That hit was enough to make him suck for a month? I don't think that's accurate. If so, I'm going to really start thinking the PAC 12 is soft. It's more likely that Oregon sucked this year. Like really really bad. And they finally started getting a little bit more continuity and identity under Herbert towards the end of the year - given that Washington was Herbert's first start.
Against the games following Washington he went 15 carries (CAL), 17 carries (ASU), 10 carries + 2 receptions (USC). Which is about average for him to that point in the season.
And if you think Alabama's running game is in any way comparable to Oregon's, you've not watched much football. It's completely different.
Cal and ASU stacked the box to force a true freshman quarterback to beat them. Washington DGAF because they were up fast and they wanted to eliminate explosive plays from pretty much the second quarter on.
So, SECFans.com is my website, and I'm the person shown in the video of debate.
I always say I'm willing to accept negative criticism when it's paired with actual debate. So let's have it...what did we say about Budda that was wrong?
Here's what we said:
1) They don't play 180lb safeties in the NFL (they don't). And that he projects as a CB in the NFL (he does). He might be playing around 190 now but he'd need 2) UW faces schemes in the PAC12 that often employ 4 or 5 wide sets, relegating Budda to a CB instead of a traditional safety role that we see in the SEC 3) We said Alabama has 240lb RUNNING BACKS, and we do. Not fullbacks. That's a huge difference.
We were rather effusive with our praise of your secondary. Including saying it compared favorably with Florida's - one that has multiple 1st rounders in it. We said, however, that they were more designed to stop a high powered passing attack than a power run game. And they are. You don't see power run in the PAC 12 like it is present in the SEC. And generally the SEC doesn't run a lot of 4 wide with a traditional QB. That's not an insult, that's just scheme.
This video shows a play from the PAC12 championship where Colorado has a motioned out WR. Budda FOLLOWS the motion receiver in man coverage presnap during his motion. That /never/ happens with traditional cover 2 high safety play. Nor does that happen in single safety where one is walked up for run support. Budda often, if not mostly, plays a nickel role because of his coverage capabilities and the types of formations Washington sees.
We've also predicted every UW game correctly this year. We had UW slated for the playoffs after week 4. And we were on the Browning for Heisman push in the same week, well before anyone else, especially on the east coast.
I can see from reading this board y'all don't pull any punches. Which is why I figured my introduction here need not be subtle. But if y'all are gonna whine about our stuff, at least bring some analysis to the table
Look here you hillbilly motherfucker, this analysis is shit and your all fags. Weak troll job. Nothing more.
This isn't the NFL dipshit. Go ahead, scan the standings at ESECPN. NO ALABAMA.
Are you really too fucking stupid to realize Earl Thomas played at 5'10 197 at Texas? ... that Budda is now at 194, but faster and that the consensus All American is slated as a first round pick? Your anal cyst seemed to miss that.
It's more the fact that I'm just a tad fed up with the general feeling coming out of SEC land that because Alabama killed USC and USC beat Washington that Washington has no business being in this game AND gives Alabama nothing to really worry about (not saying SECFans is one of those).
Without patting the TSIO Podcast on the back too much, it's one of the reasons I feel like we have a really good pod is because we have a really good pulse on this team and the conference as a whole. When we said going into the PAC Title Game that there wasn't a lot of concern about what Colorado would be able to do, we came to that conclusion based on watching the games in detail and knowing the strengths/weaknesses of what each team did.
Alabama is obviously a different beast. But they are far from invincible. The SEC as a whole really sucked this year. And so while the stat lines for Alabama look good (particularly defensively), there has been evidence that there are areas where you can get after their defense ... albeit there haven't been any examples of complete teams that have been able to play 4 quarters with Alabama on both sides of the ball. I don't know if Washington is one of those teams ... I do know that it's closer than any of Alabama's first 13 opponents.
I'm back you fifthly animals and these responses are going to be many, so I apologize in advance. But this is fun so I'll keep doing it until y'all kick me out for being too verbose.
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).
I disagree with the notion that he /must/ put on 15 lbs to play at the next level. I just think he's a corner at the next level. Lots of NFL scouts have said as much. The way he's utilized in your defensive scheme is not the way a safety would be in an NFL scheme. I think this is a pretty safe observation. I think he's a day one starting nickel corner at the next level. Also, Earl Thomas has been in the league for 7 years. And was playing a different role at Texas in 2009 than Budda is at UW in 2017. And he's the exception to the NFL safety rule.
You also have to remember who our show was aimed at - SEC folks who probably haven't seen UW play a ton. So we were maximizing this nuance in terms of how your secondary is situated to help them visualize how it's different from SEC secondaries. Not just in terms of size, but how they're utilized. It's not a slight. Different doesn't mean worse. As a matter of fact, I think we said they were the best secondary in the country.
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.
I'm aware of the differences. We talked at length about how your secondary is so good that you can actually leverage a defense in the way that you do. Most secondaries absolutely could not survive with what you do formationally in your front 7. As I said previously though, I'm just not certain it will be as effective against Alabama's running game. That's not an SEC thing, that's just an Alabama thing. I'm not as high on your 3 DTs as everyone here is. And that's OK. I'm aware that's an opinion that will go over like a warm turd here. It's just one man's opinion.
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.
Maybe. I'm not sure though. I was really unimpressed with their disruption, or lack of it, against USC. That was an OLine I came away less than impressed with, and they handled your tackles +1 rushing LB without much trouble. Part of this is an unfair projection of SEC scheme onto my expectation for UW's scheme. Like you said before, UW is playing more of a contain game, and leaning on their secondary for coverage and turnovers. But I feel like this is more due to limitations in personnel than it is by choice. This is an area I'm willing to admit is most likely to be proven wrong on Saturday. And I'll humbly return to eat shit for it.
You have to take with a grain of salt the stats in a game where you won 70-21 don't you think? I'm not going to pretend to know the inner workings of what happened down in Eugene this year ... just fine with me that they sucked this year. Freeman had been battling injuries as early as their game with Nebraska this year. Trying to make sense of stats in a rivalry game where Oregon probably brought everything that they had left to the table and then comparing to the next 2 weeks when they knew for sure that the season was over? That's fine I guess ... but it's where stats and real life offer differing realities to me.
I wasn't the one who brought up Freeman though. I think you handled him perfectly fine. I just don't think you guys have seen a good rushing attack this year.
Stanford is an interesting beast this year for a couple of reasons. First, they had some QB issues. Second, McCaffrey missed a few games during the middle of the year where the offense was even more crippled. Even with that, Stanford was 5th in the PAC running for 5.3 yards per carry in conference games and despite a lot of stats that would put them as being very middle of the conference they still ended up 6-3 in conference and 9-3 for the season. This is also where I think you have to factor when/where the game was in the season when evaluating a game. Stanford started getting offensive injuries during/after the game they played with Washington ... talking about the defensive injuries that Stanford had going into that game and how Washington exploited that I would buy that argument. But the argument that I have been hearing leading into this game is that Washington can't stop a heavy run game that leans on you. Stanford had 30 carries for 29 yards in that game. I'd say that that's fairly well stopped.
Neither me or my cohost were high on Stanford coming into the season. They'll kill UNC in the bowl game, but I think they would have gone 6-6 in the Big 10 or SEC West.
As for Hurts, the key for UW will be keeping him in the pocket and throwing routes down the field by taking away the short screens, etc. that both Kiffie and Sark like to run. As I've watched Alabama games, so much of what Alabama likes to do in the passing game is getting the ball out of the hands of Hurts quickly into the hands of Stewart and Ridley in favorable situations on the outside while limiting the risk of Hurts to make bad decisions. Alabama's able to do a lot of this by basically allowing the defense to dictate to them what they are giving up between the middle run and covering the outside. Another trait I've noticed in watching SEC games this year is how fundamentally sound some of the defenses are in their over pursuit ... which allows Alabama to easily exploit misdirection. Where Washington will be able to cause some problems for Alabama in this regard is because the basis of their defense largely is to keep the play in front of them and they are so disciplined that trying to get them to overcommit in pursuit generally doesn't happen.
Both of us on the show have been warning Bama fans all year of Hurts' limitations throwing the ball. He has a good arm, but he can't read a defense that well yet, he's still a freshman. He certainly can't throw a receiver open - which is Browning's best asset. He's got incredible legs, and a strong arm. But the notion that he was in the Heisman discussion is absurd. I think he's got all the raw talent in the world. But talk to me in 3 years, not right now.
That being said, he can be an asset. For all the 4 and 5 wide sets you see in the PAC 12, the power ZR concepts we run aren't as popular out there. But we also absolutely cannot afford him being hurt, which somewhat neutralizes his best asset.
Lastly, I think the idea of thinking that Washington needs to score 35+ to win is going the wrong direction. Washington's defense is going to be right up there with probably LSU as the best defense that Alabama has seen all year. Alabama's propensity to turn the ball over will be one of the handful of deciding factors in the game. Washington's MO the entire season has been to force the opposition to go long fields and taking advantage of opportunities. In this game, it will be all about finding ways to get first downs and when there are opportunities in the passing game to connect of them. But if I was the OC I'm managing this game with the number that I need to get to in the back of my mind somewhere in the 24-27 range with the expectation that whether through special teams or a defensive turnover that I'm going to get some help on getting there. The most important thing offensively will be to limit the turnovers and force Alabama's offense to have to beat Washington's defense. If this game turns into a shootout, Washington loses. There's too much talent on Alabama's defense to expect the game to get up into the high 30's or low 40's.
I think there are two ways for UW to win this game:
1) shorten the game dramatically. Quick throws, neutralize our pass rush and move the sticks incrementally instead of chunk plays that even when leading to a score just put your defense right back on the field. 2) fast start and put Bama in a hole.
But I think the notion that LSU and UW are similar defensively is a misstep. Statistically, yes, UW has an excellent defense. And a defense that is almost tailor made for the PAC12. But LSU's defense is a completely different animal in terms of match ups. They just are. Their scheme is entirely different, their size and physicality is different. I don't think their secondary is nearly as good. Adams and White would play for UW but that's probably it in the secondary. But we don't have the passing game to take advantage of their secondary anyway. So it was just a poor match up for us.
To be clear, I think UW is a better /team/ than LSU for sure. It just happens that LSU, especially in Baton Rouge with a frosh QB, was a bit of our kryptonite this year.
UW is playing more of a contain game, and leaning on their secondary for coverage and turnovers. But I feel like this is more due to limitations in personnel than it is by choice.
As with anything, having good players in one place opens things up for players somewhere else. I think this has been especially true for our DL since we lost Joe Mathis. It enables teams to not worry about our OLBs, who are deficient and depth-less, and to focus on our DL more. I think we are definitely at a point where we are trying to contain and with our front 7 and rely on our wretched excess of DB talent to make plays. Alabama should have success running outside on us.
Let's look at the good running teams that you point out ... not even sure that I agree with what you call good running teams (my guess is that you looked at total yards) when looking at conference games the teams that you singled out ranked as follows in terms of yards per carry in conference:
Arizona: 4th at 5.52 yards per carry Utah: 7th at 5.02 yards per carry Oregon: 6th at 5.02 yards per carry Oregon St: 3rd at 5.63 yards per carry
The top 5 was Washington, USC (conveniently left out that game), Oregon St, Arizona, and Stanford.
Actually, I don't think any of those are good running teams as it relates to this game. I just included them because I figured it'd be intellectually dishonest to not include teams who managed good per carry averages. Arizona's running comes way too much from QB. Utah had a good, not great day against you. And I even mentioned in the show that I have a ton of respect for Jones and thought you did a good job on him.
But if you're giving up 5 YPC to Oregon St or Utah, you're not going to keep Bama from running the ball. I mean, you might, but not based on anything we've seen to date. I don't care if you can hold Colorado's trash running game to a low total any more than I care that Alabama could score at will against Miss St's trash defense. Those things just don't matter.
You don't face power running games in the PAC 12 like Alabama's. It will give you trouble. We don't frequently see a passing attack the way UW executes theirs, it will give us trouble.
This is where things get a little bit "complicated" to me ...
It's easy to say that Washington didn't schedule anybody in the non-conference. We schedule a P5 in Rutgers that fell on their face between the timing of the schedule and when the game took place. We had a home/home also scheduled with Colorado that had to be scrapped when Colorado came into the PAC ... that game got replaced by Portland St (that's Sarkisian scheduling for you). Then we played a Sun Belt team (Idaho) ... I don't think SEC teams will be critical of scheduling Fun Belt teams.
You're misunderstanding what I was saying. My point about the PAC12's OOC slate was in response to someone suggesting that because the SEC has a bunch of 4 loss teams they're trash. I merely stated that the PAC12 didn't have any good OOC wins. That wasn't a slight on scheduling. Yes, Washington's OOC slate was a joke. Rutgers is rarely good. But the PAC12 in general doesn't shy away from big time OOC games. So I wasn't saying that at all. You can't help that ND sucks.
What I was saying was that you had a poor OOC showing, which isn't really debatable, and your perceived strength as a conference is entirely based on wins from beating one another. We have no other data to go on. And we don't. Now, that may play out that your conference is great, but I have a feeling we're going to see that the PAC12 is more top heavy than any of them.
Colorado lost their starting QB in the 2nd half (while down 31-28 in the 3rd quarter) and that turned the game decidedly to Michigan afterwards as they won the remaining portion of the game 14-0 to win 45-28.
UW fans haven't seemed to care that he didn't play against y'all in the championship game...(I realize he started the game and came in basically in a wheelchair for the 2nd half).
It's more the fact that I'm just a tad fed up with the general feeling coming out of SEC land that because Alabama killed USC and USC beat Washington that Washington has no business being in this game AND gives Alabama nothing to really worry about (not saying SECFans is one of those).
I'm certainly not one of those. Each game is its own set of match ups. Alabama killed Auburn who beat LSU who gave Alabama fits...Transitive property does give us some insight, but over the course of a season, not in a single game.
Compared to what? I mean Kentucky beat Louisville. Alabama beat the crap out of USC. LSU lost by 2 points to Wisconsin, who won their division. Auburn lost by 6 points to Clemson, who will probably be playing in the championship game. Tennessee beat the crap out of a division winner in Va Tech. UGA beat UNC by double digits...
So are you saying because teams who lose 3 games in the SEC barely lose to conference champions, it means the SEC sucks? That seems odd to me. I certainly don't see how you could land there without coming to the realization that the PAC12 is at an all time low.
For the most part, the SEC east sucked this year. But they've sucked for a while sooooooooooo.....
I think there are two ways for UW to win this game:
1) shorten the game dramatically. Quick throws, neutralize our pass rush and move the sticks incrementally instead of chunk plays that even when leading to a score just put your defense right back on the field. 2) fast start and put Bama in a hole.
If Washington tries to out Bama Bama, they're DOA.
They need to try to Ole Miss Bama. And that entails a QB with an accurate deep ball throwing to speedy receivers. The version of the game that UW wins involves multiple long TD passes and John Ross giving Alabama's corners trouble.
@Secfans : You're overthinking this so let me help you out. The Huskies will sell out to stop the run and make your QB throw or scramble/run. 'Bama will likely try to contain the husky rushing game but also focus on getting lots of pressure on the QB. It will be tough to do both but you might have the horses to do so. The key to the game and whether there is an actual ballgame is whether the huskies can stop the bama run game.
If the huskies get bama into 3rd down passing situations, it's gonna be a ballgame. Simple as that.
I think there are two ways for UW to win this game:
1) shorten the game dramatically. Quick throws, neutralize our pass rush and move the sticks incrementally instead of chunk plays that even when leading to a score just put your defense right back on the field. 2) fast start and put Bama in a hole.
If Washington tries to out Bama Bama, they're DOA.
They need to try to Ole Miss Bama. And that entails a QB with an accurate deep ball throwing to speedy receivers. The version of the game that UW wins involves multiple long TD passes and John Ross giving Alabama's corners trouble.
