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

Foster Sarell, we got a shot with him?

1…1112141617…41

Comments

  • dhdawg
    dhdawg Member Posts: 13,326
    Meek said:

    dhdawg said:

    Passion said:

    dhdawg said:

    bananasnblondes said:

    ESPN just had an article about him where he said "the UW/Stanford game outcome didn't mean fuckin' shit to me, bro"(paraphrasing)

    if that really is the case, I guess there wasn't really anything pete could have done.
    Yah, except have a better recruiter as your OL coach.
    sure. would have helped. but the best recruiting tool is supposed to be on field success, and he clearly doesn't give a shit about it in this case
    Oh right because one big win in 15 years means we're a powerhouse program.

    The kid has been ready for Stanford for months and has been giving us a courtesy flush here instead of the cold shoulder. He's polite and respectful and is probably 98% certain in his decision. He's got the kind of ranking that allows him to time it when he wants to. Just let it be man.
    notice how I said Petersen, not UW. is the program as a whole responsible for their failures, yes. Is Petersen responsible? very little if at all
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dhdawg
    dhdawg Member Posts: 13,326
    Swaye said:

    dhdawg said:

    Passion said:

    dhdawg said:

    bananasnblondes said:

    ESPN just had an article about him where he said "the UW/Stanford game outcome didn't mean fuckin' shit to me, bro"(paraphrasing)

    if that really is the case, I guess there wasn't really anything pete could have done.
    Yah, except have a better recruiter as your OL coach.
    sure. would have helped. but the best recruiting tool is supposed to be on field success, and he clearly doesn't give a shit about it in this case
    Not sure if serious? We beat them twice in like 9 fucking years, and they have won the conference like 4 out of the 5 last years? If he is picking for on field success you pick Tree every fucking time, until something lasting and permanent changes, which it hasn't as of yet.
    You're right. I could have phrased that better. My point is if hee making this decision off of the last 9 years he'd be right to choose stanford, and I'm not sure how much Petersen could have done if that is the case
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Tequilla
    Tequilla Member Posts: 20,234
    When you have a kid that has the option of going to the team that he views as an annual conference contender that will win 10+ games each year, with coaching that has a track record of putting OL not only in the NFL but high round picks, and add to that a Stanford education that's an uphill battle to fight when in the process of turning a program around.

    Now, if you're reading the tea leaves going forward, I'd be more likely to buy UW stock than Tree stock ... but to expect a 17-18 year old kid to do that ... probably not.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Baseman
    Baseman Member Posts: 12,381
    Garnett thought we sucked. We did. We suck less now.

    Stanford is cool. Their Poasters speak of nonsensical quicksand, us? "Such Fag J" - I guess WE are cool after all.

    At the end of the day, Peterman and crew need to close Fozzy.

    Coaching up elite prospects is better than coaching up shittier prospects. That's what THEY say anyway.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleReign
    PurpleReign Member Posts: 5,480
    Baseman said:

    Garnett thought we sucked. We did. We suck less now.

    Stanford is cool. Their Poasters speak of nonsensical quicksand, us? "Such Fag J" - I guess WE are cool after all.

    At the end of the day, Peterman and crew need to close Fozzy.

    Coaching up elite prospects is better than coaching up shittier prospects. That's what THEY say anyway.

    I learned a lot about math and words in my time on TheCardBoard.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter