Mad Son's Ramblings: Year Three is Prove-It Time for Petersen
Comments
-
There were numerous snaps where Rutgers had all 11 defenders within 8-10 yards of the LOS.doogville said:Rutgers didn't really sell out to stop the run. They were playing with 2 safeties back.
UW lineman just straight whiffed on some blocks (or weren't in sync with each other). It's concerning, but also the type of shit that can be cleaned up quick.
Either way it will be interesting
When you are hitting as many bombs as we did, that tells you that the safeties are out of position to defend those and that's usually driven by their focus being on slowing down the run game. -
Biggest whoosh ever on this board?puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Wow, some actually follow.EsophagealFeces said:
No one was harder on Sark than puppy was.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
J that aint close to true. I was here bashing Sark in 2013. I bashed Sark on Dawgman from day 1, whic h is why I got banned. Now here, I remember why I dont come here...but will as I like to drag your pussy through the mud.PurpleJ said:
Liar. You openly campaigned for his 6th year.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Uh, pup wanted him gone before he ever stepped on field dipshit.PurpleJ said:Puppy wanted Sark to have a 6th year. People forget that.
Now if your going to lie about Pup wanting Sark, find proof. I was the original on the topic Ty's 0-12 team Sark took over was better than Sark's team when he left. Now I see your brain firing up a memory , which are few and far between -
Leave!AEB said:
And you're comfortable that 27 observations of a dynamic portfolio of 85 units (most of which Pete had no choice to include or not) is a large enough sample from which to draw conclusions? Askin for a frenDennis_DeYoung said:
That should be 'priors' not 'prices'. Fucking AutoCorrect.Dennis_DeYoung said:
The other night I was Dilaudid-sext-ranting to Coker about Bayesian analysis and why you have to take all years of Petersen as meaningful prices.Dennis_DeYoung said:
THIS!Mad_Son said:I feel like a broken record. I know Rutgers was keying on the run and giving us the pass. That doesn't change that I didn't see the results I needed to see that something had changed. Null hypothesis is that things are the same until shown otherwise.
He deserves a medal.
It's hard.
But yeah, as my class poaster friend @Mad_Son is saying the idea is this:
The important premise is we are predicting something that changes, but is not random.
Given that the pattern of data is not random, data already gathered can help you make more accurate (not 100% accurate, just MORE accurate) predictions about the future.
So, we just look at what we've gotten out of Pete so far... let's make it simple and not even use stats, just grades.
2014 Offensive Grade: C-
2014 Defensive Grade: B+
2015: Offensive Grade: D
2015 Defensive Grade: A-
What are the grades for 2016 likely to be?
And then, even more than that... Given our prior knowledge, what new information would we view as satisfactory evidence that a new pattern was emerging? -
TSIO is 100% not the point...TurdBuffer said:Mad Dog TSIO = Too Soon. Drink heavily and relax 'til game #4. Utterly meaningless games 'til then.
-
I'm a true nega dawg and fully believe we suck until proven otherwise, but I'm not dumb enough to complain about the beat down we put on Rutgers. The team dos what they had to do. We'll find out after the Arizona and Stanford games.Mad_Son said:
TSIO is 100% not the point...TurdBuffer said:Mad Dog TSIO = Too Soon. Drink heavily and relax 'til game #4. Utterly meaningless games 'til then.
-
THIS.Tequilla said:
There were numerous snaps where Rutgers had all 11 defenders within 8-10 yards of the LOS.doogville said:Rutgers didn't really sell out to stop the run. They were playing with 2 safeties back.
UW lineman just straight whiffed on some blocks (or weren't in sync with each other). It's concerning, but also the type of shit that can be cleaned up quick.
Either way it will be interesting
When you are hitting as many bombs as we did, that tells you that the safeties are out of position to defend those and that's usually driven by their focus being on slowing down the run game.
It was obvious as fuck Rutgers chief concern was defending the run game all day long. The passing game worked good enough, but there is still too much fuckery as Roady aptly points out. Could we just retire the toss sweep to McClatcher and the zero net yard fucking bubble screens? We should all expect a double-reverse flea-flicker that goes for 5 yards and injures a key player in game 2 or 3. Smiff is hard as a rock just thinking about it.
Despite the fuckery, UW will win at least 9, because the O has improved enough to execute when they need to. -
That declaration has been the entire point of following UW football for 15 years. The over-under on which weekend to make that declaration and start drinking bleach has been the most interesting and engaging point of following UW football since Tui.Mad_Son said:
TSIO is 100% not the point...TurdBuffer said:Mad Dog TSIO = Too Soon. Drink heavily and relax 'til game #4. Utterly meaningless games 'til then.
