Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

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

Petersen Pissed Away the Utah Game, but he won't Admit it

12346

Comments

  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 110,805 Founders Club

    nope. Never agreed.
    You did
  • KnocksvilleEKnocksvilleE Member Posts: 75

    Shit post. Just curious, what is your handle on dawgman? Purpledawgfan? Nobody thinks we shouldn't pass at all. We just think we should be more of a run based team. We aren't. We aren't running the air raid, but this is a pass first team which is odd considering the production the RB's are giving us and the fact that the QB is a true freshman.

    Gaskin and D Wash combined for 26 carries and 148 yards against Utah. There are plenty of facts to prove this team can run the football, but keep informing it and defending the FS coaching that repeatedly does the same thing and fails most of the time.

    Against Utah, Peterman called for around 48 passes (39 attempts, 9 Browning runs) and 28 runs (2 were reverses).

    Against Oregon, around 40 passes (32 attempts, 8 QB runs/sacks) and 21 RB carries.

    Against Cal, 37 passes (28 attempts, 9 QB runs/sacks) and 15 RB carries.


    It's ridiculous, it's stupid and the only real argument anyone that tries to argue against this is that Petersen knows more about football than we do. Well no shit, but he's also been trotting out shitty offenses for 4 straight years.

    It has very little to nothing to do with Utah's vaunted run D. We aren't balanced. This team is pass heavy every game because that is what Petersen wants to do. It's fucking mind boggling though. We have a very good defense and the RB's, especially Gaskin produce.
    Not sure where you got the idea I was rebutting some argument about never passing the ball. I was stating that their are downsides to running the ball more (not always), and that you can't expect your YPC to be as good if you run more often with RB fatigue and opponents loading the box. So we don't know what this team looks like if it runs the ball more. There have been a few really successful drives. But there have been total duds as well. DW has terrible vision and only has a good YPC because he gets the occasional big play (but a run first offense cannot rely on that, unless youwant even more 3rd and longs). Gaskin is more reliable but he is a small true freshmen and may be more prone to fatigue and wear and tear You can mention all the games where they threw it more and lost but we don't know if they would have been any better with a more run heavy offense.

    As for those games, it isn't surprising they threw the ball more. Smith starts each game on a script and they were way behind by the time it was finished. You can't blame them for throwing it when they are far behind.
    http://www.uwdawgpound.com/2015/10/29/9622014/mailbag-absurdly-late-kickoff-edition

    In addition, you keep saying Peterson is "calling" all these pass plays but how many are really just run/pass option? How many of the successful runs due to the run/pass option? We cannot be sure what is helping keep the YPC high in the run game. Though I hope we get a chance to find out in the Apple Cup, given that Wazzu's defense is a mirror image of Utah's. I will be very pissed if they pass a bunch in that game (unless it is to catch up).


    And no I am not on Dawgman.
  • KnocksvilleEKnocksvilleE Member Posts: 75

    You did
    Where?
  • Fire_Marshall_BillFire_Marshall_Bill Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 25,118 Founders Club

    I think most of Derek's points are valid. I had the same knee-jerk reaction. I also agree with what Teq said. I know it's cool to lead a miserable and pathetic life, but if you're still in LIFPO mode with Peterbilt, you certainly don't have blinders on or are being doogish. Are there a lot of discouraging signs? Hell yeah. There's also a lot of encouraging signs.

    I'm still in LIFPO mode but realize Peterbilt isn't a tier 1 coach. But in my mind, there's really only 5-6, if that, premium quality, automatic game changing coaches in college football that can win no matter who they put out on the field. All we know right now is Peterman has made some really FS mistakes and he's not a complete game-changing coach. But other than that, he could be Dirk Koetter or he could be a top 15 coach who once he gets his guys in there, averages 5.5-6 P12 wins/year. That jury is still out. And anyone who says they know for sure he's Dirk Koetter is just as idiotic as a doog claiming he's the next Don James.

    Peterman is not a top 10 coach in the country. That's about all we know so far.

    He's not Saban or Meyer level. I thought he probably wasn't. People want that which is fine, but I'm a Doog who is willing to settle for top 25 75% of the time, no losing seasons, and a some Rose Bowls. Right now he's looking more like a Bellotti type.
  • RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,123

    Not sure where you got the idea I was rebutting some argument about never passing the ball. I was stating that their are downsides to running the ball more (not always), and that you can't expect your YPC to be as good if you run more often with RB fatigue and opponents loading the box. So we don't know what this team looks like if it runs the ball more. There have been a few really successful drives. But there have been total duds as well. DW has terrible vision and only has a good YPC because he gets the occasional big play (but a run first offense cannot rely on that, unless youwant even more 3rd and longs). Gaskin is more reliable but he is a small true freshmen and may be more prone to fatigue and wear and tear You can mention all the games where they threw it more and lost but we don't know if they would have been any better with a more run heavy offense.

    As for those games, it isn't surprising they threw the ball more. Smith starts each game on a script and they were way behind by the time it was finished. You can't blame them for throwing it when they are far behind.
    http://www.uwdawgpound.com/2015/10/29/9622014/mailbag-absurdly-late-kickoff-edition

    In addition, you keep saying Peterson is "calling" all these pass plays but how many are really just run/pass option? How many of the successful runs due to the run/pass option? We cannot be sure what is helping keep the YPC high in the run game. Though I hope we get a chance to find out in the Apple Cup, given that Wazzu's defense is a mirror image of Utah's. I will be very pissed if they pass a bunch in that game (unless it is to catch up).


    And no I am not on Dawgman.
    They didn't run much to start the game in those losses either. In fact, Gaskin had more 2nd half carries against both Oregon and Utah. Fuck off. Keep ignoring the real stats and coming up with, "yeah, but we don't know what's going on or the run/pass options."

    Nobody cares about uwdoogpound or your shitty mailbag with made up questions.
  • KnocksvilleEKnocksvilleE Member Posts: 75

    They didn't run much to start the game in those losses either. In fact, Gaskin had more 2nd half carries against both Oregon and Utah. Fuck off. Keep ignoring the real stats and coming up with, "yeah, but we don't know what's going on or the run/pass options."

    Nobody cares about uwdoogpound or your shitty mailbag with made up questions.
    Gaskin could have had more carries in the second half because the matchup favored run more often and the run/pass option became run.

    I have been giving you guys stats and you keep seeing lame excuses to ignore them. You are so completely sure the offense would be so much better with more running you are absolutely sure they should have run against the 17th ranked run defense more than passing against the 92nd ranked pass defense. Fuck skepticism, eh. Fuck determning it the problem is more playcalling or execution. Not when it is so satisfying to call for Smith and Peterson's head.
  • KnocksvilleEKnocksvilleE Member Posts: 75
    edited November 2015
    And your prescription for fixing the offense is to have more "run plays" and fewer "pass plays." Who needs Smith and Peterson when they have you guys?
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 110,805 Founders Club
    This guy is still here dooging it up?
  • MisterEmMisterEm Member Posts: 6,685

    Derp what?
    Oh the irony.
  • section_332section_332 Member Posts: 2,403
    This argument has to be a joke right....?
  • MisterEmMisterEm Member Posts: 6,685

    This guy is still here derping it up?

  • doogsinparadisedoogsinparadise Member Posts: 9,320
    This is elementary analysis, fucking Christ.
  • doogsinparadisedoogsinparadise Member Posts: 9,320
    Doogs love to make the argument that ypc will go down with more carries, and the related argument that without the 79 yard run player x's ypc would've been only 2.5 or whatever. Don't be that Doog.
  • doogsinparadisedoogsinparadise Member Posts: 9,320

    And your prescription for fixing the offense is to have more "run plays" and fewer "pass plays." Who needs Smith and Peterson when they have you guys?

    Can't forget the "so you think you're smarter then the coaches" argument. Right from the playbook.
  • TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 20,011

    Doogs love to make the argument that ypc will go down with more carries, and the related argument that without the 79 yard run player x's ypc would've been only 2.5 or whatever. Don't be that Doog.

    Don't also be a fucktard and say that because a guy ran 15 times for 100 yards when one of those carries was for 85 yards that the running game on the hole was a success. It wasn't. It would have got you one big score but otherwise ended up putting you in a lot of long down/distance relationships.
  • doogsinparadisedoogsinparadise Member Posts: 9,320
    Tequilla said:

    Don't also be a fucktard and say that because a guy ran 15 times for 100 yards when one of those carries was for 85 yards that the running game on the hole was a success. It wasn't. It would have got you one big score but otherwise ended up putting you in a lot of long down/distance relationships.
    Nice numbers, you get them from @KnocksvilleE?
  • phineasphineas Member Posts: 4,732
    Doogles said:

    It's special talking about next year during this year. It's just so irritating.

    Nothing better than reading about how cal will plummet and Oregon will suck and stanford will go back to being stanford and asu sucks meanwhile we can't beat any of them. Really cool stuff
  • RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,123
    phineas said:

    Nothing better than reading about how cal will plummet and Oregon will suck and stanford will go back to being stanford and asu sucks meanwhile we can't beat any of them. Really cool stuff
    But why do I hate the posters on this board?
  • RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,123
    @KnocksvilleE, nothing to say this week? 62 drop backs is no big deal because we don't know how many were run/pass options. And you wonder why UWdoogpound gets no respect here? Wash the semen out of your eyes.
  • MisterEmMisterEm Member Posts: 6,685
    edited November 2015

    @KnocksvilleE, nothing to say this week? 62 drop backs is no big deal because we don't know how many were run/pass options. And you wonder why UWdoogpound gets no respect here? Wash the semen out of your eyes.

    62 drop backs and a 14 point halftime lead that leads to a loss.

    Good luck getting a
    @KnocksvilleE response addressing facts or his previous shit posts.

    Youth, Mickens, Hall, Smiff will be his excuse chain.
Sign In or Register to comment.