UW is a "fraud" according to
Comments
-
Stanford, WSU and Colorado, 2016, were blowouts. No, they weren't "big games" that really challenged UW. Utah was close, but shouldn't have been, but I'll give that one to you as a road game against a decent squad. But clearly the hardest challenges last year were USC (L), which shut down our offense, and at Arizona.GreenRiverGatorz said:
So 2017 ASU and Stanford count as big games, but 2016 Stanford, Utah, WSU, and Colorado do not? That's some fucking retarded spin.TurdBuffer said:UW deserves it. They have now choked in 4 big games. Even James had his losses to UCLA that bedeviled the Dawgs in the 80's and 90's, but unlike James, Peterson hasn't yet won "the big game" and gotten over the hump of getting his players to execute at a high level against the toughest teams. Last year, it was SC and Alabama, this year it's a fired up ASU and a workman-like, fairly solid Stanford team with a better game plan.
The Dawgs are good, not great. To be great, you have to win the big, important games and they haven't done that yet.
There's no question that the 2017 iteration of UW has done absolutely nothing impressive other than blow the doors off of some middle rung Pac-12 programs (and even if we were 10-0 right now it would still be true). But this sudden rewrite of history that tries to pretend that we didn't beat anyone worth a damn in 2016 as well, is total nonsense.
The script this year has us thrashing the parade of the powerful: Cal, UCLA, Oregon State and Colorado, while losing to ASU and Stanford. Show me a big win against a genuinely tough, talented team anywhere in that 4-2 stretch. You can't because it ain't there, but that's not really the point, which is UW's failure to execute at a high level against other high-level teams, or teams that are playing at a high level on any given night. Those "James Type" wins just aren't there.
-
glad someone is paying attention. I have probably one of the most glorious avatars.creepycoug said:
And I want to jump into that avatar of yours.WeakarmCobra said:We were hoping that jake would take that next step in his development, but he didn't hence we suck. His fundamentals are so shitty, I want to kill babushka.
-
Jesus. Burn?TurdBuffer said:
What would you know about being a man, Cuog? Run along kitty-kitty.creepycoug said:
finally a poaster with ballz. Take note turdy and ballz. This is how you take it like a man and not a whiny drippy chunt.dflea said:If you don't want to be called a fucking fraud, then don't play like one.
-
Haven't seen a Coog whine like this since Mike Price fogged his coke bottle glasses up pacing the sideline
-
I cannot think of a more enjoyable career defining moment from an actress in recent memory tbhWeakarmCobra said:
glad someone is paying attention. I have probably one of the most glorious avatars.creepycoug said:
And I want to jump into that avatar of yours.WeakarmCobra said:We were hoping that jake would take that next step in his development, but he didn't hence we suck. His fundamentals are so shitty, I want to kill babushka.
-
No. When you started calling Oregon failures for winning the conference and not winning their post season games you fell under that umbrella too.79smoothdawg said:
I guess pac 12 titles dont mean anything anymore?TurdBuffer said:UW deserves it. They have now choked in 4 big games. Even James had his losses to UCLA that bedeviled the Dawgs in the 80's and 90's, but unlike James, Peterson hasn't yet won "the big game" and gotten over the hump of getting his players to execute at a high level against the toughest teams. Last year, it was SC and Alabama, this year it's a fired up ASU and a workman-like, fairly solid Stanford team with a better game plan.
The Dawgs are good, not great. To be great, you have to win the big, important games and they haven't done that yet.
Plus, two conference titles in 26 years is like Illinois good. -
Pumpy (welcome back) right about this thing.puppylove_sugarsteel said:UW is far from a fraud. When both starting corners weren't hurt this defense was as good as anyone in the country....maybe the best. The main problem is under center. Put McSorley in there and this team is undefeated and #3 in the cuntry. Oh, and the PacChamp vs USC is epic. UW wins by 10.
With Browning, well, you're looking at it...a holiday bowl team.
-
He’s a liability at corner with a capital L. Bryant belongs mostly on the sideline, rotating in as the nickel or dime.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Bryant is my favorite corner. What he lacks in height he makes up for in rrun support, bubble screens...anything behind the LOSYellowSnow said:
Bryant ain't terrible but at 5'7" he gets picked by the tall receivers. Cost us some pts against Stanford for sure.puppylove_sugarsteel said:UW is far from a fraud. When both starting corners weren't hurt this defense was as good as anyone in the country....maybe the best. The main problem is under center. Put McSorley in there and this team is undefeated and #3 in the cuntry. Oh, and the PacChamp vs USC is epic. UW wins by 10.
With Browning, well, you're looking at it...a holiday bowl team. -
You are aware both Miller and Murphy were out right? How would last year's defense been better in this game?TurdBuffer said:
Stanford, WSU and Colorado, 2016, were blowouts. No, they weren't "big games" that really challenged UW. Utah was close, but shouldn't have been, but I'll give that one to you as a road game against a decent squad. But clearly the hardest challenges last year were USC (L), which shut down our offense, and at Arizona.GreenRiverGatorz said:
So 2017 ASU and Stanford count as big games, but 2016 Stanford, Utah, WSU, and Colorado do not? That's some fucking retarded spin.TurdBuffer said:UW deserves it. They have now choked in 4 big games. Even James had his losses to UCLA that bedeviled the Dawgs in the 80's and 90's, but unlike James, Peterson hasn't yet won "the big game" and gotten over the hump of getting his players to execute at a high level against the toughest teams. Last year, it was SC and Alabama, this year it's a fired up ASU and a workman-like, fairly solid Stanford team with a better game plan.
The Dawgs are good, not great. To be great, you have to win the big, important games and they haven't done that yet.
There's no question that the 2017 iteration of UW has done absolutely nothing impressive other than blow the doors off of some middle rung Pac-12 programs (and even if we were 10-0 right now it would still be true). But this sudden rewrite of history that tries to pretend that we didn't beat anyone worth a damn in 2016 as well, is total nonsense.
The script this year has us thrashing the parade of the powerful: Cal, UCLA, Oregon State and Colorado, while losing to ASU and Stanford. Show me a big win against a genuinely tough, talented team anywhere in that 4-2 stretch. You can't because it ain't there, but that's not really the point, which is UW's failure to execute at a high level against other high-level teams, or teams that are playing at a high level on any given night. Those "James Type" wins just aren't there. -
On this we agree Creeper. Stanford is a average team this year both on defense and maybe even less than that on offense since they are completely one dimensionalcreepycoug said:
FTFY. You don't lose to San Diego State and beat 1-7 Oregon State by 1 poont and get to wear the "fairly solid" badge.TurdBuffer said:UW deserves it. They have now choked in 4 big games. Even James had his losses to UCLA that bedeviled the Dawgs in the 80's and 90's, but unlike James, Peterson hasn't yet won "the big game" and gotten over the hump of getting his players to execute at a high level against the toughest teams. Last year, it was SC and Alabama, this year it's a fired up ASU and a workman-like,
fairly solidincredibly mediocre, gimpy one-horse Stanford team with a better game plan and QB that doesn't shit himself at the first sign of resistance.
The Dawgs are good, not great. To be great, you have to win the big, important games and they haven't done that yet.