We remain that way until we aren't. -
Its Peter's 3rd year. If he goes 9-4 thats a big improvement. A coach shouldnt be judged till his 4th-5th year. Especially a complete overhaul of a program. Been saying for 2 years, anything that happens this year is a bonus and year ahead of schedule.RoadDawg55 said:
I'm a true nega dawg and fully believe we suck until proven otherwise, but I'm not dumb enough to complain about the beat down we put on Rutgers. The team dos what they had to do. We'll find out after the Arizona and Stanford games.Mad_Son said:
TSIO is 100% not the point...TurdBuffer said:Mad Dog TSIO = Too Soon. Drink heavily and relax 'til game #4. Utterly meaningless games 'til then.
Enjoy the rebuilding process. Enjoy the games, the indibidual play. If Pete wins north he'll be consensus pac12 coach of year. And deservedly so. -
Going from 4-5 to 5-4 is a big improvement. Everybody says so.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Its Peter's 3rd year. If he goes 9-4 thats a big improvement. A coach shouldnt be judged till his 4th-5th year. Especially a complete overhaul of a program. Been saying for 2 years, anything that happens this year is a bonus and year ahead of schedule.RoadDawg55 said:
I'm a true nega dawg and fully believe we suck until proven otherwise, but I'm not dumb enough to complain about the beat down we put on Rutgers. The team dos what they had to do. We'll find out after the Arizona and Stanford games.Mad_Son said:
TSIO is 100% not the point...TurdBuffer said:Mad Dog TSIO = Too Soon. Drink heavily and relax 'til game #4. Utterly meaningless games 'til then.
Enjoy the rebuilding process. Enjoy the games, the indibidual play. If Pete wins north he'll be consensus pac12 coach of year. And deservedly so. -
Baby steps Baabs. If u actually read on you'd notice why being patient is paramount. Charlie Strong didnt do it in 2 years either. It was evident his emphasis on a power downhill running game with a reliable passing game would work. Just didnt have the horses left over from Mack. He brilliantly moved Hurd to WR and brought in a true freshman qb who could actually complete a forward pass. Didnt Petersen do the same thing Babby? Now, coincidentally both teams are in the top 15. Coincidence it is not however. Just patience. Unfortunately most of you bonio's here have zero.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Going from 4-5 to 5-4 is a big improvement. Everybody says so.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Its Peter's 3rd year. If he goes 9-4 thats a big improvement. A coach shouldnt be judged till his 4th-5th year. Especially a complete overhaul of a program. Been saying for 2 years, anything that happens this year is a bonus and year ahead of schedule.RoadDawg55 said:
I'm a true nega dawg and fully believe we suck until proven otherwise, but I'm not dumb enough to complain about the beat down we put on Rutgers. The team dos what they had to do. We'll find out after the Arizona and Stanford games.Mad_Son said:
TSIO is 100% not the point...TurdBuffer said:Mad Dog TSIO = Too Soon. Drink heavily and relax 'til game #4. Utterly meaningless games 'til then.
Enjoy the rebuilding process. Enjoy the games, the indibidual play. If Pete wins north he'll be consensus pac12 coach of year. And deservedly so. -
The toss sweep to Gaskin is a vital cog in this offense. ESPECIALLY to the weakside. You know why buffer? Fuck no you have no idea. At least theres a few guys at dawgman that understand the x's and O's. Yous guys are the biggest collection of nimrods ive ever seen.TurdBuffer said:
THIS.Tequilla said:
There were numerous snaps where Rutgers had all 11 defenders within 8-10 yards of the LOS.doogville said:Rutgers didn't really sell out to stop the run. They were playing with 2 safeties back.
UW lineman just straight whiffed on some blocks (or weren't in sync with each other). It's concerning, but also the type of shit that can be cleaned up quick.
Either way it will be interesting
When you are hitting as many bombs as we did, that tells you that the safeties are out of position to defend those and that's usually driven by their focus being on slowing down the run game.
It was obvious as fuck Rutgers chief concern was defending the run game all day long. The passing game worked good enough, but there is still too much fuckery as Roady aptly points out. Could we just retire the toss sweep to McClatcher and the zero net yard fucking bubble screens? We should all expect a double-reverse flea-flicker that goes for 5 yards and injures a key player in game 2 or 3. Smiff is hard as a rock just thinking about it.
