Washington vs. Nebraska 1992
Comments
-
It was a YUGE chincremental progress win and was the first major sign that Pete is the guy. Pac 12 title cemented this. Now on to bigger and better things.creepycoug said:
Exactly. It's fucking Stanford dude. If your signature win is ever against Stanford, your program is boring.UW_Doog_Bot said:
1. I didn't define signature so goalposts *shrug. Had we beat SC either of the last two years I'd have taken it as signature as well. They would have counted as close enough to Elite. The only reason it's our "signature" win is because we haven't had anything better to hang our hat on.Gladstone said:
1. Slight goalpost move on your part but I agree with national OOC win being desperately needed. Big time.UW_Doog_Bot said:
No, I mean a National signature win against an elite big time OOC program. Say what you want about the Tree and how meaningful it was to us and the PAC but everyone else nationally gave fuck all about it. Doubly so because Stanford lost to the coog as well the next week which meant everyone could discount UW's win even if part of it was because we beat the shit out of them. The Tree is a GOOD program but they are not ELITE. Nevermind, that nobody watched it nationally anyways bc FS Larry Scott.Gladstone said:
You can minimize it all you want but 44-6 over Stanford, after years and years of being bullied by them, was in every definition a signature win. It leveled the program up, validated Petersen at UW, and funneled us to the P12 championship and a return to relevance. Fuck, we beat them so bad their still-warm corpse got assraped by WSU the following week. Stanford still won 10+ games. They were a good team.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Fuck do we ever need a signature game in the Petermen era.dnc said:
Really? I don't think it's even #1 for UW fans. I would say 91 Nebraska is more reminisced about.PostGameOrangeSlices said:This fucking game has to be the most reminisced about game in the history of CFB fanbases.
Maybe Oregon beating UW in '94
Quite honestly I'd say this one is in the second tier along with All @GrandpaSankey Saw Was Purple, the 92 RB and the Whammy in CreepyCuog. Maybe a tad above Boomer Sooner.
edit: maybe you meant to say another signature win?
Sorry not sorry but there's no fucking way I'm going to remember the Stanford ass raping the way I remember something like All I saw was Purple, the Whammy in Miami, Tui's Rose Bowl, or even watching my dad's VHS copy of the Sooner Schooner. Those games are a part of the mythos of this school and program and even more largely, college football itself. The Tree game is never going to have an ESPN 30 for 30 produced about it.
2. "Say what you want about the Tree and how meaningful it was to us and the PAC but everyone else nationally gave fuck all about it." This just isn't true
3. OK!
2. No one outside of the Pac cares. It's not completely our? Fault. It's also the conference's but that is what it is. We've had wins that were circle your calendar across the nation type games.
3. Lmk when they make the 30 for 30 Raping of the Tree! I'll circle it on my calendar.
The point stands, a game like Auburn, a Pac championship against a good SC, or a NY6 win against a good P5 opponent would drastically help the program and help define the era.
We're not talking "signature" win by the current coach to date. That's different. That's analyzing the very current state of the program.
"Signature Wins" mean, to me, all-time significant wins that the program will always point to.
2016 against Stanford is just beating a good team and proof that you have a good coach. Nobody will talk about it in five-year's time. They're barely talking about it now. -
There is evidence that contradicts your argument. Consider:Doogles said:Say what you want about the Tree and how meaningful it was to us and the PAC but everyone else nationally gave fuck all about it.
1. Long-dormant Washington throttled Stanford and put college football on notice (Washington Post)
2. The game was the national Friday game on ESPN.
3. Highlights were on repeat on SportsCenter that night, with Scott Van Pelt introducing his interview with Coach Pete by saying, "The Washington Huskies changed the conversation with what they just did."
4.
5.
-
Ok! Stanford 2016 was your signature win! Congratulations. You've been working really hard.Squirt said:
There is evidence that contradicts your argument. Consider:Doogles said:Say what you want about the Tree and how meaningful it was to us and the PAC but everyone else nationally gave fuck all about it.
1. Long-dormant Washington throttled Stanford and put college football on notice (Washington Post)
2. The game was the national Friday game on ESPN.
3. Highlights were on repeat on SportsCenter that night, with Scott Van Pelt introducing his interview with Coach Pete by saying, "The Washington Huskies changed the conversation with what they just did."
4.
5. -
Yup. There are myriad non west coast sources corroborating this. Also, you know, the fact that the team did actually go on to win the P12. Not worth getting into with the short bus crowd. Someone shield me from the autism explosion from creep. I can feel it coming. Help.Squirt said:
There is evidence that contradicts your argument. Consider:Doogles said:Say what you want about the Tree and how meaningful it was to us and the PAC but everyone else nationally gave fuck all about it.
1. Long-dormant Washington throttled Stanford and put college football on notice (Washington Post)
2. The game was the national Friday game on ESPN.
3. Highlights were on repeat on SportsCenter that night, with Scott Van Pelt introducing his interview with Coach Pete by saying, "The Washington Huskies changed the conversation with what they just did."
4.
5. -
Don't be mad that not a single Apple Cup counts as a signature win for the UW, but it's WSU's biggest game every year.creepycoug said:
Ok! Stanford 2016 was your signature win! Congratulations. You've been working really hard.Squirt said:
There is evidence that contradicts your argument. Consider:Doogles said:Say what you want about the Tree and how meaningful it was to us and the PAC but everyone else nationally gave fuck all about it.
1. Long-dormant Washington throttled Stanford and put college football on notice (Washington Post)
2. The game was the national Friday game on ESPN.
3. Highlights were on repeat on SportsCenter that night, with Scott Van Pelt introducing his interview with Coach Pete by saying, "The Washington Huskies changed the conversation with what they just did."
4.
5. -
Squirt said:
Have we discussed the UWAD's "Leave Your Mark" campaign yet? Goodness. At least the football department hasn't disseminated this stuff (yet).Doogles said:I mean it comes down to the identity crisis that shitty UW marketing has created.
Are we an ivy league Stanford elitist style school that thinks we're better than everyone at "Doing the right thing"?
Are we a USC/ Oregon "win at all costs as we trip over our own dick" school?
I mean we have a serious problem here. An alcoholic salesman like me could clean up the department in a month.
You play to win the game, have the balls to do so.
-
How mad?Squirt said:
Don't be mad that not a single Apple Cup counts as a signature win for the UW, but it's WSU's biggest game every year.creepycoug said:
Ok! Stanford 2016 was your signature win! Congratulations. You've been working really hard.Squirt said:
There is evidence that contradicts your argument. Consider:Doogles said:Say what you want about the Tree and how meaningful it was to us and the PAC but everyone else nationally gave fuck all about it.
1. Long-dormant Washington throttled Stanford and put college football on notice (Washington Post)
2. The game was the national Friday game on ESPN.
3. Highlights were on repeat on SportsCenter that night, with Scott Van Pelt introducing his interview with Coach Pete by saying, "The Washington Huskies changed the conversation with what they just did."
4.
5.
-
Your point was that the 1994 Miami game was a bigger win than 1990 USC and that it is ridiculous to believe otherwise. That's the point I disagree with strongly; I'm not arguing that 1994 Miami wasn't a big win. It just doesn't belong my personal Top 5 signature wins of UW history, nor in the honorable mentions.creepycoug said:
Cute.Squirt said:I see what you're saying. But for me:
1992 Rose Bowl: National Championship
1985 Orange Bowl: National Championship (fuck off, BYU)
1990 USC: Huskies were underdogs against the number-5 team in the country, and then destroyed them. It was a break-out game heralding a three-year run of competing for best in the country.
1991 Nebraska: Key to the championship season.
I can't put any games from the 2000 season above those. Maybe above the 2016 signature games---Stanford and Oregon. But I put 2016 Oregon on top of the 2000 games. While those were incredible wins and make my top seven, the 2000 season was an aberration during a period of crushing mediocrity. The 2016 signature games bore more in common with those from 1990-91: big wins, and they marked an era, not just a single season, of greatness.
Still, I respect your reasoning and wouldn't criticize anyone making a different subjective conclusion about the 2000 games relative to 2016. I can also understand someone viewing 2016 Stanford as a bigger win than 2016 Oregon.
As for creep, GTFO, especially with that 1994 Miami shit. That was a fun game, but the Huskies were 7-4 that year and just starting the mediocre Lambright era. The game had no bigger meaning than the game itself. Maybe it was fun to spoil Miami's winning streak, but big whoop. Dawgs aspire to be champions, not spoilers. Maybe as a coog you don't understand that.
Reed Stronger: the sub-thread is "signature wins" brotus. If you don't think beating Miami in the Orange Bowl and breaking the longest home winning streak is a signature win, then, sure, ok. I will tell you that among the legion of Husky fans in my life, and there are many, you are in a class of one. I don't know a single hairy husky who doesn't put the Whammy up in at least in the top 5, and many put it at #1 or #2. Same with the Orange Bowl; the fact that it didn't translate to a national championship is highly irrelevant.
Jesus, half this bored is claiming the "All I saw ... " gayme against a 4-loss SC team led by a pot-head weirdo that couldn't win the fucking Sun Bowl against Michigan State. So spare me the "champions only" shit talk Mr. 1/2 title.
But your poast had some really neat tuff talk. I'll give you that.
As for your gratuitous insult of my Kewg roots, I say to you, on behalf of my main broh @salemcoog and all of Cuog Nation, you are cordially invited to meat me and Salem at the 7-11 parking lot - the one on Aurora near the U district - to discuss this matter further.
You want to disagree, that's fine, but you're being a dumb-ass coog about it. Most Cuogs I know have great senses of humor and are fun to talk to. And then there's you in this thread. -
Sounds like you’re going to need to see a championship.oregonblitzkrieg said:
You'll get your chance against Auburn. That's your game. It's a must win for husky relevance. Win that game and have the balls to NOT start Brownsocks in 2018 and I'll admit Pete might just be a top 5 coach. Lose and it will be tough to convince coogs, quooks and the rest of the conference that Pete is as good as advertised.UW_Doog_Bot said:
No, I mean a National signature win against an elite big time OOC program. Say what you want about the Tree and how meaningful it was to us and the PAC but everyone else nationally gave fuck all about it. Doubly so because Stanford lost to the coog as well the next week which meant everyone could discount UW's win even if part of it was because we beat the shit out of them. The Tree is a GOOD program but they are not ELITE. Nevermind, that nobody watched it nationally anyways bc FS Larry Scott.Gladstone said:
You can minimize it all you want but 44-6 over Stanford, after years and years of being bullied by them, was in every definition a signature win. It leveled the program up, validated Petersen at UW, and funneled us to the P12 championship and a return to relevance. Fuck, we beat them so bad their still-warm corpse got assraped by WSU the following week. Stanford still won 10+ games. They were a good team.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Fuck do we ever need a signature game in the Petermen era.dnc said:
Really? I don't think it's even #1 for UW fans. I would say 91 Nebraska is more reminisced about.PostGameOrangeSlices said:This fucking game has to be the most reminisced about game in the history of CFB fanbases.
Maybe Oregon beating UW in '94
Quite honestly I'd say this one is in the second tier along with All @GrandpaSankey Saw Was Purple, the 92 RB and the Whammy in CreepyCuog. Maybe a tad above Boomer Sooner.
edit: maybe you meant to say another signature win?
-
Disappointed in you losers. Not really. I like to see the lowered husky standards becoming the norm. Nick Saban pulled his starting QB in the championship game. That was a big time, top 5 coach move. And everyone here is on Brownsocks train with Pete, acting like the second part of what I said, benching Brownsocks, would be a bad thing. Hilarious.
-
wtf?oregonblitzkrieg said:Disappointed in you losers. Not really. I like to see the lowered husky standards becoming the norm. Nick Saban pulled his starting QB in the championship game. That was a big time, top 5 coach move. And everyone here is on Brownsocks train with Pete, acting like the second part of what I said, benching Brownsocks, would be a bad thing. Hilarious.
-
You don't know it, but you don't get it, and there are people reading your posts laughing at you.Squirt said:
Don't be mad that not a single Apple Cup counts as a signature win for the UW, but it's WSU's biggest game every year.creepycoug said:
Ok! Stanford 2016 was your signature win! Congratulations. You've been working really hard.Squirt said:
There is evidence that contradicts your argument. Consider:Doogles said:Say what you want about the Tree and how meaningful it was to us and the PAC but everyone else nationally gave fuck all about it.
1. Long-dormant Washington throttled Stanford and put college football on notice (Washington Post)
2. The game was the national Friday game on ESPN.
3. Highlights were on repeat on SportsCenter that night, with Scott Van Pelt introducing his interview with Coach Pete by saying, "The Washington Huskies changed the conversation with what they just did."
4.
5.
But the Kewg digs do really hurt.
Dumb dumb. -
oregonblitzkrieg said:
Disappointed in you losers. Not really. I like to see the lowered husky standards becoming the norm. Nick Saban pulled his starting QB in the championship game. That was a big time, top 5 coach move. And everyone here is on Brownsocks train with Pete, acting like the second part of what I said, benching Brownsocks, would be a bad thing. Hilarious.
-
Corroborating? What are you Columbo? I didn't think you were on that level of dumbfuck.Gladstone said:
Yup. There are myriad non west coast sources corroborating this. Also, you know, the fact that the team did actually go on to win the P12. Not worth getting into with the short bus crowd. Someone shield me from the autism explosion from creep. I can feel it coming. Help.Squirt said:
There is evidence that contradicts your argument. Consider:Doogles said:Say what you want about the Tree and how meaningful it was to us and the PAC but everyone else nationally gave fuck all about it.
1. Long-dormant Washington throttled Stanford and put college football on notice (Washington Post)
2. The game was the national Friday game on ESPN.
3. Highlights were on repeat on SportsCenter that night, with Scott Van Pelt introducing his interview with Coach Pete by saying, "The Washington Huskies changed the conversation with what they just did."
4.
5.
We're talking about something that is 85% emotion, 15% perception. You're not "coroborating" anything.
Autism references aren't going to help you.
Congratulations. You just make your program historically insignificant, or at least boring. -
Unironic comment about other people laughing at posts from the least self-aware sperglord on the forum.creepycoug said:
You don't know it, but you don't get it, and there are people reading your posts laughing at you.Squirt said:
Don't be mad that not a single Apple Cup counts as a signature win for the UW, but it's WSU's biggest game every year.creepycoug said:
Ok! Stanford 2016 was your signature win! Congratulations. You've been working really hard.Squirt said:
There is evidence that contradicts your argument. Consider:Doogles said:Say what you want about the Tree and how meaningful it was to us and the PAC but everyone else nationally gave fuck all about it.
1. Long-dormant Washington throttled Stanford and put college football on notice (Washington Post)
2. The game was the national Friday game on ESPN.
3. Highlights were on repeat on SportsCenter that night, with Scott Van Pelt introducing his interview with Coach Pete by saying, "The Washington Huskies changed the conversation with what they just did."
4.
5.
But the Kewg digs do really hurt.
Dumb dumb.
Gold. -
You're reaching. The situations aren't comparable. That was game 14 for Saban's highly talented backup. This is the opener for UW and the first time the two freshmen will suit up. Then we have non mobile, 6' Jake Haener.oregonblitzkrieg said:Disappointed in you losers. Not really. I like to see the lowered husky standards becoming the norm. Nick Saban pulled his starting QB in the championship game. That was a big time, top 5 coach move. And everyone here is on Brownsocks train with Pete, acting like the second part of what I said, benching Brownsocks, would be a bad thing. Hilarious.
-
creepycoug said:
You don't know it, but you don't get it, and there are people reading your posts laughing at you.
But the Kewg digs do really hurt.
Dumb dumb.
-
The game was on Friday night on ESPN. Of course ESPN is going to talk about it.Squirt said:
There is evidence that contradicts your argument. Consider:Doogles said:Say what you want about the Tree and how meaningful it was to us and the PAC but everyone else nationally gave fuck all about it.
1. Long-dormant Washington throttled Stanford and put college football on notice (Washington Post)
2. The game was the national Friday game on ESPN.
3. Highlights were on repeat on SportsCenter that night, with Scott Van Pelt introducing his interview with Coach Pete by saying, "The Washington Huskies changed the conversation with what they just did."
4.
5.
It was not a program defining win. Creep is right. -
Listen, I'm not going to take shit digs at my school and fan base lying down. If you don't like it that's tough shit. That's the point.Gladstone said:
Unironic comment about other people laughing at posts from the least self-aware sperglord on the forum.creepycoug said:
You don't know it, but you don't get it, and there are people reading your posts laughing at you.Squirt said:
Don't be mad that not a single Apple Cup counts as a signature win for the UW, but it's WSU's biggest game every year.creepycoug said:
Ok! Stanford 2016 was your signature win! Congratulations. You've been working really hard.Squirt said:
There is evidence that contradicts your argument. Consider:Doogles said:Say what you want about the Tree and how meaningful it was to us and the PAC but everyone else nationally gave fuck all about it.
1. Long-dormant Washington throttled Stanford and put college football on notice (Washington Post)
2. The game was the national Friday game on ESPN.
3. Highlights were on repeat on SportsCenter that night, with Scott Van Pelt introducing his interview with Coach Pete by saying, "The Washington Huskies changed the conversation with what they just did."
4.
5.
But the Kewg digs do really hurt.
Dumb dumb.
Gold.
If self-awareness were a necessary quality around here, the forum wouldn't exist. But thanks for swooping in with your grounded perspective.
Moron.
-
That's because you're stupid and impress easily. Even accounting for how much Washington likes to slurp on SC in general, that was a 3-loss team that couldn't beat mediocre-as-fuck Michigan State in the Sun Bowl. In the rear view mirror, while it was a fun game to attend, it didn't have near the historical significance for the program that the Miami win did.Squirt said:
Your point was that the 1994 Miami game was a bigger win than 1990 USC and that it is ridiculous to believe otherwise. That's the point I disagree with strongly; I'm not arguing that 1994 Miami wasn't a big win. It just doesn't belong my personal Top 5 signature wins of UW history, nor in the honorable mentions.creepycoug said:
Cute.Squirt said:I see what you're saying. But for me:
1992 Rose Bowl: National Championship
1985 Orange Bowl: National Championship (fuck off, BYU)
1990 USC: Huskies were underdogs against the number-5 team in the country, and then destroyed them. It was a break-out game heralding a three-year run of competing for best in the country.
1991 Nebraska: Key to the championship season.
I can't put any games from the 2000 season above those. Maybe above the 2016 signature games---Stanford and Oregon. But I put 2016 Oregon on top of the 2000 games. While those were incredible wins and make my top seven, the 2000 season was an aberration during a period of crushing mediocrity. The 2016 signature games bore more in common with those from 1990-91: big wins, and they marked an era, not just a single season, of greatness.
Still, I respect your reasoning and wouldn't criticize anyone making a different subjective conclusion about the 2000 games relative to 2016. I can also understand someone viewing 2016 Stanford as a bigger win than 2016 Oregon.
