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

Would you be happy holding CAL to 24 or less?

YellowSnow
YellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 37,244 Founders Club
edited November 2016 in Hardcore Husky Board
I think I would. Currently we’re averaging keeping PAC opponents to 8.28 pts below their average scoring. CAL is averaging 41 a game (43 at home), so our average showing on D would have them scoring 33 give or take. Seems, however, given how our defense matches up against a pass happy offense with a so, so running game, I’d sure hope we can do a lot better than 33. 5 games into conference play, UW is still 1st in PAC in Pass Defense, 1st in Long Pass Plays surrendered, 1st in TD’s given up in the Red Zone, etc. 24 pts or less scored by CAL (especially if 7 of these are in garbage time) would feel like a good outcome to me. Holding them to 17 pts in honor of ’91 would be even better, but doesn’t appear likely.

Hell, last year we only gave up 30 to CAL after turning the ball over 5 times (3 fumbles, 2 INTs), so maybe I’m being a big pussy being satisfied with giving up 24. Imagine what we could do with Gaskin/Coleman rushing for 300yds combined, and 1 or no turnovers on the day, to keep CAL’s offense on the sideline as much as possible. They had the ball for 39 minutes last year when the game was in Berkeley.
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
«1

Comments

  • YellowSnow
    YellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 37,244 Founders Club
    Swaye said:

    I would only be happy with 3 or less.

    It's been many moons since that happened...'97 was last time we gave up 3 or less to CAL.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    One thing that's an issue is time of possession of all things. We score too quickly, even when trying to run with gaskin, he got 12 yard chunks at a time. Then the stupid penalties on defense on third down that extends drives.

    In other words, our defense is playing better than the scoreboard shows. In 1991, no one scored on our 2s and 3s either.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AIRWOLF
    AIRWOLF Member Posts: 1,840
    2001400ex said:

    In 1991, no one scored on our 2s and 3s either.

    Kwiatkowski blitzes 9% of the time. Lambright din't blitz 9% of the time.



    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Mad_Son
    Mad_Son Member Posts: 10,194
    24 depends on the circumstances. If our 2nd and 3rd stringers give up points that is fine. If we win 25-24 I won't be happy. My goal for the season is to have us score more points in our lowest scoring game than we allow to our opponents in their highest scoring game. To date our 31 scored against Utah is higher than our 28 allowed to Arizona... so far so good..
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dhdawg
    dhdawg Member Posts: 13,326
    2001400ex said:

    One thing that's an issue is time of possession of all things. We score too quickly, even when trying to run with gaskin, he got 12 yard chunks at a time. Then the stupid penalties on defense on third down that extends drives.

    In other words, our defense is playing better than the scoreboard shows. In 1991, no one scored on our 2s and 3s either.

    so you're saying if we do a better job of shortening the game and keeping our defense off the field the better chance we'll have at winning the game?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CuntWaffle
    CuntWaffle Member Posts: 22,499
    They have played 2 defenses with a pulse. Utah and USC. They scored 24 and 23. We? Should hold them to at least under 20 unless we are winning 63-0 in the 4th and put in the 3rd and 4th stringers.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AIRWOLF
    AIRWOLF Member Posts: 1,840
    CuntWaffle said:

    They have played 2 defenses with a pulse. Utah and USC. They scored 24 and 23. We? Should hold them to at least under 20 unless we are winning 63-0 in the 4th and put in the 3rd and 4th stringers.

    Air raid gonna Air raid.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • YellowSnow
    YellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 37,244 Founders Club
    dnc said:

    Swaye said:

    YellowSnow said:

    Swaye said:

    I would only be happy with 3 or less.

    It's been many moons since that happened...'97 was last time we gave up 3 or less to CAL.
    I have high standards.










    I live in a trailer.
    All the comforts of the res, on wheels!





    image
    Were @Swaye 's ancestors more like nomadic, teepee Indians or semi-settled longhouse ones? I haven't lurked here long enough to know if this has been covered previously. I also get confused because the premium chat room logo shows a teepee but references a wigwam.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • AIRWOLF
    AIRWOLF Member Posts: 1,840
    IrishDawg22 said:

    I think if we outscore them we will remain undefeated.

    Is that some kind of advanced stats prediction bullshit?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Dawgs4ever
    Dawgs4ever Member Posts: 170
    AIRWOLF said:

    2001400ex said:

    In 1991, no one scored on our 2s and 3s either.

    Kwiatkowski blitzes 9% of the time. Lambright din't blitz 9% of the time.



    Lambright also occasionally put more than 6 men in the box.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • GrundleStiltzkin
    GrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,516 Standard Supporter
    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    If we win, IDGAF.

    This is another Arizona game to me. Just survive. This will be a tough game for us.

    Style points are invalid for conference games.


    Sorry for the trigger, DDY.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter