Other 7 Win Turd Rebuilding Seasons
Comments
-
Washington Husky football: young and rebuilding since 2004
-
HeretoBeatmyChest said:
It's not about believing. Its understanding that the team got a lot better in what was supposed to be a deep rebuilding year. If they can make the same jump next season and the season after (difficult to go from good to great and we are not solidly good yet) then we all will be very happy.Dennis_DeYoung said:We're all fucking doogz, so we all want to believe... Chest is going fucking full #offseasonnattySRSjustifieddoog, though. I hope for his sake (and for all of our sakes) that he's right.
I don't understand how you think SRS supports the season, it's damning. It means that the metrics say UW had the 26th best team in the country with one of the best defenses in the country and still the best Petersen could muster was 7-6 (4-5).
Doesn't the SRS just show the UW found a way to lose to worse teams (SRS ranking wise) like the same loser program that was here before.
Boise state SRS 47th
Cal SRS 29th
ASU SRS 54th
So 3 easy wins... Seems like UW should have finished 10-3 (6-3). Does that make Petersen a -3 win coach? -
Fucking THIS.Houhusky said:HeretoBeatmyChest said:
It's not about believing. Its understanding that the team got a lot better in what was supposed to be a deep rebuilding year. If they can make the same jump next season and the season after (difficult to go from good to great and we are not solidly good yet) then we all will be very happy.Dennis_DeYoung said:We're all fucking doogz, so we all want to believe... Chest is going fucking full #offseasonnattySRSjustifieddoog, though. I hope for his sake (and for all of our sakes) that he's right.
I don't understand how you think SRS supports the season, it's damning. It means that the metrics say UW had the 26th best team in the country with one of the best defenses in the country and still the best Petersen could muster was 7-6 (4-5).
Doesn't the SRS just show the UW found a way to lose to worse teams (SRS ranking wise) like the same loser program that was here before.
Boise state SRS 47th
Cal SRS 29th
ASU SRS 54th
So 3 easy wins... Seems like UW should have finished 10-3 (7-2). Does that make Petersen a -3 win coach?
The numbers say UW should have won more games.
But they didn't.
Which means the coach fucked up.
Which means Petersen sucks.
Wasn't the whole point of the Petersen hire that he could do more with less, so he should be able to do even more with more???
Sounds like he is doing less with more. -
I'm sympathetic to this point, but we fucked off games because we played like bitches.ThomasFremont said:
Fucking THIS.Houhusky said:HeretoBeatmyChest said:
It's not about believing. Its understanding that the team got a lot better in what was supposed to be a deep rebuilding year. If they can make the same jump next season and the season after (difficult to go from good to great and we are not solidly good yet) then we all will be very happy.Dennis_DeYoung said:We're all fucking doogz, so we all want to believe... Chest is going fucking full #offseasonnattySRSjustifieddoog, though. I hope for his sake (and for all of our sakes) that he's right.
I don't understand how you think SRS supports the season, it's damning. It means that the metrics say UW had the 26th best team in the country with one of the best defenses in the country and still the best Petersen could muster was 7-6 (4-5).
Doesn't the SRS just show the UW found a way to lose to worse teams (SRS ranking wise) like the same loser program that was here before.
Boise state SRS 47th
Cal SRS 29th
ASU SRS 54th
So 3 easy wins... Seems like UW should have finished 10-3 (7-2). Does that make Petersen a -3 win coach?
The numbers say UW should have won more games.
But they didn't.
Which means the coach fucked up.
Which means Petersen sucks.
Wasn't the whole point of the Petersen hire that he could do more with less, so he should be able to do even more with more???
Sounds like he is doing less with more.
Maybe as we get older that will go away and maybe it won't.
We do have 10 starters coming back on offense (I refuse to count Jaydon) and 8 starters coming back on defense (I count Clay over Jaydon, I guess).
We did have a true frosh QB.
I mean, I'm not into excuses, but I see both sides. My heart is with you, but my head says if we stop playing like fags, we might be really good next year and we might do that because we will be a year older and more into Pete culture. -
ThomasFremont said:
Hoe. Lee. Shit. Chest has gone full doog...
If Race doesn't like Petersen, that further validates he's on the right track.
— HuskyFanPodcast (@HuskyFanPodcast) January 8, 2016
This is real? -
This is real?Gladstone said:ThomasFremont said:Hoe. Lee. Shit. Chest has gone full doog...
If Race doesn't like Petersen, that further validates he's on the right track.
— HuskyFanPodcast (@HuskyFanPodcast) January 8, 2016
Yes. And there's more:Remember RaceBannon wanted Don James fired in the late 80s, wanted Mora and moved to Cali to be a fan of UCLA with Rick....
