Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
If Dwayne Washington played for Don James
DerekJohnson
Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 68,558 
His name would be David Toy.
Comments
-
He would get his ass kicked?
-
-
David Toy was an up-and-coming star at tailback in 1985. But in the second game of the year he fumbled 2-3 times against BYU. He was benched the rest of the season, and the next spring he was the backup safety.Sarkingham said:He would get his ass kicked?
-
He would be 50 years old.
-
More memories of the Mormans stealing our nattyDerekJohnson said:
David Toy was an up-and-coming star at tailback in 1985. But in the second game of the year he fumbled 2-3 times against BYU. He was benched the rest of the season, and the next spring he was the backup safety.Sarkingham said:He would get his ass kicked?
-
Thsoe fucking meadow massacre assholes!Baseman said:
More memories of the Mormans stealing our nattyDerekJohnson said:
David Toy was an up-and-coming star at tailback in 1985. But in the second game of the year he fumbled 2-3 times against BYU. He was benched the rest of the season, and the next spring he was the backup safety.Sarkingham said:He would get his ass kicked?
-
That was in '84, not '85Baseman said:
More memories of the Mormans stealing our nattyDerekJohnson said:
David Toy was an up-and-coming star at tailback in 1985. But in the second game of the year he fumbled 2-3 times against BYU. He was benched the rest of the season, and the next spring he was the backup safety.Sarkingham said:He would get his ass kicked?
-
Can he tackle though?
-
Any mention of 1980s BYU is a stark reminder of what happened #neverforget
-
No way Peterman cares about winning when DWarsh goes back out there.
How can you convince your team you're about winning when you are more worried about the confidence of a loser than winning?
DWarsh was the cause of that loss. -
Pete was at the heart of that loss.Dennis_DeYoung said:No way Peterman cares about winning when DWarsh goes back out there.
How can you convince your team you're about winning when you are more worried about the confidence of a loser than winning?
DWarsh was the cause of that loss.
From allowing the Swede package to ruin two 1st and 10's, to keeping Dwarsh in front of Gaskin after the first fumble.
It's on Pete. -
Well of course it is. I'm just saying, DWarsh was the proximal cause. Pete was the distal cause.MisterEm said:
Pete was at the heart of that loss.Dennis_DeYoung said:No way Peterman cares about winning when DWarsh goes back out there.
How can you convince your team you're about winning when you are more worried about the confidence of a loser than winning?
DWarsh was the cause of that loss.
From allowing the Swede package to ruin two 1st and 10's, to keeping Dwarsh in front of Gaskin after the first fumble.
It's on Pete.
Pete doesn't GAF about winning.
He's in retirement mode. -
Yeah but 85 is when we had a chance to beat them on the field and show we were better, but we lost instead. So it still triggers the memory of 84.DerekJohnson said:
That was in '84, not '85Baseman said:
More memories of the Mormans stealing our nattyDerekJohnson said:
David Toy was an up-and-coming star at tailback in 1985. But in the second game of the year he fumbled 2-3 times against BYU. He was benched the rest of the season, and the next spring he was the backup safety.Sarkingham said:He would get his ass kicked?
-
Should have never gotten the last few touches after coughing it up. Period.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Well of course it is. I'm just saying, DWarsh was the proximal cause. Pete was the distal cause.MisterEm said:
Pete was at the heart of that loss.Dennis_DeYoung said:No way Peterman cares about winning when DWarsh goes back out there.
How can you convince your team you're about winning when you are more worried about the confidence of a loser than winning?
DWarsh was the cause of that loss.
From allowing the Swede package to ruin two 1st and 10's, to keeping Dwarsh in front of Gaskin after the first fumble.
It's on Pete.
Pete doesn't GAF about winning.
He's in retirement mode.
I don't care if it's Coop or Cement shoes Coleman.... get someone in there to keep possession at a minimum. -
Didn't Sark bury DWarsh after Illinois?
-
He needed to sit down. It's not intramural bullshit out there. This is major college football.
-
Dwarsh is Steve Slaton
-
Pete doesn't give a fuck about winning now. He takes the PuppySteel approach and thinks when the young guys grow up we will be fine. The problem is that winning habits and always demanding excellence is what will make the program grow. We're not in a vacuum where UW gets better and everyone else gets worse. For all we know, another Heisman worthy player is either playing or committed to another school in the conference. There's no fucking light switch where you can dink around before winning championships.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Well of course it is. I'm just saying, DWarsh was the proximal cause. Pete was the distal cause.MisterEm said:
Pete was at the heart of that loss.Dennis_DeYoung said:No way Peterman cares about winning when DWarsh goes back out there.
How can you convince your team you're about winning when you are more worried about the confidence of a loser than winning?
DWarsh was the cause of that loss.
