So I decided to indulge my inner faggot and visit coogfarm...
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.Man, it really sucks that Pete is going for the "talent driven formula for success"
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.
Comments
-
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?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. -
coog mathPeterman said:
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?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. -
Well some of those beatdowns were so bad they should have counted as 2 losses.Peterman said:
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?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. -
ToucheH_D said:
Well some of those beatdowns were so bad they should have counted as 2 losses.Peterman said:
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?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. -
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. -
Wasn't even 8 times, UW doesn't play USC and UCLA in the same year. Pete is 1-5 against those teams.Peterman said:
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?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. -
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.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. -
So you guys missed UCLA two years in a row?UWhuskytskeet said:
Wasn't even 8 times, UW doesn't play USC and UCLA in the same year. Pete is 1-5 against those teams.Peterman said:
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?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. -
he's 1-7
2014 losses to UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, ASU
2015 losses to ASU, Oregon, Stanford, win vs USC
-
This thread delivers.
-
Ah, I used his record against the bolded above instead of the original "UCLA, USC, Stanford, Oregon and ASU while at UW. "salemcoog said:
So you guys missed UCLA two years in a row?UWhuskytskeet said:
Wasn't even 8 times, UW doesn't play USC and UCLA in the same year. Pete is 1-5 against those teams.Peterman said:
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?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. -
Yep, the Coog counted 2013 to get the 1-11 claim.BlowItUp said:he's 1-7
2014 losses to UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, ASU
2015 losses to ASU, Oregon, Stanford, win vs USC
-
UW.... Beating shitty teams to eek into Shitty Bowls since 2009.ToiletSeat said:
Yep, the Coog counted 2013 to get the 1-11 claim.BlowItUp said:he's 1-7
2014 losses to UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, ASU
2015 losses to ASU, Oregon, Stanford, win vs USC -
You've obviously have never stood at the 50 yard line of the Heart o Dallas bowl.salemcoog said:
UW.... Beating shitty teams to eek into Shitty Bowls since 2009.ToiletSeat said:
Yep, the Coog counted 2013 to get the 1-11 claim.BlowItUp said:he's 1-7
2014 losses to UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, ASU
2015 losses to ASU, Oregon, Stanford, win vs USC -
Not coincidentally, the Huskies are 6-1 vs. WSU since 2009.salemcoog said:
UW.... Beating shitty teams to eek into Shitty Bowls since 2009.ToiletSeat said:
Yep, the Coog counted 2013 to get the 1-11 claim.BlowItUp said:he's 1-7
2014 losses to UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, ASU
2015 losses to ASU, Oregon, Stanford, win vs USC -
Square on the fucking chinn.AIRWOLF said:
Not coincidentally, the Huskies are 6-1 vs. WSU since 2009.salemcoog said:
UW.... Beating shitty teams to eek into Shitty Bowls since 2009.ToiletSeat said:
Yep, the Coog counted 2013 to get the 1-11 claim.BlowItUp said:he's 1-7
2014 losses to UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, ASU
2015 losses to ASU, Oregon, Stanford, win vs USC -
OH SHITAIRWOLF said:
Not coincidentally, the Huskies are 6-1 vs. WSU since 2009.salemcoog said:
UW.... Beating shitty teams to eek into Shitty Bowls since 2009.ToiletSeat said:
Yep, the Coog counted 2013 to get the 1-11 claim.BlowItUp said:he's 1-7
2014 losses to UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, ASU
2015 losses to ASU, Oregon, Stanford, win vs USC -
AIRWOLF said:
Not coincidentally, the Huskies are 6-1 vs. WSU since 2009.salemcoog said:
UW.... Beating shitty teams to eek into Shitty Bowls since 2009.ToiletSeat said:
Yep, the Coog counted 2013 to get the 1-11 claim.BlowItUp said:he's 1-7
2014 losses to UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, ASU
2015 losses to ASU, Oregon, Stanford, win vs USC
-
Man, it really sucks that Pete is going for the "talent driven formula for success"Peterman said:...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.
Dont sell yourself short....Your freak flag has been waving loud and proud for a long spell now. -
WSU... Choking to shitty .500 or below Husky teams since 2002AIRWOLF said:
Not coincidentally, the Huskies are 6-1 vs. WSU since 2009.salemcoog said:
UW.... Beating shitty teams to eek into Shitty Bowls since 2009.ToiletSeat said:
Yep, the Coog counted 2013 to get the 1-11 claim.BlowItUp said:he's 1-7
2014 losses to UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, ASU
2015 losses to ASU, Oregon, Stanford, win vs USC -
H_D said:AIRWOLF said:
Not coincidentally, the Huskies are 6-1 vs. WSU since 2009.salemcoog said:
UW.... Beating shitty teams to eek into Shitty Bowls since 2009.ToiletSeat said:
Yep, the Coog counted 2013 to get the 1-11 claim.BlowItUp said:he's 1-7
2014 losses to UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, ASU
2015 losses to ASU, Oregon, Stanford, win vs USC
WSU...winning less than 3 out of every ten games since 1900salemcoog said:
WSU... Choking to shitty .500 or below Husky teams since 2002AIRWOLF said:
Not coincidentally, the Huskies are 6-1 vs. WSU since 2009.salemcoog said:
UW.... Beating shitty teams to eek into Shitty Bowls since 2009.ToiletSeat said:
Yep, the Coog counted 2013 to get the 1-11 claim.BlowItUp said:he's 1-7
2014 losses to UCLA, Oregon, Stanford, ASU
2015 losses to ASU, Oregon, Stanford, win vs USC -
versus UW. I fucked that up.
-
common corePeterman said:
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?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.