— HuskyFanPodcast (@HuskyFanPodcast) January 8, 2016 -
People are going to take these kinds of numbers and read into them what they think or want to believe unless you really can cut through the BS and remain objective.
If you go back to before the season, I think the consensus was that the first half was going to be rougher than the back half. That played out. We knew we had youth and that was going give some ups and downs as well. I think we all thought that this was going to be a team that was going to struggle with some consistency problems offensively ... that played out as well.
The encouraging part of what we saw this year was that when this team put all the pieces together, they looked really good. Consistency and turnovers were big time factors in the losses against Cal and Utah. With the exception of the game at Stanford that Browning didn't start, every other game this year UW had a very good chance to win the game in the 4th quarter. There's definitely reason to believe with some overall team improvement plus better execution in tight situations this team could take some massive steps forward.
The crowd that says "so what" and that they need to prove it isn't wrong. The numbers and computer simulations are predictive in their correlations but are far from absolutes.
What I think can be concluded and should be agreed upon is that the potential for a sizable jump next year is definitely realistic. Being guarded and cautious with the expectations is probably reasonable given the 15 year stretch that we've been on. However, to be close minded to the fact that there could be a sizable jump of a magnitude up to a conference championship level is not paying attention to what the numbers and eyes are showing on the field.
-
The numbers legitimize that UW probably should have won 2 more games. I've said that before. If you want to put that 100% on the coach without considering all the circumstances fine. So then every other coach I listed sucked too? Carroll was 100% responsible for USC going 6-6 his first year and losing a bunch of close games? And then he suddenly became NC caliber coach thereafter?
The context is important. UW in 2013 was 8-4 but #13. That was Sark's 5th year. The roster was stacked. More than half the starters have started a game in the NFL. UW in 1997 was 8-4 but #7. Also a stacked roster from a NC caliber team. Those coaches were deep in their tenures with tons of NFL talent and experienced teams... and the metrics showed that they should have won a lot more.
Yes, same thing for this season but it's the second year and it was a deep rebuilding year. If you can't admit that you're not dealing with reality. The initial progress from young and rebuilding teams often shows up first in the metrics.
Look at the Seahawks. Had the same record in 2011 as 2010 but didn't make the playoffs. Very young team in 2011. Their SRS was way better in 2011. Their point differential was +6. It was -97 the year before. They were also much better in the FootballOutsiders shit. They were 7-9 but 5 losses were by 16 points. By your logic, Pete Carroll sucks or sucked then.
Good progress was made this season and things are on track for year two. That's really all I'm pointing out. Every team in the Pac12 but Stanford and maybe Oregon St. would trade their HC for Petersen. -
Yes. And there's more:ThomasFremont said:
This is real?Gladstone said:ThomasFremont said:Hoe. Lee. Shit. Chest has gone full doog...
If Race doesn't like Petersen, that further validates he's on the right track.
— HuskyFanPodcast (@HuskyFanPodcast) January 8, 2016Remember RaceBannon wanted Don James fired in the late 80s, wanted Mora and moved to Cali to be a fan of UCLA with Rick....
— HuskyFanPodcast (@HuskyFanPodcast) January 8, 2016
Chest should pm @IrishDawg22. -
This is why your wall or words posts are useless.Tequilla said:People are going to take these kinds of numbers and read into them what they think or want to believe unless you really can cut through the BS and remain objective.
If you go back to before the season, I think the consensus was that the first half was going to be rougher than the back half. That played out. We knew we had youth and that was going give some ups and downs as well. I think we all thought that this was going to be a team that was going to struggle with some consistency problems offensively ... that played out as well.
The encouraging part of what we saw this year was that when this team put all the pieces together, they looked really good. Consistency and turnovers were big time factors in the losses against Cal and Utah. With the exception of the game at Stanford that Browning didn't start, every other game this year UW had a very good chance to win the game in the 4th quarter. There's definitely reason to believe with some overall team improvement plus better execution in tight situations this team could take some massive steps forward.
The crowd that says "so what" and that they need to prove it isn't wrong. The numbers and computer simulations are predictive in their correlations but are far from absolutes.
What I think can be concluded and should be agreed upon is that the potential for a sizable jump next year is definitely realistic. Being guarded and cautious with the expectations is probably reasonable given the 15 year stretch that we've been on. However, to be close minded to the fact that there could be a sizable jump of a magnitude up to a conference championship level is not paying attention to what the numbers and eyes are showing on the field.
You say something and contradict yourself one sentence later trying to cover all the bases.
Do you expect a sizable jump, or are you cautious with your expectations?
Pick a side.
