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.
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?
Save your breath, drink a couple beers and realize you won't know shit about this team or coach until Stanford.
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.
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?
As I said earlier, shit article, shit poster.
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.
You are mixing apples and oranges
I haven't at any point criticized the premise that you learn about a coach showing the future in Year 3. There are a few instances where after Year 3 you still have a bit of an incomplete and need to see more, but 81%+ of the time you know what you have by that point.
What I've been critical about is the tying of the above into 1 single game ... pointless.
I haven't at any point criticized the premise that you learn about a coach showing the future in Year 3.
You literally just said the entire article is meaningless... I could only assume that included the main thesis...
There are a few instances where after Year 3 you still have a bit of an incomplete and need to see more, but 81%+ of the time you know what you have by that point.
What I've been critical about is the tying of the above into 1 single game ... pointless.
If you wanted to go into the scenarios where Petersen may be the coach without achieving ten wins this year, that is fine. I encourage you to write an article about that. Lay out what would constitute sufficient tangible evidence (wins) and sufficient intangible evidence (whatever else you like) to show that even though we didn't make it this year, we really, actually are on track. I am actually serious about this because I was thinking about tackling this topic myself.
You made your point about how you think this was a game where we played it smart by not forcing the run when it wasn't there. That is fine. I mentioned there may be valid reasons why we didn't focus on rushing. That is something I will have to see though, in order to believe there is improvement there. Until I see it I am not going to assume we've improved. That is all I've been saying. Until I see the improvement in a weakness I assume it is still a weakness. We may have fixed it but it is unproven. Even if we had run the ball down Rutgers throats, they still aren't a tremendous team and it wouldn't have proven we're there, but it would be a step in the right direction and actually be a positive data point.
Need to see how the season plays out and judge it on the whole ... I would say though that significant injury issues would definitely give me reason for pause
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.
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?
Save your breath, drink a couple beers and realize you won't know shit about this team or coach until Stanford.
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.
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?
As I said earlier, shit article, shit poster.
The entire article is meaningless until the Arizona game
Need to see how the season plays out and judge it on the whole ... I would say though that significant injury issues would definitely give me reason for pause
We should know about Petersen this year. Given the weak schedule, 10-2 is a passing grade I guess; 11-1 proves we've got the right guy. Next year playoffs, or the experiment failed.
However, for years most everyone on this board was screaming to have Mora. Mora sucks. Food for thought.
We should know about Petersen this year. Given the weak schedule, 10-2 is a passing grade I guess; 11-1 proves we've got the right guy. Next year playoffs, or the experiment failed.
However, for years most everyone on this board was screaming to have Mora. Mora sucks. Food for thought.
We would have fired Mora after 3 years at UCLA though.
We should know about Petersen this year. Given the weak schedule, 10-2 is a passing grade I guess; 11-1 proves we've got the right guy. Next year playoffs, or the experiment failed.
However, for years most everyone on this board was screaming to have Mora. Mora sucks. Food for thought.
We would have fired Mora after 3 years at UCLA though.
Win or get the fuck out.
No you wouldn't have Sven would still be in Montlake if Haden didn't pluck him up. Drunk or sober.
Comments
I haven't at any point criticized the premise that you learn about a coach showing the future in Year 3. There are a few instances where after Year 3 you still have a bit of an incomplete and need to see more, but 81%+ of the time you know what you have by that point.
What I've been critical about is the tying of the above into 1 single game ... pointless.
You made your point about how you think this was a game where we played it smart by not forcing the run when it wasn't there. That is fine. I mentioned there may be valid reasons why we didn't focus on rushing. That is something I will have to see though, in order to believe there is improvement there. Until I see it I am not going to assume we've improved. That is all I've been saying. Until I see the improvement in a weakness I assume it is still a weakness. We may have fixed it but it is unproven. Even if we had run the ball down Rutgers throats, they still aren't a tremendous team and it wouldn't have proven we're there, but it would be a step in the right direction and actually be a positive data point.
However, for years most everyone on this board was screaming to have Mora. Mora sucks. Food for thought.
Win or get the fuck out.