Secfans had it right. You just called for a repeat of the USC game plan.
You have to take with a grain of salt the stats in a game where you won 70-21 don't you think? I'm not going to pretend to know the inner workings of what happened down in Eugene this year ... just fine with me that they sucked this year. Freeman had been battling injuries as early as their game with Nebraska this year. Trying to make sense of stats in a rivalry game where Oregon probably brought everything that they had left to the table and then comparing to the next 2 weeks when they knew for sure that the season was over? That's fine I guess ... but it's where stats and real life offer differing realities to me.
I wasn't the one who brought up Freeman though. I think you handled him perfectly fine. I just don't think you guys have seen a good rushing attack this year.
Stanford is an interesting beast this year for a couple of reasons. First, they had some QB issues. Second, McCaffrey missed a few games during the middle of the year where the offense was even more crippled. Even with that, Stanford was 5th in the PAC running for 5.3 yards per carry in conference games and despite a lot of stats that would put them as being very middle of the conference they still ended up 6-3 in conference and 9-3 for the season. This is also where I think you have to factor when/where the game was in the season when evaluating a game. Stanford started getting offensive injuries during/after the game they played with Washington ... talking about the defensive injuries that Stanford had going into that game and how Washington exploited that I would buy that argument. But the argument that I have been hearing leading into this game is that Washington can't stop a heavy run game that leans on you. Stanford had 30 carries for 29 yards in that game. I'd say that that's fairly well stopped.
Neither me or my cohost were high on Stanford coming into the season. They'll kill UNC in the bowl game, but I think they would have gone 6-6 in the Big 10 or SEC West.
As for Hurts, the key for UW will be keeping him in the pocket and throwing routes down the field by taking away the short screens, etc. that both Kiffie and Sark like to run. As I've watched Alabama games, so much of what Alabama likes to do in the passing game is getting the ball out of the hands of Hurts quickly into the hands of Stewart and Ridley in favorable situations on the outside while limiting the risk of Hurts to make bad decisions. Alabama's able to do a lot of this by basically allowing the defense to dictate to them what they are giving up between the middle run and covering the outside. Another trait I've noticed in watching SEC games this year is how fundamentally sound some of the defenses are in their over pursuit ... which allows Alabama to easily exploit misdirection. Where Washington will be able to cause some problems for Alabama in this regard is because the basis of their defense largely is to keep the play in front of them and they are so disciplined that trying to get them to overcommit in pursuit generally doesn't happen.
Both of us on the show have been warning Bama fans all year of Hurts' limitations throwing the ball. He has a good arm, but he can't read a defense that well yet, he's still a freshman. He certainly can't throw a receiver open - which is Browning's best asset. He's got incredible legs, and a strong arm. But the notion that he was in the Heisman discussion is absurd. I think he's got all the raw talent in the world. But talk to me in 3 years, not right now.
That being said, he can be an asset. For all the 4 and 5 wide sets you see in the PAC 12, the power ZR concepts we run aren't as popular out there. But we also absolutely cannot afford him being hurt, which somewhat neutralizes his best asset.
Lastly, I think the idea of thinking that Washington needs to score 35+ to win is going the wrong direction. Washington's defense is going to be right up there with probably LSU as the best defense that Alabama has seen all year. Alabama's propensity to turn the ball over will be one of the handful of deciding factors in the game. Washington's MO the entire season has been to force the opposition to go long fields and taking advantage of opportunities. In this game, it will be all about finding ways to get first downs and when there are opportunities in the passing game to connect of them. But if I was the OC I'm managing this game with the number that I need to get to in the back of my mind somewhere in the 24-27 range with the expectation that whether through special teams or a defensive turnover that I'm going to get some help on getting there. The most important thing offensively will be to limit the turnovers and force Alabama's offense to have to beat Washington's defense. If this game turns into a shootout, Washington loses. There's too much talent on Alabama's defense to expect the game to get up into the high 30's or low 40's.
I think there are two ways for UW to win this game:
1) shorten the game dramatically. Quick throws, neutralize our pass rush and move the sticks incrementally instead of chunk plays that even when leading to a score just put your defense right back on the field. 2) fast start and put Bama in a hole.
But I think the notion that LSU and UW are similar defensively is a misstep. Statistically, yes, UW has an excellent defense. And a defense that is almost tailor made for the PAC12. But LSU's defense is a completely different animal in terms of match ups. They just are. Their scheme is entirely different, their size and physicality is different. I don't think their secondary is nearly as good. Adams and White would play for UW but that's probably it in the secondary. But we don't have the passing game to take advantage of their secondary anyway. So it was just a poor match up for us.
To be clear, I think UW is a better /team/ than LSU for sure. It just happens that LSU, especially in Baton Rouge with a frosh QB, was a bit of our kryptonite this year.
@Secfans : You're overthinking this so let me help you out. The Huskies will sell out to stop the run and make your QB throw or scramble/run. 'Bama will likely try to contain the husky rushing game but also focus on getting lots of pressure on the QB. It will be tough to do both but you might have the horses to do so. The key to the game and whether there is an actual ballgame is whether the huskies can stop the bama run game.
If the huskies get bama into 3rd down passing situations, it's gonna be a ballgame. Simple as that.
Washington has to take the shots when they are there ... but it's far more important for Washington to focus on positive plays and getting 1st downs similar to what it did against Stanford. The mistake is what we did against USC where we panicked and started trying to get a TD every single play while abandoning the run game, losing balance, and making it more difficult on the OL that had a very down day (remember, this was Eldrenkamp's first game back from an injury as well).
But thinking that UW needs to put 40 points up to win the game is missing the mark. In only 5 of 13 games this year UW has given up more than 20 points in the game and no more than 28 in any game. The UW offense needs to be targeting the 24-28 point range and lean on the defense to do what they've done all year. The surest way to get in trouble in this game is turning the ball over on offense, giving Alabama short fields, and/or defensive scores.
Washington is better than Ole Miss in all phases of the game, so Washington should be able to score at least 43 points on Alabama quite easily. But at the same time, Alabama's defense is better than USC's, so they should have no problem limiting Washington to less than 13 points. If we average it out, Washington should score 28.
Washington's defense is about as good as LSU's, so Washington should be able to hold Alabama to around 0 points or so. However, Alabama's offense is definitely better than Arizona's, so they should have no problem scoring 28. If we average it out, Alabama should score 14 points.
Therefore, the final score of the "Yeah But You Played This Team and This Happened" Bowl should be 28-14 Washington.
It will be difficult for me to go back and quote everything so I'll just keep it to a handful of summary points ...
1) The Baker/Thomas comparisons are as much tied to body type as they are to their individual instincts for the game. I get the logic that Budda will be a slot corner at the next level and when you look at recent games it's easy to make the parallels for what he does for UW. There were a few reasons why he was moved to that spot ... largely AFTER the injury to Joe Mathis. It certainly wasn't an indictment of his abilities as a deep safety. First, there was the emergence of Taylor Rapp and the need to get him on the field ... simply put Rapp is a better defensive option than some of our OLB options when you consider the potential of playing OLB + Budda versus Budda + Rapp. Second, if you go back and really deep dive into the Arizona game, what you'll find is that Rich Rod ran some insane number like 31 of his first 42 plays in a position where #28 PSALM Wooching was put directly into the line of fire of the play (and this came after a week where he was National Defensive Player of the Week). In our defense, PSALM almost always is on the wide side of the field and with teams running 3 wide against us the slot a large percentage of the time is also to the wide side of the field. The move of Budda down into the slot was as much about providing an option to protect PSALM (particularly in the read option game) on the outside. And, if you go back and look at what I had talked about regarding the 3 material runs against Washington this year (2 in the Arizona game by the QB and 1 by Oregon St with the jet sweep), placing Budda on the edge has gone a long way to shoring up that potential weakness for the defense ... and it is the primary weakness.
2) Regarding our DTs, I think it's important to evaluate them consistent with what they are asked to do in our scheme versus what they would be expected to do in the schemes of SEC teams. I do understand that you are targeting your audience of fans that probably watch a very small amount of PAC12 football. That being said, what the SEC does versus what the PAC does is very, very different and trying to compare the two in my opinion can become a stretch. Unfortunately, very rarely do SEC and PAC schools play each other, so it becomes a challenge to really evaluate how they compare/contrast. But getting back to the DTs, what they are asked to do is very similar in one respect to what Alabama does in keeping Rueben Foster clean ... it's all about clogging up the interior blocking of the OL and allowing the MLBs to come clean downhill and make the tackle. Personally, I don't think that the interior of the Alabama OL is anything that extraordinary (at least comparatively to that of the other portions of their team). What the DTs, and really the balance of the front 7, are trying to do is contain and box in the RB into have no options before gang tackling. Not saying that Alabama's run game is similar to that of Stanford, but I would highly recommend going back and looking at that tape to see what the defense is trying to do in the run game ... it's assignment football that is predicated on everybody doing their job. When that happens, the RB finds himself boxed in with no options on where to go. If our DTs are going to be judged by flashing through the line and making individual plays where a player stands out, you're probably looking at the wrong defense. It's not that they can't and there are plenty of individual plays this year where you see the DTs make some plays that just make you shake your head ... but that's more situation specific than it is anything else. Where I see Alabama having potential success in the running game is running to the outside (particularly behind Cam Robinson), jet sweeps, and Hurts on the QB sweeps/options/etc. However, I do agree with you that with the depth behind Hurts a massive issue for Alabama, how often they run Hurts will be a massive question mark. I do not expect Alabama to run him early in the game and only bringing the run as an option IF needed in the 2nd half.
3) SC's OL is one of those things where you had mentioned previously that games are matchup driven and I think that this is an issue here. Alabama's DL is as quick and agile as they are strong and stout. There are certainly elements of SC's OL that could be described as big, plodding, heavy, and slow. When they can push downhill they can be very good. Against Alabama, not surprising that they had a hard time blocking them given their size/speed. Against UW though, particularly after losing Mathis, we really don't have a strong individual pass rusher and that showed with some of what Darnold was able to do in that game. Since that game, we have blitzed a little more than we had previously and I'm sure if our defensive coaches were asked about it that was a miss during that game. But looking back at that game, SC really didn't have any kind of sustained success in the game nor did they really have anything on the outside. Where they really hit UW's defense (particularly after the Victor injury) was by running high/low crossing routes over the middle of the field in front/behind of our LBs. While I have tremendous respect for OJ Howard, that's the type of throw and decision making that IF Alabama tries to make those kinds of plays with Hurts I can envision a turnover or two out of it. And for the record, I don't think that UW is going to go crazy on blitzing Hurts in this game either ... I fully expect on passing downs that we're going to sit back and try to contain him forcing him to prove that he can throw the ball down the field before we go after him too hard.
4) I personally don't think that UW is similar to LSU other than both have good defenses ... my point regarding LSU and what UW can take from the game is that there are some generic things (force Hurts to beat you with his arm, sit on the short/intermediate passing game, and converge on the middle run. LSU has some pieces on the outside at DE and OLB that we simply don't have so we'll have to incorporate those lessons and fit them in with what it is that we do well.
5) I don't think anybody here is suggesting that we're going to completely stop Alabama's running game. It's not realistic. The thing that we're going to be focused on is stopping big plays out of the running game. Plus, we know that Kiffie and Sark will want to throw the ball just enough to change rhythm anyway. What do I think is realistic? Against Auburn, Alabama rushed 44 times for 203 yards (4.6 yard average). LSU was 51 for 216. These are probably good target ranges for what UW will be looking for ... something in the 45 runs for 200 yards against us. Where we're going to be targeting the slow down of Alabama will be in the passing game ... the 11 of 20 for 138 against Florida; 10 of 19 for 109 against LSU; 15 of 25 for 164 against Texas A&M; 19 of 31 for 158 against Ole Miss. If we can end the game giving up around 350-400 yards of total offense while creating enough turnovers to be in the +2 or better range in turnover margin, I would bet that our coaching staff would take that right now. Not saying that Utah is Alabama because they obviously aren't ... but the stats in that game are probably a reasonable target for what we're expecting AND the need to create turnovers.
6) Finally, with respect to the PACs OOC scheduling and Colorado, I think this is actually very interesting. There's no question that by and large this wasn't the greatest year in the PAC ... nor was it in the SEC. We're hurt out West by a couple of factors including the 9 game conference schedule as well as basic geography keeping most teams from wanting to schedule home and home series with us. Add in some of the changing scheduling nuances around the country and it's going to get worse before it gets better (for example Wisconsin backed out of a home and home with us once the Big10 went to a 9 game conference schedule). I'm excited that we're going to get to play in Atlanta in 2018 against Auburn ... but the odds that we're going to get a home/home series set up with an SEC school is slim to none. As for Colorado, they are a team that has their limits and basically overperformed this year ... not a terrible thing. Their rating has been earned though over the course of the season and I expect that they'll perform very well against an Okie State team that really struggles to run the ball and will be forced to throw against one of the best secondaries in the nation. That being said, going into the PAC title game, it was stated on our podcast that we did not expect Colorado to move the ball well on offense particularly in the running game ... so that was no surprise to us. We also said that the QB that actually scared us the most was Montez as he had the better arm to test our secondary and that Sefo would end up throwing us a few easy balls that we could take advantage of ... and he did. Colorado was never really a threat to score all night with either QB ... to me, it just wasn't a factor given the way the game was going.
I do think you're on the right track on how Washington can win this game ... so much of it will reside in the trenches. If the OL/DL can at least hold their own, then I'm really liking Washington's chances. I do think that you'll see some nuances out of us that will cause some challenges whether it be motion, formation, etc. We know that Alabama's really looking hard at our trick plays and that's great ... it's taking time away from the rest of their preparation ... and the reality is that I would expect the balance of anything we throw at the will be either new or breaking of our pre-established tendencies.
Comments
Cal and ASU stacked the box to force a true freshman quarterback to beat them. Washington DGAF because they were up fast and they wanted to eliminate explosive plays from pretty much the second quarter on.
This isn't the NFL dipshit. Go ahead, scan the standings at ESECPN. NO ALABAMA.
Are you really too fucking stupid to realize Earl Thomas played at 5'10 197 at Texas? ... that Budda is now at 194, but faster and that the consensus All American is slated as a first round pick? Your anal cyst seemed to miss that.
You also have to remember who our show was aimed at - SEC folks who probably haven't seen UW play a ton. So we were maximizing this nuance in terms of how your secondary is situated to help them visualize how it's different from SEC secondaries. Not just in terms of size, but how they're utilized. It's not a slight. Different doesn't mean worse. As a matter of fact, I think we said they were the best secondary in the country. I'm aware of the differences. We talked at length about how your secondary is so good that you can actually leverage a defense in the way that you do. Most secondaries absolutely could not survive with what you do formationally in your front 7. As I said previously though, I'm just not certain it will be as effective against Alabama's running game. That's not an SEC thing, that's just an Alabama thing. I'm not as high on your 3 DTs as everyone here is. And that's OK. I'm aware that's an opinion that will go over like a warm turd here. It's just one man's opinion.
Maybe. I'm not sure though. I was really unimpressed with their disruption, or lack of it, against USC. That was an OLine I came away less than impressed with, and they handled your tackles +1 rushing LB without much trouble. Part of this is an unfair projection of SEC scheme onto my expectation for UW's scheme. Like you said before, UW is playing more of a contain game, and leaning on their secondary for coverage and turnovers. But I feel like this is more due to limitations in personnel than it is by choice. This is an area I'm willing to admit is most likely to be proven wrong on Saturday. And I'll humbly return to eat shit for it.
That being said, he can be an asset. For all the 4 and 5 wide sets you see in the PAC 12, the power ZR concepts we run aren't as popular out there. But we also absolutely cannot afford him being hurt, which somewhat neutralizes his best asset. I think there are two ways for UW to win this game:
1) shorten the game dramatically. Quick throws, neutralize our pass rush and move the sticks incrementally instead of chunk plays that even when leading to a score just put your defense right back on the field.
2) fast start and put Bama in a hole.
But I think the notion that LSU and UW are similar defensively is a misstep. Statistically, yes, UW has an excellent defense. And a defense that is almost tailor made for the PAC12. But LSU's defense is a completely different animal in terms of match ups. They just are. Their scheme is entirely different, their size and physicality is different. I don't think their secondary is nearly as good. Adams and White would play for UW but that's probably it in the secondary. But we don't have the passing game to take advantage of their secondary anyway. So it was just a poor match up for us.
To be clear, I think UW is a better /team/ than LSU for sure. It just happens that LSU, especially in Baton Rouge with a frosh QB, was a bit of our kryptonite this year.
But if you're giving up 5 YPC to Oregon St or Utah, you're not going to keep Bama from running the ball. I mean, you might, but not based on anything we've seen to date. I don't care if you can hold Colorado's trash running game to a low total any more than I care that Alabama could score at will against Miss St's trash defense. Those things just don't matter.
You don't face power running games in the PAC 12 like Alabama's. It will give you trouble. We don't frequently see a passing attack the way UW executes theirs, it will give us trouble. You're misunderstanding what I was saying. My point about the PAC12's OOC slate was in response to someone suggesting that because the SEC has a bunch of 4 loss teams they're trash. I merely stated that the PAC12 didn't have any good OOC wins. That wasn't a slight on scheduling. Yes, Washington's OOC slate was a joke. Rutgers is rarely good. But the PAC12 in general doesn't shy away from big time OOC games. So I wasn't saying that at all. You can't help that ND sucks.
What I was saying was that you had a poor OOC showing, which isn't really debatable, and your perceived strength as a conference is entirely based on wins from beating one another. We have no other data to go on. And we don't. Now, that may play out that your conference is great, but I have a feeling we're going to see that the PAC12 is more top heavy than any of them. UW fans haven't seemed to care that he didn't play against y'all in the championship game...(I realize he started the game and came in basically in a wheelchair for the 2nd half).
So are you saying because teams who lose 3 games in the SEC barely lose to conference champions, it means the SEC sucks? That seems odd to me. I certainly don't see how you could land there without coming to the realization that the PAC12 is at an all time low.
For the most part, the SEC east sucked this year. But they've sucked for a while sooooooooooo.....
They need to try to Ole Miss Bama. And that entails a QB with an accurate deep ball throwing to speedy receivers. The version of the game that UW wins involves multiple long TD passes and John Ross giving Alabama's corners trouble.
If the huskies get bama into 3rd down passing situations, it's gonna be a ballgame. Simple as that.
But thinking that UW needs to put 40 points up to win the game is missing the mark. In only 5 of 13 games this year UW has given up more than 20 points in the game and no more than 28 in any game. The UW offense needs to be targeting the 24-28 point range and lean on the defense to do what they've done all year. The surest way to get in trouble in this game is turning the ball over on offense, giving Alabama short fields, and/or defensive scores.
Washington's defense is about as good as LSU's, so Washington should be able to hold Alabama to around 0 points or so. However, Alabama's offense is definitely better than Arizona's, so they should have no problem scoring 28. If we average it out, Alabama should score 14 points.
Therefore, the final score of the "Yeah But You Played This Team and This Happened" Bowl should be 28-14 Washington.
It will be difficult for me to go back and quote everything so I'll just keep it to a handful of summary points ...
1) The Baker/Thomas comparisons are as much tied to body type as they are to their individual instincts for the game. I get the logic that Budda will be a slot corner at the next level and when you look at recent games it's easy to make the parallels for what he does for UW. There were a few reasons why he was moved to that spot ... largely AFTER the injury to Joe Mathis. It certainly wasn't an indictment of his abilities as a deep safety. First, there was the emergence of Taylor Rapp and the need to get him on the field ... simply put Rapp is a better defensive option than some of our OLB options when you consider the potential of playing OLB + Budda versus Budda + Rapp. Second, if you go back and really deep dive into the Arizona game, what you'll find is that Rich Rod ran some insane number like 31 of his first 42 plays in a position where #28 PSALM Wooching was put directly into the line of fire of the play (and this came after a week where he was National Defensive Player of the Week). In our defense, PSALM almost always is on the wide side of the field and with teams running 3 wide against us the slot a large percentage of the time is also to the wide side of the field. The move of Budda down into the slot was as much about providing an option to protect PSALM (particularly in the read option game) on the outside. And, if you go back and look at what I had talked about regarding the 3 material runs against Washington this year (2 in the Arizona game by the QB and 1 by Oregon St with the jet sweep), placing Budda on the edge has gone a long way to shoring up that potential weakness for the defense ... and it is the primary weakness.
