Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Rank the 1990, 1992, 2000, and 2016 UW teams
Comments
-
This is the only valid argument for why 2000 would win.allpurpleallgold said:
Phillip Buchanondnc said:
2016 was better at HC, overall coaching staff and every position except QB and kicker.allpurpleallgold said:The 2016 team would blow a 21 point 4th quarter lead to the 2000 team. Anyone that puts 2016 ahead of them doesn't know shit about football.
2016 was better at passing, catching, running, blocking, stopping the run, stopping the pass, returning kicks and punts.
2000 was better at field goals and coming back late in the game.
2016 would put 2000 away before halftime.
Tui would not be enough.
Vernon Carey
Najeh Davenport
Ken Dorsey
Jamal Green
Andre Johnson
William Joseph
Damione Lewis
Bryant Mckinnie
Dan Morgan
Santana Moss
Clinton Portis
Ed Reed
Mike Rumph
Jeremy Shockey
Jonathan Vilma
Reggie Wayne
DJ Williams
If only there was some example of a team that was much better than that 2000 team that they beat. -
The 2000 Huskies would beat anybody, including all the other teams on this list from prior years (except fucking UO)
The 2009 Central team which lost only to the D2 winner in the playoffs would have defeated the 2008 Huskies. -
I'm still a big fan of the 2000 Huskies!!!
-
2000
1990
2016
1992
1992 only scored three points against a good, but not great Arizona defense, got clobbered by Cougit losers, and lost three games. They're a disappointment and last.
2016's schedule was too weak.
2000 probably had the least talent, but they won the Rose Bowl, beat Miami, and only lost once. -
2016 team would beat every other team easily, because the players on those other teams are old as fuck by now
-
1990 - Almost as good as the '91 team.
1992 - Pre-BJH fiasco they were good. Post? Not so much.
2016 and 2000 were about equal.
It would be hard to say 2000 > 2016, but Marques was just really hard to beat. If you put Marques on the 2016 team, it's possible no one beats them.
That 2000 team wasn't even that good. The 2016 team was a great team, but talent is way lower than the '90 and '92 teams. A clutch QB and some depth and 2016 would've been a truly great team. -
08 too low and 84 way too highdnc said:08
84
16
90
00
92 -
Scoreboard.dnc said:
They beat them at home at the beginning of the year.allpurpleallgold said:
Phillip Buchanondnc said:
2016 was better at HC, overall coaching staff and every position except QB and kicker.allpurpleallgold said:The 2016 team would blow a 21 point 4th quarter lead to the 2000 team. Anyone that puts 2016 ahead of them doesn't know shit about football.
2016 was better at passing, catching, running, blocking, stopping the run, stopping the pass, returning kicks and punts.
2000 was better at field goals and coming back late in the game.
2016 would put 2000 away before halftime.
Tui would not be enough.
Vernon Carey
Najeh Davenport
Ken Dorsey
Jamal Green
Andre Johnson
William Joseph
Damione Lewis
Bryant Mckinnie
Dan Morgan
Santana Moss
Clinton Portis
Ed Reed
Mike Rumph
Jeremy Shockey
Jonathan Vilma
Reggie Wayne
DJ Williams
If only there was some example of a team that was much better than that 2000 team that they beat.
They don't win that game on a neutral field or even halfway through the season.
I love the 2000 team, it was probably the most fun UW team to watch to me outside of 91. It was lucky to only have one loss though. -
None of the WR's on the 2000 could even get open. Stevens could make some plays.
He contrasting styles and having to defend the option would be interesting.
The 2000 team kind of sucks though talent wise. Tui and luck played a huge role. -
1990
2016
1992
2000
I think this was pretty easy.