As for creep, GTFO, especially with that 1994 Miami shit. That was a fun game, but the Huskies were 7-4 that year and just starting the mediocre Lambright era. The game had no bigger meaning than the game itself. Maybe it was fun to spoil Miami's winning streak, but big whoop. Dawgs aspire to be champions, not spoilers. Maybe as a coog you don't understand that.
Reed Stronger: the sub-thread is "signature wins" brotus. If you don't think beating Miami in the Orange Bowl and breaking the longest home winning streak is a signature win, then, sure, ok. I will tell you that among the legion of Husky fans in my life, and there are many, you are in a class of one. I don't know a single hairy husky who doesn't put the Whammy up in at least in the top 5, and many put it at #1 or #2. Same with the Orange Bowl; the fact that it didn't translate to a national championship is highly irrelevant.
Jesus, half this bored is claiming the "All I saw ... " gayme against a 4-loss SC team led by a pot-head weirdo that couldn't win the fucking Sun Bowl against Michigan State. So spare me the "champions only" shit talk Mr. 1/2 title.
But your poast had some really neat tuff talk. I'll give you that.
As for your gratuitous insult of my Kewg roots, I say to you, on behalf of my main broh @salemcoog and all of Cuog Nation, you are cordially invited to meat me and Salem at the 7-11 parking lot - the one on Aurora near the U district - to discuss this matter further.
You want to disagree, that's fine, but you're being a dumb-ass coog about it. Most Cuogs I know have great senses of humor and are fun to talk to. And then there's you in this thread.
- 58-game winning streak. Still the mark.
- The team didn't lose again until the Orange Bowl, where lost by a touchdown to the eventual national champs.
- 3 years following a disputed national championship with Washington.
Sorry. To not have that game even in your honorable mention means you have an agenda.
Kewg
-
Listen GOOG! He has coroborating evidence that proves he's right and you're wrong.salemcoog said:
Then by all means, be here to beat your chest over a conference win over Stanford at home.SyphilisButter said:
"Fuck, we beat them so bad their still-warm corpse got assraped by WSU the following week. Stanford still won 10+ games. They were a good team."salemcoog said:
Nope. Coug further exposed them by winning by 4 TDs down on the farm a weak later. Try again.Gladstone said:
You can minimize it all you want but 44-6 over Stanford, after years and years of being bullied by them, was in every definition a signature win. It leveled the program up, validated Petersen at UW, and funneled us to the P12 championship and a return to relevance. Fuck, we beat them so bad their still-warm corpse got assraped by WSU the following week. Stanford still won 10+ games. They were a good team.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Fuck do we ever need a signature game in the Petermen era.dnc said:
Really? I don't think it's even #1 for UW fans. I would say 91 Nebraska is more reminisced about.PostGameOrangeSlices said:This fucking game has to be the most reminisced about game in the history of CFB fanbases.
Maybe Oregon beating UW in '94
Quite honestly I'd say this one is in the second tier along with All @GrandpaSankey Saw Was Purple, the 92 RB and the Whammy in CreepyCuog. Maybe a tad above Boomer Sooner.
edit: maybe you meant to say another signature win?
I find it amusing a coog of all people posted that. Is there anything more coog than slandering their own team if it makes UW look worse? When cliches go on hyperdrive mode..
Sad.
Fuck if there isn't a bigger whining sandy vag on this bored than Gladstrong when someone shoves one of his stupid af points back up his ass.
