Howdy, Stranger!

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

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

Mad Son's Ramblings: Year Three is Prove-It Time for Petersen

123457»

Comments

  • TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 20,088
    Mad_Son said:

    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.
  • Mad_SonMad_Son Member Posts: 10,194
    edited September 2016
    Tequilla said:

    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.

    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.
  • TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 20,088
    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
  • TierbsHsotBoobsTierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    Tequilla said:

    As I said earlier, shit article, shit poster.

    The entire article is meaningless until the Arizona game
    My irony detector just exploded.
  • TierbsHsotBoobsTierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    Tequilla said:

    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

    So the Auburndooging begins.
  • Steve_BowmanSteve_Bowman Member Posts: 442
    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.
  • TierbsHsotBoobsTierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680

    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.
  • KaepskneeKaepsknee Member Posts: 14,913

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.