"Unbiased" Peach Bowl Preview ...

Respect to @Secfans for coming here and discussing ... this is the place where the most ardent and knowledgeable Husky fans reside ... and most here know what it's like to be on top, puff out our chests, and look down at most of the other programs.

First, let's get the Budda Baker stuff out of the way. He's 5'10" and 192 pounds (http://www.espn.com/college-football/player/_/id/3127287/budda-baker) ... no question that to play at the next level, he probably needs to put on another 10-15 pounds (realistically the only reason for him to come to school is to put that weight on before going pro) ... We're pretty lucky here in Seattle to see an elite all-time safety in Earl Thomas ... Thomas is insanely reactive and quick with an instinct for the game that you just can't teach ... and that's exactly how Budda Baker is. Thomas is 5'10" and 202 pounds ... so not really that much of a difference to Budda when you think about it. Take a quick look at the NFL Combine scouting report for Earl Thomas - it sounds just like the description that you made on Budda (http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/Earl-Thomas?id=496745).

What I find the most confusing when listening to those who do not watch the University of Washington day in and day out is that they don't really understand how the defense is set up and designed to operate. By and large, what UW plays is essentially a hybrid 3-4 or 4-3 that actually can morph into a 2-2-2-5 formation (2 DL, 2 OLBs, 2 ILBs, 5 DBs) and what makes it unique is that the 2 OLBs don't always rush hard. The entire defense is designed to contain offenses and limit their ability to make big plays. The strength in the middle takes away the balance of the middle runs and the ends are designed to keep contain and force everything back into the middle. The idea being that if teams are being asked to have 10 or 15 plays to navigate the length of the field on the defense, there is bound to be a mistake whether it is a holding penalty, an incompletion, etc. With the strength of the defense in the secondary once the opposition gets behind the chains or scoreboard, the defense basically forces you to throw into the teeth of the defense which has then led into the turnovers.

As it pertains to the game against Alabama, there are some legit concerns that I have ... but I think the basic generic argument that comes out of the SEC is that when non-SEC teams play SEC teams they clearly have no chance because nobody else has the combination of size, speed, strength, etc. that the SEC has. In essence, that's the crux of the argument on Budda right? He's not 6'3" and 225 pounds so therefore he's a nice little player but would never be able to be successful in the SEC. So let's look at the Washington DTs and see how they rate:

Elijah Qualls: He's a 6'1" and 320 pound (conservatively) redshirt junior ... he's stout at the point of attack and athletic enough to run in space as he'll play the BUCK position for us from time to time (UW's most strategic of pass rushing OLB positions). Currently he's rated as the #3 DT on Mel Kiper's draft listings and #7 on the rankings of CBS Sports (2nd round pick).

Greg Gaines: He's a 6'1" and 320 pound redshirt sophomore ... this is going to be a recurring theme here as he's very stout at the point of attack and while probably not as quick as Qualls, definitely stronger and gets off his blocks a little better creating plays in the backfield. Right now he's the #7 listed DT in the 2019 NFL Draft (NFL Draft Scout) and my guess is that he'll end up ranking higher than that in the end.

Vita Vea: He's a 6'4" and 330 pound redshirt sophomore ... of the 3 DTs, he's got the most upside of them all as while he's still raw, he's got all the elements you want out of an elite DT. He's the #2 listed DT in the 2019 NFL Draft (NFL Draft Scout) and CBS has him as the #4 rated DT in the 2017 NFL Draft.

To me, that's a DT rotation that any SEC school would be very happy to be rotating through.

When I watch Alabama on offense and specifically tied to the run game, it's largely a zone blocking scheme and so much of their success is driven by their ability to re-establish the LOS 2-3 yards down the field. If there's a weakness of the Alabama OL, it would be in the middle (similar to Washington) and that's where I would look at when trying to figure out how the offensive game for Alabama plays out. At MINIMUM, Alabama will be seeing at least 2 of 3 of Qualls, Gaines, and Vea on the field at the same time with 2 of those 3 being in a position where they are occupying the middle of the Alabama OL. I think it will be very difficult for Alabama in a zone blocking scheme to re-establish the middle of the LOS 2-3 yards down the field. You noted the Utah game as an example of teams that ran downhill on Washington. While I'd debate on how effective that truly was, what I would point out is that if you watch Utah you'll find that they run the ball a lot with pulling OL into the hole. That's not typically what I see when I watch Alabama.

Where I have concern at how Alabama CAN attack the UW defense is running on the edge with either the jet sweeps or Hurts either on designed runs or scrambling. I expect that you'll see Washington rush in a manner that looks to contain Hurts in the pocket and at times probably leave those that aren't really used to watching UW play or our defensive philosophy confused at why we really aren't trying to initiate a pass rush ... the whole thing will be designed to keep Hurts from scrambling and trying to force him to throw in tight windows out of rhythm.

One last thing to this primary post is that you have to go back and look at how Washington tackles. The argument for why Alabama's run game can't be stopped is because they are just bigger and faster. If you're going to tackle a bigger man, how do you do that? You do it by being fundamentally sound and tackle low. That's exactly how Washington tackles and why they generally don't miss many tackles (outside of P-SALM who absolutely sucks - why the outside run scares the shit out of me). It's an argument that I've heard time and time before but it gets debunked generally fairly easily ... go back to the Rose Bowl from 2011 between TCU and Wisconsin ... same arguments were used for Wisconsin running all over TCU because they were just flat out bigger and TCU would never be able to compete running their 4-2-5 defense. They did just fine.