Despite the fuckery, UW will win at least 9, because the O has improved enough to execute when they need to. -
Schools like Maryland, Arizona, Cal, and Rutgers, etc should be happy with 7-8 wins when they can get them
Again, fuck you -
Flagged for September rankings bullshit.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Baby steps Baabs. If u actually read on you'd notice why being patient is paramount. Charlie Strong didnt do it in 2 years either. It was evident his emphasis on a power downhill running game with a reliable passing game would work. Just didnt have the horses left over from Mack. He brilliantly moved Hurd to WR and brought in a true freshman qb who could actually complete a forward pass. Didnt Petersen do the same thing Babby? Now, coincidentally both teams are in the top 15. Coincidence it is not however. Just patience. Unfortunately most of you bonio's here have zero.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Going from 4-5 to 5-4 is a big improvement. Everybody says so.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Its Peter's 3rd year. If he goes 9-4 thats a big improvement. A coach shouldnt be judged till his 4th-5th year. Especially a complete overhaul of a program. Been saying for 2 years, anything that happens this year is a bonus and year ahead of schedule.RoadDawg55 said:
I'm a true nega dawg and fully believe we suck until proven otherwise, but I'm not dumb enough to complain about the beat down we put on Rutgers. The team dos what they had to do. We'll find out after the Arizona and Stanford games.Mad_Son said:
TSIO is 100% not the point...TurdBuffer said:Mad Dog TSIO = Too Soon. Drink heavily and relax 'til game #4. Utterly meaningless games 'til then.
Enjoy the rebuilding process. Enjoy the games, the indibidual play. If Pete wins north he'll be consensus pac12 coach of year. And deservedly so. -
Give my best to purpledoogfanpuppylove_sugarsteel said:
The toss sweep to Gaskin is a vital cog in this offense. ESPECIALLY to the weakside. You know why buffer? Fuck no you have no idea. At least theres a few guys at dawgman that understand the x's and O's. Yous guys are the biggest collection of nimrods ive ever seen.TurdBuffer said:
THIS.Tequilla said:
There were numerous snaps where Rutgers had all 11 defenders within 8-10 yards of the LOS.doogville said:Rutgers didn't really sell out to stop the run. They were playing with 2 safeties back.
UW lineman just straight whiffed on some blocks (or weren't in sync with each other). It's concerning, but also the type of shit that can be cleaned up quick.
Either way it will be interesting
When you are hitting as many bombs as we did, that tells you that the safeties are out of position to defend those and that's usually driven by their focus being on slowing down the run game.
It was obvious as fuck Rutgers chief concern was defending the run game all day long. The passing game worked good enough, but there is still too much fuckery as Roady aptly points out. Could we just retire the toss sweep to McClatcher and the zero net yard fucking bubble screens? We should all expect a double-reverse flea-flicker that goes for 5 yards and injures a key player in game 2 or 3. Smiff is hard as a rock just thinking about it.
Despite the fuckery, UW will win at least 9, because the O has improved enough to execute when they need to. -
puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Baby steps Baabs. If u actually read on you'd notice why being patient is paramount. Charlie Strong didnt do it in 2 years either. It was evident his emphasis on a power downhill running game with a reliable passing game would work. Just didnt have the horses left over from Mack. He brilliantly moved Hurd to WR and brought in a true freshman qb who could actually complete a forward pass. Didnt Petersen do the same thing Babby? Now, coincidentally both teams are in the top 15. Coincidence it is not however. Just patience. Unfortunately most of you bonio's here have zero.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Going from 4-5 to 5-4 is a big improvement. Everybody says so.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Its Peter's 3rd year. If he goes 9-4 thats a big improvement. A coach shouldnt be judged till his 4th-5th year. Especially a complete overhaul of a program. Been saying for 2 years, anything that happens this year is a bonus and year ahead of schedule.RoadDawg55 said:
I'm a true nega dawg and fully believe we suck until proven otherwise, but I'm not dumb enough to complain about the beat down we put on Rutgers. The team dos what they had to do. We'll find out after the Arizona and Stanford games.Mad_Son said:
TSIO is 100% not the point...TurdBuffer said:Mad Dog TSIO = Too Soon. Drink heavily and relax 'til game #4. Utterly meaningless games 'til then.
Enjoy the rebuilding process. Enjoy the games, the indibidual play. If Pete wins north he'll be consensus pac12 coach of year. And deservedly so.
UW's recent deficiency in the "Power Downhill Running Game" -
This is so FS, I can't believe I read it . . . "Take away those special teams touch downs, and the three long passes in the first quarter and the final score is 13-13."
Yes, take away five touchdowns and the game was close. Excellent analysis of quarters 2-4 of game that was over after 15 minutes.
So tell Ross to fair catch a kick so Gaskin can grind down the field? Tell Browning not to check deep when Ross has man coverage?
There's nothing to take from this game except they beat a shitty team and backups played. Same for the next two weeks.
Call me when Stanford comes to town. -
The point is there was nothing that demonstrated consistency. The point is that while the result was good it was not as dominating as it looks. The point is it had shown us no evidence of improvement. The point is Petersen has not proven he is the one yet.NotTheCase said:This is so FS, I can't believe I read it . . . "Take away those special teams touch downs, and the three long passes in the first quarter and the final score is 13-13."
Yes, take away five touchdowns and the game was close. Excellent analysis of quarters 2-4 of game that was over after 15 minutes.
So tell Ross to fair catch a kick so Gaskin can grind down the field? Tell Browning not to check deep when Ross has man coverage?
There's nothing to take from this game except they beat a shitty team and backups played. Same for the next two weeks.
Call me when Stanford comes to town. -
I'll take things Doog losers say for $1000, Alex.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Baby steps Baabs. If u actually read on you'd notice why being patient is paramount. Charlie Strong didnt do it in 2 years either. It was evident his emphasis on a power downhill running game with a reliable passing game would work. Just didnt have the horses left over from Mack. He brilliantly moved Hurd to WR and brought in a true freshman qb who could actually complete a forward pass. Didnt Petersen do the same thing Babby? Now, coincidentally both teams are in the top 15. Coincidence it is not however. Just patience. Unfortunately most of you bonio's here have zero.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Going from 4-5 to 5-4 is a big improvement. Everybody says so.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Its Peter's 3rd year. If he goes 9-4 thats a big improvement. A coach shouldnt be judged till his 4th-5th year. Especially a complete overhaul of a program. Been saying for 2 years, anything that happens this year is a bonus and year ahead of schedule.RoadDawg55 said:
I'm a true nega dawg and fully believe we suck until proven otherwise, but I'm not dumb enough to complain about the beat down we put on Rutgers. The team dos what they had to do. We'll find out after the Arizona and Stanford games.Mad_Son said:
TSIO is 100% not the point...TurdBuffer said:Mad Dog TSIO = Too Soon. Drink heavily and relax 'til game #4. Utterly meaningless games 'til then.
Enjoy the rebuilding process. Enjoy the games, the indibidual play. If Pete wins north he'll be consensus pac12 coach of year. And deservedly so. -
I said McClatcher, not Gaskin, you shrill cunt. Get back on your meds, Puppy, or put your glasses on. As Andy Kaufman-like funny as you can be at times, you're obviously still batshit crazy like him too.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
The toss sweep to Gaskin is a vital cog in this offense. ESPECIALLY to the weakside. You know why buffer? Fuck no you have no idea. At least theres a few guys at dawgman that understand the x's and O's. Yous guys are the biggest collection of nimrods ive ever seen.TurdBuffer said:
THIS.Tequilla said:
There were numerous snaps where Rutgers had all 11 defenders within 8-10 yards of the LOS.doogville said:Rutgers didn't really sell out to stop the run. They were playing with 2 safeties back.
UW lineman just straight whiffed on some blocks (or weren't in sync with each other). It's concerning, but also the type of shit that can be cleaned up quick.
Either way it will be interesting
When you are hitting as many bombs as we did, that tells you that the safeties are out of position to defend those and that's usually driven by their focus being on slowing down the run game.
It was obvious as fuck Rutgers chief concern was defending the run game all day long. The passing game worked good enough, but there is still too much fuckery as Roady aptly points out. Could we just retire the toss sweep to McClatcher and the zero net yard fucking bubble screens? We should all expect a double-reverse flea-flicker that goes for 5 yards and injures a key player in game 2 or 3. Smiff is hard as a rock just thinking about it.
Despite the fuckery, UW will win at least 9, because the O has improved enough to execute when they need to. -
Jesus, Mary and Joseph. Puppy's back alright. Peacock proud. Full splendor. Here we go again.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Its Peter's 3rd year. If he goes 9-4 thats a big improvement. A coach shouldnt be judged till his 4th-5th year. Especially a complete overhaul of a program. Been saying for 2 years, anything that happens this year is a bonus and year ahead of schedule.RoadDawg55 said:
I'm a true nega dawg and fully believe we suck until proven otherwise, but I'm not dumb enough to complain about the beat down we put on Rutgers. The team dos what they had to do. We'll find out after the Arizona and Stanford games.Mad_Son said:
TSIO is 100% not the point...TurdBuffer said:Mad Dog TSIO = Too Soon. Drink heavily and relax 'til game #4. Utterly meaningless games 'til then.
Enjoy the rebuilding process. Enjoy the games, the indibidual play. If Pete wins north he'll be consensus pac12 coach of year. And deservedly so. -
We elect presidents every four years. Why should a football coach get more time? Is it a harder job?puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Its Peter's 3rd year. If he goes 9-4 thats a big improvement. A coach shouldnt be judged till his 4th-5th year. Especially a complete overhaul of a program. Been saying for 2 years, anything that happens this year is a bonus and year ahead of schedule.RoadDawg55 said:
I'm a true nega dawg and fully believe we suck until proven otherwise, but I'm not dumb enough to complain about the beat down we put on Rutgers. The team dos what they had to do. We'll find out after the Arizona and Stanford games.Mad_Son said:
TSIO is 100% not the point...TurdBuffer said:Mad Dog TSIO = Too Soon. Drink heavily and relax 'til game #4. Utterly meaningless games 'til then.
Enjoy the rebuilding process. Enjoy the games, the indibidual play. If Pete wins north he'll be consensus pac12 coach of year. And deservedly so. -
Pod worthy
-
I'd like SRS figured into the equation before I make any sort of determination.Mad_Son said:
Is this because you hate quantifying things and looking at more than the win-loss column? Do you hate trying to understand root cause and to figure out what the source of the failures are? Coach Effect is a perfectly valid angle to look at performance versus recruiting. There are caveats with that but most of us are capable of understanding them...BlowItUp said:wtf'd for using coach effect.
-
So I guess you'll be bitching after the next two games, because you can't prove anything against Idaho and PSU. Really, how much more than they blow out Rutgers?Mad_Son said:
The point is there was nothing that demonstrated consistency. The point is that while the result was good it was not as dominating as it looks. The point is it had shown us no evidence of improvement. The point is Petersen has not proven he is the one yet.NotTheCase said:This is so FS, I can't believe I read it . . . "Take away those special teams touch downs, and the three long passes in the first quarter and the final score is 13-13."
Yes, take away five touchdowns and the game was close. Excellent analysis of quarters 2-4 of game that was over after 15 minutes.
So tell Ross to fair catch a kick so Gaskin can grind down the field? Tell Browning not to check deep when Ross has man coverage?
There's nothing to take from this game except they beat a shitty team and backups played. Same for the next two weeks.
Call me when Stanford comes to town.
Save your breath, drink a couple beers and realize you won't know shit about this team or coach until Stanford.
-
How are you a great poster yet the biggest doogman piece of shit of all time? 9 and fucking 4? Who gives a flying fuck about 9-4?puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Its Peter's 3rd year. If he goes 9-4 thats a big improvement. A coach shouldnt be judged till his 4th-5th year. Especially a complete overhaul of a program. Been saying for 2 years, anything that happens this year is a bonus and year ahead of schedule.RoadDawg55 said:
I'm a true nega dawg and fully believe we suck until proven otherwise, but I'm not dumb enough to complain about the beat down we put on Rutgers. The team dos what they had to do. We'll find out after the Arizona and Stanford games.Mad_Son said:
TSIO is 100% not the point...TurdBuffer said:Mad Dog TSIO = Too Soon. Drink heavily and relax 'til game #4. Utterly meaningless games 'til then.
Enjoy the rebuilding process. Enjoy the games, the indibidual play. If Pete wins north he'll be consensus pac12 coach of year. And deservedly so. -
Everyone is so focused on measuring our true worth vs. Stanford. Just wait until Dick Rod finger blasts us in the desert. Another special season.
-
This wasn't complaining about the Rutgers game. It merely said that Petersen hasn't proven he can lead Washington to greatness and this is the season where it is time to evaluate him. We are one game into the season, we got the necessary win, but we have seen nothing to indicate he has actually transcended into the coach we need and that we will not see the issues that held us back last season.NotTheCase said:
So I guess you'll be bitching after the next two games, because you can't prove anything against Idaho and PSU. Really, how much more than they blow out Rutgers?Mad_Son said:
The point is there was nothing that demonstrated consistency. The point is that while the result was good it was not as dominating as it looks. The point is it had shown us no evidence of improvement. The point is Petersen has not proven he is the one yet.NotTheCase said:This is so FS, I can't believe I read it . . . "Take away those special teams touch downs, and the three long passes in the first quarter and the final score is 13-13."
