were the year before under Shula. Same for Meyer at Florida. I'm curious if there has ever been a coach that took a program backwards for two years before having real success (multiple top 10 finishes, a couple conference championships, etc).
There is a lot of concerning evidence. It's honestly crazy to me that you guys dismiss it by saying we don't get football because we aren't SRS fanatics. SRS actually rated a 7-6 Arkansas team over a 12-1 Florida State team. It's not the end all be all.
Dantonio, Briles, and Harbaugh have all been used as examples of coaches taking off in later years. The difference is: Those coaches NEVER took their program backwards. Look it up. All three improved the programs they took over in year one. Even Saban's first year at Alabama, they were better than they were the year before under Shula. Same for Meyer at Florida. I'm curious if there has ever been a coach that took a program backwards for two years before having real success (multiple top 10 finishes, a couple conference championships, etc).
There is a lot of concerning evidence. It's honestly crazy to me that you guys dismiss it by saying we don't get football because we aren't SRS fanatics. SRS actually rated a 7-6 Arkansas team over a 12-1 Florida State team. It's not the end all be all.
Dantonio, Briles, and Harbaugh have all been used as examples of coaches taking off in later years. The difference is: Those coaches NEVER took their program backwards. Look it up. All three improved the programs they took over in year one. Even Saban's first year at Alabama, they were better than they were the year before under Shula. Same for Meyer at Florida. I'm curious if there has ever been a coach that took a program backwards for two years before having real success (multiple top 10 finishes, a couple conference championships, etc).
There is a lot of concerning evidence. It's honestly crazy to me that you guys dismiss it by saying we don't get football because we aren't SRS fanatics. SRS actually rated a 7-6 Arkansas team over a 12-1 Florida State team. It's not the end all be all.
It's a fair question but I don't know how much predictive value there is as you'd really have to get really specific and align multiple variables. You'd have to look at coaches who inherited 9-4 teams. I quickly ran through the 20-30 in my coaching study and Les Miles was the only one who inherited a 9-3 team or better. Most of these coaches inherited mediocre or marginal teams.
Furthermore, the 9-4 was a clear aberration of the tenure. You can vote Pete down for the first year but in a major rebuilding year, if he finishes with a better team than 2009-2012, then that is a good sign. Clearly, not getting to 9 wins next year would be a major negative.
The point about SRS is it should be weighed right along with W/L and has more predictive value than W/L. And it was right about Florida St by the way.
It wasn't right about Florida St lol, come on Chest be reasonable. SRS has its place but to say it should 'be weighed right along with W/L' is crazy talk.
Fair point about Cooper. But up to that point in his career, he had not fumbled the football in his entire career. Washington (the starter) has a history of fumbling problems and Coleman was a freshman. I get it from your perspective. I get it from the coaches perspective as well. I tend to chalk that up to winning players/teams making winnings plays and losing players/teams make losing plays.
Regarding 4-1 to end the year, what part of that is LOL worthy?
Arizona, Washington State, and Oregon State are either comparable to, or significantly worse than, Utah State from a SOS perspective. Neither of these 3 teams have beat anybody worth a damn. The Cougs best win is either at Arizona or Oregon (missing 2 of its most important offensive players). Arizona's 5 wins have been against teams with SRS of 90 or below + a D2 win. Oregon State's only D1 win was against 102nd ranked San Jose St. These are 3 TERRIBLE football teams.
Arizona State is a team that has talent but can't seem to get out of its own way. Statistically, they are good in areas but outside of the UCLA game this year, they've lost by 2 scores to the 3 semi-legit teams that they played this year and allowed an Oregon team that statistically they beat up to beat them at home in a game that they went into the game thinking it was a win or else game. Follow that up with a trip to Pullman next weekend (in what could very well be a loss) and you may have a team that is quickly throwing in the towel on a season where some picked them for national championship aspirations.
Utah's a good football team. But they can be offensively challenged and the defense has a good chance to keep the game close. Of the 5 games remaining, this would be the game that I don't think that we win.
Of course you think we are going 4-1 you think we are going to win every week.
Sure we could go 4-1. But 3-2 is most likely followed by 2-3 followed by 4-1.
Play around with the odds. Most optimistic 15-18% chance of 4 or more wins here on out.
Just think if Emmert had hire Mora back in '07. Then we'd be sitting here complaining about how Mora was taking us back to another Cotton Bowl instead of the Rose Bowl.
It wasn't right about Florida St lol, come on Chest be reasonable. SRS has its place but to say it should 'be weighed right along with W/L' is crazy talk.
Win, nothing else matters.
SRS had FSU at #8 last year. They lost by 40 points in the playoff. Of course they were going to make the playoff but the metrics argued that they were clearly not a top 4 team.
Ultimately W/L is all that matters. But when evaluating a new tenure or rebuild, SRS and other metrics are equally as important over the first few years. That stuff will be less important a few years from now.
It wasn't right about Florida St lol, come on Chest be reasonable. SRS has its place but to say it should 'be weighed right along with W/L' is crazy talk.
Win, nothing else matters.
SRS had FSU at #8 last year. They lost by 40 points in the playoff. Of course they were going to make the playoff but the metrics argued that they were clearly not a top 4 team.
Ultimately W/L is all that matters. But when evaluating a new tenure or rebuild, SRS and other metrics are equally as important over the first few years. That stuff will be less important a few years from now.
They weren't right about Florida State. The game got away in the second half. They were a good team.
Arkansas never would have went undefeated in the ACC. And SRS couldn't have been more wrong about Arkansas. That's something I pointed out multiple times.
SRS says UW sucks. Being ranked 41 is nothing to celebrate.
Just think if Emmert had hire Mora back in '07. Then we'd be sitting here complaining about how Mora was taking us back to another Cotton Bowl instead of the Rose Bowl.
Yeah but we wouldn't be able to self righteously claim we?re not racist
List of coaches in first two years who did not exceed win total of team the year before they came:
Woody Hayes at Ohio State John McKay at USC Barry Switzer at Oklahoma Tom Osborne at Nebraska Phillip Fulmer at Tennessee Johnny Majors at Tennessee Charles McClendon at LSU Terry Donahue at UCLA Duffy Daugherty at Michigan State Jimmy Johnson at Miami Dennis Erickson at Miami Butch Davis at Miami Bobby Ross at Georgia Tech Jim Owens at Washington Jackie Sherrill at Pittsburgh Bobby Petrino at Arkansas David Shaw at Stanford John Ralston at Stanford Mike Bellotti at Oregon Rich Brooks at Oregon Danny Ford at Clemson
Comments
Regarding 4-1 to end the year, what part of that is LOL worthy?
Arizona, Washington State, and Oregon State are either comparable to, or significantly worse than, Utah State from a SOS perspective. Neither of these 3 teams have beat anybody worth a damn. The Cougs best win is either at Arizona or Oregon (missing 2 of its most important offensive players). Arizona's 5 wins have been against teams with SRS of 90 or below + a D2 win. Oregon State's only D1 win was against 102nd ranked San Jose St. These are 3 TERRIBLE football teams.
Arizona State is a team that has talent but can't seem to get out of its own way. Statistically, they are good in areas but outside of the UCLA game this year, they've lost by 2 scores to the 3 semi-legit teams that they played this year and allowed an Oregon team that statistically they beat up to beat them at home in a game that they went into the game thinking it was a win or else game. Follow that up with a trip to Pullman next weekend (in what could very well be a loss) and you may have a team that is quickly throwing in the towel on a season where some picked them for national championship aspirations.
Utah's a good football team. But they can be offensively challenged and the defense has a good chance to keep the game close. Of the 5 games remaining, this would be the game that I don't think that we win.
I don't get all of the long-term pessimism though in the program ... barring Smith not being door.ass.out in the offseason.
Yes, the offense sucks right now ... not unexpected. We've played the most difficult portion of the schedule to start. It gets far easier from here on out. A good finish is definitely a realistic possibility.
I was at UCLA in 1990. It fucking sucked. Donahue exploited our risk taking defense for big plays. They had no business winning that game (Ballbag). They were 4-7 that year or something.
I also watched '93 tOSU and I knew the nail was in the coffin as Musburger drooled over Big Daddy Wilkinson. UW was no longer elite. It hasn't been since unless you count a gritty 2000 team.
There is a lot of concerning evidence. It's honestly crazy to me that you guys dismiss it by saying we don't get football because we aren't SRS fanatics. SRS actually rated a 7-6 Arkansas team over a 12-1 Florida State team. It's not the end all be all.
Enjoy your weekend. Sincerely. Maybe we can get a win tomorrow and cheer you up.
Furthermore, the 9-4 was a clear aberration of the tenure. You can vote Pete down for the first year but in a major rebuilding year, if he finishes with a better team than 2009-2012, then that is a good sign. Clearly, not getting to 9 wins next year would be a major negative.
The point about SRS is it should be weighed right along with W/L and has more predictive value than W/L. And it was right about Florida St by the way.
Win, nothing else matters.
Sure we could go 4-1. But 3-2 is most likely followed by 2-3 followed by 4-1.
Play around with the odds. Most optimistic 15-18% chance of 4 or more wins here on out.
Ultimately W/L is all that matters. But when evaluating a new tenure or rebuild, SRS and other metrics are equally as important over the first few years. That stuff will be less important a few years from now.
Arkansas never would have went undefeated in the ACC. And SRS couldn't have been more wrong about Arkansas. That's something I pointed out multiple times.
SRS says UW sucks. Being ranked 41 is nothing to celebrate.
List of coaches in first two years who did not exceed win total of team the year before they came:
Woody Hayes at Ohio State
John McKay at USC
Barry Switzer at Oklahoma
Tom Osborne at Nebraska
Phillip Fulmer at Tennessee
Johnny Majors at Tennessee
Charles McClendon at LSU
Terry Donahue at UCLA
Duffy Daugherty at Michigan State
Jimmy Johnson at Miami
Dennis Erickson at Miami
Butch Davis at Miami
Bobby Ross at Georgia Tech
Jim Owens at Washington
Jackie Sherrill at Pittsburgh
Bobby Petrino at Arkansas
David Shaw at Stanford
John Ralston at Stanford
Mike Bellotti at Oregon
Rich Brooks at Oregon
Danny Ford at Clemson
Some of them tied win total but did not match it.