Home› College Football Forum

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Sign In Register
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...

PetermanPeterman Member Posts: 675
in College Football Forum
...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:
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
«1

Comments

  • PetermanPeterman Member Posts: 675
    H_D said:

    Peterman said:

    greenblood 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
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TierbsHsotBoobsTierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    greenblood 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 door.ass.out.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • UWhuskytskeetUWhuskytskeet Member Posts: 7,113
    Peterman said:

    greenblood 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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dongmandongman 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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PetermanPeterman 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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • KaepskneeKaepsknee Member Posts: 14,913
    UWhuskytskeet said:

    Peterman said:

    greenblood 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?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BlowItUpBlowItUp Member Posts: 877
    he's 1-7

    2014 losses to UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, ASU
    2015 losses to ASU, Oregon, Stanford, win vs USC

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HuskyJWHuskyJW Member Posts: 15,235
    This thread delivers.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • UWhuskytskeetUWhuskytskeet Member Posts: 7,113
    salemcoog said:

    UWhuskytskeet said:

    Peterman said:

    greenblood 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?
    Ah, I used his record against the bolded above instead of the original "UCLA, USC, Stanford, Oregon and ASU while at UW. "
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ToiletSeatToiletSeat Member Posts: 150
    BlowItUp said:

    he's 1-7

    2014 losses to UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, ASU
    2015 losses to ASU, Oregon, Stanford, win vs USC

    Yep, the Coog counted 2013 to get the 1-11 claim.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • KaepskneeKaepsknee Member Posts: 14,913
    ToiletSeat said:

    BlowItUp said:

    he's 1-7

    2014 losses to UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, ASU
    2015 losses to ASU, Oregon, Stanford, win vs USC

    Yep, the Coog counted 2013 to get the 1-11 claim.

    UW.... Beating shitty teams to eek into Shitty Bowls since 2009.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • H_DH_D Member Posts: 6,098
    salemcoog said:

    ToiletSeat said:

    BlowItUp said:

    he's 1-7

    2014 losses to UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, ASU
    2015 losses to ASU, Oregon, Stanford, win vs USC

    Yep, the Coog counted 2013 to get the 1-11 claim.

    UW.... Beating shitty teams to eek into Shitty Bowls since 2009.
    You've obviously have never stood at the 50 yard line of the Heart o Dallas bowl.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Ice_HolmvikIce_Holmvik Member Posts: 2,912
    edited April 2016
    AIRWOLF said:

    salemcoog said:

    ToiletSeat said:

    BlowItUp said:

    he's 1-7

    2014 losses to UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, ASU
    2015 losses to ASU, Oregon, Stanford, win vs USC

    Yep, the Coog counted 2013 to get the 1-11 claim.

    UW.... Beating shitty teams to eek into Shitty Bowls since 2009.
    Not coincidentally, the Huskies are 6-1 vs. WSU since 2009.
    Square on the fucking chinn.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CokeGreaterThanPepsiCokeGreaterThanPepsi Member Posts: 7,646
    AIRWOLF said:

    salemcoog said:

    ToiletSeat said:

    BlowItUp said:

    he's 1-7

    2014 losses to UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, ASU
    2015 losses to ASU, Oregon, Stanford, win vs USC

    Yep, the Coog counted 2013 to get the 1-11 claim.

    UW.... Beating shitty teams to eek into Shitty Bowls since 2009.
    Not coincidentally, the Huskies are 6-1 vs. WSU since 2009.
    OH SHIT
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • H_DH_D Member Posts: 6,098
    AIRWOLF said:

    salemcoog said:

    ToiletSeat said:

    BlowItUp said:

    he's 1-7

    2014 losses to UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, ASU
    2015 losses to ASU, Oregon, Stanford, win vs USC

    Yep, the Coog counted 2013 to get the 1-11 claim.

    UW.... Beating shitty teams to eek into Shitty Bowls since 2009.
    Not coincidentally, the Huskies are 6-1 vs. WSU since 2009.
    image
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.