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

Gladstone
Gladstone Member Posts: 16,419
90
16
92
00

Helps Trump IMO
«1

Comments

  • EwaDawg
    EwaDawg Member Posts: 4,335
  • allpurpleallgold
    allpurpleallgold Member Posts: 8,771
    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.
  • Gladstone
    Gladstone Member Posts: 16,419

    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.

    Azeem laughs at this post.
  • DerekJohnson
    DerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 68,353 Founders Club
    God bless you Gladdy
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,839

    dnc 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 HC, overall coaching staff and every position except QB and kicker.

    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.
    Phillip Buchanon
    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 beat them at home at the beginning of the year.

    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.
  • RoadDawg55
    RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,129

    dnc 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 HC, overall coaching staff and every position except QB and kicker.

    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.
    Phillip Buchanon
    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.
    This is the only valid argument for why 2000 would win.
  • ApostleofGrief
    ApostleofGrief Member Posts: 3,904
    edited June 2017
    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.
  • ApostleofGrief
    ApostleofGrief Member Posts: 3,904
    I'm still a big fan of the 2000 Huskies!!!
  • Fire_Marshall_Bill
    Fire_Marshall_Bill Member Posts: 25,612 Standard Supporter
    edited June 2017
    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.
  • BearsWiin
    BearsWiin Member Posts: 5,072
    2016 team would beat every other team easily, because the players on those other teams are old as fuck by now
  • TierbsHsotBoobs
    TierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    dnc said:

    08
    84
    16
    90
    00
    92

    08 too low and 84 way too high
  • allpurpleallgold
    allpurpleallgold Member Posts: 8,771
    dnc said:

    dnc 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 HC, overall coaching staff and every position except QB and kicker.

    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.
    Phillip Buchanon
    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 beat them at home at the beginning of the year.

    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.
    Scoreboard.
  • chuck
    chuck Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 11,676 Swaye's Wigwam
    1990
    2016
    1992
    2000

    I think this was pretty easy.
  • PurpleThrobber
    PurpleThrobber Member Posts: 48,045
    edited June 2017
    dnc 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 HC, overall coaching staff and every position except QB and kicker.

    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.
    1984 would kick both their asses and then laugh about it.

  • AtomicDawg
    AtomicDawg Member Posts: 7,330

    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.

    2000 had more talent than people recognize. CW had NFL talent, and so did Vontoure. Pharms could've stayed in the league a while.

    Fucking Neu and his "Built for Prison" program derailed a lot of that.
    That secondary was legit. Daniels pharms and Triplett were all good too. They seemed to fall apart for a few weeks after williams was hurt though.
  • TTJ
    TTJ Member Posts: 4,827
    The '90 and '84 teams were both excellent. Both came within a whisker of being national champs. '16 wasn't quite at that level, but '17 should be. The '00 team was merely good, but with huge heart.
  • chuck
    chuck Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 11,676 Swaye's Wigwam
    Thinking about this again...i think id rank 2000 ahead of 92. That 92 team showed very little heart or toughness in the pullman snow and just looked slow against michigan. I know there were extenuating circumstances but that was not a top 10 team at the end of the year.
  • Doogles
    Doogles Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 12,726 Founders Club

    dnc 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 HC, overall coaching staff and every position except QB and kicker.

    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.
    Phillip Buchanon
    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.
    Yeah but Joey Harrington.
  • TierbsHsotBoobs
    TierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680

    dnc 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 HC, overall coaching staff and every position except QB and kicker.

    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.
    1984 would kick both their asses and then laugh about it.

    1984 wasn't even the best team in the Pac-10.
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,839

    dnc 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 HC, overall coaching staff and every position except QB and kicker.

    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.
    1984 would kick both their asses and then laugh about it.

    What part of

    08
    84
    16
    90
    00
    92

    didn't you understand?