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

So I decided to indulge my inner faggot and visit coogfarm...

...and this is what passes for "analysis" over there:
UW's problem is that they appear to once again trending towards a talent driven formula for success. This was fine back when only the LA schools could compete with UW talent and coaching wise, but that just isn't the case any more.

Assuming UW is one of the upper half of the conference programs, they enjoy no talent advantage over the others (USC, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, ASU), and they struggle heavily to beat them as a result.

Pete is 1-11 against UCLA, USC, Stanford, Oregon and ASU while at UW.

Sark suffered a similar problem (4-12).

All their wins came against teams who they freely admit had grossly inferior talent.

Bottom line, UW's offense in particular, is conservative and unimaginative, and lacks any advantage in playmakers that they can hope to leverage against the teams they need to beat to win this conference.

The Husky Defense will continue to be a strength, but defense is a fickle thing. So much defensive success hinges on things like turnovers and sacks, and sometimes fortune denies you. Even Stanford when from having an impenetrable defense two years ago to a fairly average one last year. Ironically they lost 5 games with the better defense, but won the conference the next year because they developed a more dynamic offense.
Man, it really sucks that Pete is going for the "talent driven formula for success"
Tagged:
«13

Comments

  • Peterman
    Peterman Member Posts: 675
    H_D said:

    Peterman said:

    It's pretty common to be conservative and unimaginative when you have a true freshman at quarterback.

    But that is a good point about Pete against good competition. Pete's only win against the upper level Pac12 drove Sark over the edge. This is a big year for Pete. If he doesn't get more than 1 win over Ucla, USC, Oregon, and ASU next year, then he should be on the hot seat for sure.

    No doubt he needs to start winning those games but how can you be 1-11 when you've played those teams a combined 8 times?
    Well some of those beatdowns were so bad they should have counted as 2 losses.
    Touche
  • TierbsHsotBoobs
    TierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680

    It's pretty common to be conservative and unimaginative when you have a true freshman at quarterback.

    But that is a good point about Pete against good competition. Pete's only win against the upper level Pac12 drove Sark over the edge. This is a big year for Pete. If he doesn't get more than 1 win over Ucla, USC, Oregon, and ASU next year, then he should be door.ass.out.

  • UWhuskytskeet
    UWhuskytskeet Member Posts: 7,113
    Peterman said:

    It's pretty common to be conservative and unimaginative when you have a true freshman at quarterback.

    But that is a good point about Pete against good competition. Pete's only win against the upper level Pac12 drove Sark over the edge. This is a big year for Pete. If he doesn't get more than 1 win over Ucla, USC, Oregon, and ASU next year, then he should be on the hot seat for sure.

    No doubt he needs to start winning those games but how can you be 1-11 when you've played those teams a combined 8 times?
    Wasn't even 8 times, UW doesn't play USC and UCLA in the same year. Pete is 1-5 against those teams.
  • dongman
    dongman Member Posts: 2,384
    Lol...most of this is right. Of all the faggoty stuff over there, this soars over the bar for their actual attempts at analysis.

    Only thing I really don't agree with is the defensive thing. There wasn't a time where I felt like they got lucky on defense. I haven't seen a defense take the ball away like UWs in quite a while. And these guys watched the apple cup. That was a defensive ass raping. Not a lot of lucky bounces.
  • Peterman
    Peterman Member Posts: 675
    dongman said:

    Lol...most of this is right. Of all the faggoty stuff over there, this soars over the bar for their actual attempts at analysis.

    Only thing I really don't agree with is the defensive thing. There wasn't a time where I felt like they got lucky on defense. I haven't seen a defense take the ball away like UWs in quite a while. And these guys watched the apple cup. That was a defensive ass raping. Not a lot of lucky bounces.

    Disagree, the only thing he got right is the bit about the offense, the rest is just retarded.
  • Kaepsknee
    Kaepsknee Member Posts: 14,919

    Peterman said:

    It's pretty common to be conservative and unimaginative when you have a true freshman at quarterback.

    But that is a good point about Pete against good competition. Pete's only win against the upper level Pac12 drove Sark over the edge. This is a big year for Pete. If he doesn't get more than 1 win over Ucla, USC, Oregon, and ASU next year, then he should be on the hot seat for sure.

    No doubt he needs to start winning those games but how can you be 1-11 when you've played those teams a combined 8 times?
    Wasn't even 8 times, UW doesn't play USC and UCLA in the same year. Pete is 1-5 against those teams.
    So you guys missed UCLA two years in a row?