2) Regarding our DTs, I think it's important to evaluate them consistent with what they are asked to do in our scheme versus what they would be expected to do in the schemes of SEC teams. I do understand that you are targeting your audience of fans that probably watch a very small amount of PAC12 football. That being said, what the SEC does versus what the PAC does is very, very different and trying to compare the two in my opinion can become a stretch. Unfortunately, very rarely do SEC and PAC schools play each other, so it becomes a challenge to really evaluate how they compare/contrast. But getting back to the DTs, what they are asked to do is very similar in one respect to what Alabama does in keeping Rueben Foster clean ... it's all about clogging up the interior blocking of the OL and allowing the MLBs to come clean downhill and make the tackle. Personally, I don't think that the interior of the Alabama OL is anything that extraordinary (at least comparatively to that of the other portions of their team). What the DTs, and really the balance of the front 7, are trying to do is contain and box in the RB into have no options before gang tackling. Not saying that Alabama's run game is similar to that of Stanford, but I would highly recommend going back and looking at that tape to see what the defense is trying to do in the run game ... it's assignment football that is predicated on everybody doing their job. When that happens, the RB finds himself boxed in with no options on where to go. If our DTs are going to be judged by flashing through the line and making individual plays where a player stands out, you're probably looking at the wrong defense. It's not that they can't and there are plenty of individual plays this year where you see the DTs make some plays that just make you shake your head ... but that's more situation specific than it is anything else. Where I see Alabama having potential success in the running game is running to the outside (particularly behind Cam Robinson), jet sweeps, and Hurts on the QB sweeps/options/etc. However, I do agree with you that with the depth behind Hurts a massive issue for Alabama, how often they run Hurts will be a massive question mark. I do not expect Alabama to run him early in the game and only bringing the run as an option IF needed in the 2nd half.
3) SC's OL is one of those things where you had mentioned previously that games are matchup driven and I think that this is an issue here. Alabama's DL is as quick and agile as they are strong and stout. There are certainly elements of SC's OL that could be described as big, plodding, heavy, and slow. When they can push downhill they can be very good. Against Alabama, not surprising that they had a hard time blocking them given their size/speed. Against UW though, particularly after losing Mathis, we really don't have a strong individual pass rusher and that showed with some of what Darnold was able to do in that game. Since that game, we have blitzed a little more than we had previously and I'm sure if our defensive coaches were asked about it that was a miss during that game. But looking back at that game, SC really didn't have any kind of sustained success in the game nor did they really have anything on the outside. Where they really hit UW's defense (particularly after the Victor injury) was by running high/low crossing routes over the middle of the field in front/behind of our LBs. While I have tremendous respect for OJ Howard, that's the type of throw and decision making that IF Alabama tries to make those kinds of plays with Hurts I can envision a turnover or two out of it. And for the record, I don't think that UW is going to go crazy on blitzing Hurts in this game either ... I fully expect on passing downs that we're going to sit back and try to contain him forcing him to prove that he can throw the ball down the field before we go after him too hard.
4) I personally don't think that UW is similar to LSU other than both have good defenses ... my point regarding LSU and what UW can take from the game is that there are some generic things (force Hurts to beat you with his arm, sit on the short/intermediate passing game, and converge on the middle run. LSU has some pieces on the outside at DE and OLB that we simply don't have so we'll have to incorporate those lessons and fit them in with what it is that we do well.
5) I don't think anybody here is suggesting that we're going to completely stop Alabama's running game. It's not realistic. The thing that we're going to be focused on is stopping big plays out of the running game. Plus, we know that Kiffie and Sark will want to throw the ball just enough to change rhythm anyway. What do I think is realistic? Against Auburn, Alabama rushed 44 times for 203 yards (4.6 yard average). LSU was 51 for 216. These are probably good target ranges for what UW will be looking for ... something in the 45 runs for 200 yards against us. Where we're going to be targeting the slow down of Alabama will be in the passing game ... the 11 of 20 for 138 against Florida; 10 of 19 for 109 against LSU; 15 of 25 for 164 against Texas A&M; 19 of 31 for 158 against Ole Miss. If we can end the game giving up around 350-400 yards of total offense while creating enough turnovers to be in the +2 or better range in turnover margin, I would bet that our coaching staff would take that right now. Not saying that Utah is Alabama because they obviously aren't ... but the stats in that game are probably a reasonable target for what we're expecting AND the need to create turnovers.
6) Finally, with respect to the PACs OOC scheduling and Colorado, I think this is actually very interesting. There's no question that by and large this wasn't the greatest year in the PAC ... nor was it in the SEC. We're hurt out West by a couple of factors including the 9 game conference schedule as well as basic geography keeping most teams from wanting to schedule home and home series with us. Add in some of the changing scheduling nuances around the country and it's going to get worse before it gets better (for example Wisconsin backed out of a home and home with us once the Big10 went to a 9 game conference schedule). I'm excited that we're going to get to play in Atlanta in 2018 against Auburn ... but the odds that we're going to get a home/home series set up with an SEC school is slim to none. As for Colorado, they are a team that has their limits and basically overperformed this year ... not a terrible thing. Their rating has been earned though over the course of the season and I expect that they'll perform very well against an Okie State team that really struggles to run the ball and will be forced to throw against one of the best secondaries in the nation. That being said, going into the PAC title game, it was stated on our podcast that we did not expect Colorado to move the ball well on offense particularly in the running game ... so that was no surprise to us. We also said that the QB that actually scared us the most was Montez as he had the better arm to test our secondary and that Sefo would end up throwing us a few easy balls that we could take advantage of ... and he did. Colorado was never really a threat to score all night with either QB ... to me, it just wasn't a factor given the way the game was going.
I do think you're on the right track on how Washington can win this game ... so much of it will reside in the trenches. If the OL/DL can at least hold their own, then I'm really liking Washington's chances. I do think that you'll see some nuances out of us that will cause some challenges whether it be motion, formation, etc. We know that Alabama's really looking hard at our trick plays and that's great ... it's taking time away from the rest of their preparation ... and the reality is that I would expect the balance of anything we throw at the will be either new or breaking of our pre-established tendencies.