Yes, take away five touchdowns and the game was close. Excellent analysis of quarters 2-4 of game that was over after 15 minutes.
So tell Ross to fair catch a kick so Gaskin can grind down the field? Tell Browning not to check deep when Ross has man coverage?
There's nothing to take from this game except they beat a shitty team and backups played. Same for the next two weeks.
Call me when Stanford comes to town.
Save your breath, drink a couple beers and realize you won't know shit about this team or coach until Stanford.
Would you prefer I write an article saying the team looks like it had a lot of fun and who cares if the program never wins another game, there is always next year to worry about that? -
It seems most people have anointed Petersen as our savior already. We can no longer lose except to other top 10 teams. We are elite. Hooray!Swaye said:Everyone is so focused on measuring our true worth vs. Stanford. Just wait until Dick Rod finger blasts us in the desert. Another special season.
-
As I said earlier, shit article, shit poster.Mad_Son said:
This wasn't complaining about the Rutgers game. It merely said that Petersen hasn't proven he can lead Washington to greatness and this is the season where it is time to evaluate him. We are one game into the season, we got the necessary win, but we have seen nothing to indicate he has actually transcended into the coach we need and that we will not see the issues that held us back last season.NotTheCase said:
So I guess you'll be bitching after the next two games, because you can't prove anything against Idaho and PSU. Really, how much more than they blow out Rutgers?Mad_Son said:
The point is there was nothing that demonstrated consistency. The point is that while the result was good it was not as dominating as it looks. The point is it had shown us no evidence of improvement. The point is Petersen has not proven he is the one yet.NotTheCase said:This is so FS, I can't believe I read it . . . "Take away those special teams touch downs, and the three long passes in the first quarter and the final score is 13-13."
Yes, take away five touchdowns and the game was close. Excellent analysis of quarters 2-4 of game that was over after 15 minutes.
So tell Ross to fair catch a kick so Gaskin can grind down the field? Tell Browning not to check deep when Ross has man coverage?
There's nothing to take from this game except they beat a shitty team and backups played. Same for the next two weeks.
Call me when Stanford comes to town.
Save your breath, drink a couple beers and realize you won't know shit about this team or coach until Stanford.
Would you prefer I write an article saying the team looks like it had a lot of fun and who cares if the program never wins another game, there is always next year to worry about that?
The entire article is meaningless until the Arizona game -
No, it's not. You just don't get it. The need for Petersen to win ten games this year is valid from the day he was hired to the end of the season. He hasn't proven anything yet. The fact that you are fixated on not being able to learn anything against Rutgers is completely missing the point.Tequilla said:
As I said earlier, shit article, shit poster.Mad_Son said:
This wasn't complaining about the Rutgers game. It merely said that Petersen hasn't proven he can lead Washington to greatness and this is the season where it is time to evaluate him. We are one game into the season, we got the necessary win, but we have seen nothing to indicate he has actually transcended into the coach we need and that we will not see the issues that held us back last season.NotTheCase said:
So I guess you'll be bitching after the next two games, because you can't prove anything against Idaho and PSU. Really, how much more than they blow out Rutgers?Mad_Son said:
The point is there was nothing that demonstrated consistency. The point is that while the result was good it was not as dominating as it looks. The point is it had shown us no evidence of improvement. The point is Petersen has not proven he is the one yet.NotTheCase said:This is so FS, I can't believe I read it . . . "Take away those special teams touch downs, and the three long passes in the first quarter and the final score is 13-13."
Yes, take away five touchdowns and the game was close. Excellent analysis of quarters 2-4 of game that was over after 15 minutes.
So tell Ross to fair catch a kick so Gaskin can grind down the field? Tell Browning not to check deep when Ross has man coverage?
There's nothing to take from this game except they beat a shitty team and backups played. Same for the next two weeks.
Call me when Stanford comes to town.
Save your breath, drink a couple beers and realize you won't know shit about this team or coach until Stanford.
Would you prefer I write an article saying the team looks like it had a lot of fun and who cares if the program never wins another game, there is always next year to worry about that?
The entire article is meaningless until the Arizona game