From allowing the Swede package to ruin two 1st and 10's, to keeping Dwarsh in front of Gaskin after the first fumble.
It's on Pete.
Pete doesn't GAF about winning.
He's in retirement mode.
Playing D Wash over Gaskin and employing Jonathan Smith speaks volumes even if this year doesn't matter. I do think highly of a lot of young guys on this team, but it's not a sure thing and the coaching is really fucking concerning. I don't know how someone could watch this team play the last two years and not feel that way. -
Good point.Thump said:
Yeah but 85 is when we had a chance to beat them on the field and show we were better, but we lost instead. So it still triggers the memory of 84.DerekJohnson said:
That was in '84, not '85Baseman said:
More memories of the Mormans stealing our nattyDerekJohnson said:
David Toy was an up-and-coming star at tailback in 1985. But in the second game of the year he fumbled 2-3 times against BYU. He was benched the rest of the season, and the next spring he was the backup safety.Sarkingham said:He would get his ass kicked?
-
You have to create a winning attitude. Very rarely does a TCU happen and you go from 4 go 12 wins. It does happen bur rarely .RoadDawg55 said:
Pete doesn't give a fuck about winning now. He takes the PuppySteel approach and thinks when the young guys grow up we will be fine. The problem is that winning habits and always demanding excellence is what will make the program grow. We're not in a vacuum where UW gets better and everyone else gets worse. For all we know, another Heisman worthy player is either playing or committed to another school in the conference. There's no fucking light switch where you can dink around before winning championships.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Well of course it is. I'm just saying, DWarsh was the proximal cause. Pete was the distal cause.MisterEm said:
Pete was at the heart of that loss.Dennis_DeYoung said:No way Peterman cares about winning when DWarsh goes back out there.
How can you convince your team you're about winning when you are more worried about the confidence of a loser than winning?
DWarsh was the cause of that loss.
From allowing the Swede package to ruin two 1st and 10's, to keeping Dwarsh in front of Gaskin after the first fumble.
It's on Pete.
Pete doesn't GAF about winning.
He's in retirement mode.
Playing D Wash over Gaskin and employing Jonathan Smith speaks volumes even if this year doesn't matter. I do think highly of a lot of young guys on this team, but it's not a sure thing and the coaching is really fucking concerning. I don't know how someone could watch this team play the last two years and not feel that way.
I like a lot of what is going on and I tthought the progress on offense today was encouraging, but you have to follow that up with another good performance next week for it to matter. It's clear smith has to go, and if the system is better the players will begin to play better. That clearly won't fix everything as well still have holes at wr, oline, etc. But when the talent is up to par in a year or two the coaching will be able to take advantage of it and win 10+ games.
Tl;Dr summary. Losing begets losing. Smith sucks. I am not confident Petersen will make the necessary changes. -
It pains me to say it because I'm like a battered spouse still hoping Peterman changes things around but Smith is Smith because Peterman lets him or tells him.dhdawg said:
You have to create a winning attitude. Very rarely does a TCU happen and you go from 4 go 12 wins. It does happen bur rarely .RoadDawg55 said:
Pete doesn't give a fuck about winning now. He takes the PuppySteel approach and thinks when the young guys grow up we will be fine. The problem is that winning habits and always demanding excellence is what will make the program grow. We're not in a vacuum where UW gets better and everyone else gets worse. For all we know, another Heisman worthy player is either playing or committed to another school in the conference. There's no fucking light switch where you can dink around before winning championships.Dennis_DeYoung said:
Well of course it is. I'm just saying, DWarsh was the proximal cause. Pete was the distal cause.MisterEm said:
Pete was at the heart of that loss.Dennis_DeYoung said:No way Peterman cares about winning when DWarsh goes back out there.
How can you convince your team you're about winning when you are more worried about the confidence of a loser than winning?
DWarsh was the cause of that loss.
From allowing the Swede package to ruin two 1st and 10's, to keeping Dwarsh in front of Gaskin after the first fumble.
It's on Pete.
Pete doesn't GAF about winning.
He's in retirement mode.
Playing D Wash over Gaskin and employing Jonathan Smith speaks volumes even if this year doesn't matter. I do think highly of a lot of young guys on this team, but it's not a sure thing and the coaching is really fucking concerning. I don't know how someone could watch this team play the last two years and not feel that way.
I like a lot of what is going on and I tthought the progress on offense today was encouraging, but you have to follow that up with another good performance next week for it to matter. It's clear smith has to go, and if the system is better the players will begin to play better. That clearly won't fix everything as well still have holes at wr, oline, etc. But when the talent is up to par in a year or two the coaching will be able to take advantage of it and win 10+ games.
Tl;Dr summary. Losing begets losing. Smith sucks. I am not confident Petersen will make the necessary changes.