Stanford. Jimminy Christmas. -
let's start a gofundme for a prostitute and get creepycougar laid. dude has more sexual frustration angst than a nun on acid
-
weak af sauce. now I get the problem; you're like 20 and most of these games were played when your Dads were still using Clearasil.SyphilisButter said:let's start a gofundme for a prostitute and get creepycougar laid. dude has more sexual frustration angst than a nun on acid
when you don't have anything, this is the shit to which you resort. Sad. Sad af.
fuck ass pretender. yeah, the Miami game was fun and all, but it's not in my honorable mention. Jesus, what a dumb fuck.
it's always fun to watch someone post something fs and then hang on for dear life defending it. like the other moron pulling your pubes trying to make a 2016 Stanford game a "program signature win". -
Well, at least we agree the Huskies football program doesn't define itself by beating the Cougs.creepycoug said:That's because you're stupid and impress easily. Even accounting for how much Washington likes to slurp on SC in general, that was a 3-loss team that couldn't beat mediocre-as-fuck Michigan State in the Sun Bowl. In the rear view mirror, while it was a fun game to attend, it didn't have near the historical significance for the program that the Miami win did.
- 58-game winning streak. Still the mark.
- The team didn't lose again until the Orange Bowl, where lost by a touchdown to the eventual national champs.
- 3 years following a disputed national championship with Washington.
Sorry. To not have that game even in your honorable mention means you have an agenda.
Kewg
-
Your* an idiot.oregonblitzkrieg said:Disappointed in you losers. Not really. I like to see the lowered husky standards becoming the norm. Nick Saban pulled his starting QB in the championship game. That was a big time, top 5 coach move. And everyone here is on Brownsocks train with Pete, acting like the second part of what I said, benching Brownsocks, would be a bad thing. Hilarious.
But it's cool. Your our? idiot! -
No. I suspect we? agree about very little, other than perhaps that you're an idiot.Squirt said:
Well, at least we agree the Huskies football program doesn't define itself by beating the Cougs.creepycoug said:That's because you're stupid and impress easily. Even accounting for how much Washington likes to slurp on SC in general, that was a 3-loss team that couldn't beat mediocre-as-fuck Michigan State in the Sun Bowl. In the rear view mirror, while it was a fun game to attend, it didn't have near the historical significance for the program that the Miami win did.
- 58-game winning streak. Still the mark.
- The team didn't lose again until the Orange Bowl, where lost by a touchdown to the eventual national champs.
- 3 years following a disputed national championship with Washington.
Sorry. To not have that game even in your honorable mention means you have an agenda.
Kewg
Kewg -
You're a purported WSU fan in an online Huskies community arguing with somebody whose handle is "Squirt" about his personal list of "Top 5 Signature Games" in Huskies football history.creepycoug said:No. I suspect we? agree about very little, other than perhaps that you're an idiot.
Kewg
You're calling this "Squirt" fellow "stupid" and accusing him of having "an agenda" because this "Squirt" guy didn't include the Huskies' win in 1994 over the Miami Hurricanes in his top seven.
Damon Huard, is that you? -
chuck said:
Pete is playing it safe. He wants the Washington jerb for life, and understands its better to stick it out with a proven but failed commodity rather than take the hard risk and start another QB. In other words, we're going to lose to Auburn and we're ok with that, as long as we lose well. Brownsocks will keep it as close as possible so that the loss looks good for us.oregonblitzkrieg said:Disappointed in you losers. Not really. I like to see the lowered husky standards becoming the norm. Nick Saban pulled his starting QB in the championship game. That was a big time, top 5 coach move. And everyone here is on Brownsocks train with Pete, acting like the second part of what I said, benching Brownsocks, would be a bad thing. Hilarious.
-
Hmm. You make some compelling points. Let me see if I can drive that boat too:Squirt said:
You're a purported WSU fan in an online Huskies community arguing with somebody whose handle is "Squirt" about his personal list of "Top 5 Signature Games" in Huskies football history.creepycoug said:No. I suspect we? agree about very little, other than perhaps that you're an idiot.
Kewg
You're calling this "Squirt" fellow "stupid" and accusing him of having "an agenda" because this "Squirt" guy didn't include the Huskies' win in 1994 over the Miami Hurricanes in his top seven.
Damon Huard, is that you?
I'm a purported WSU fan in an online Huskies community using the name "creepy"coug, I've told you I was at the 1990 SC game, I've spelled out "Kewg" like that, and I've otherwise hinted with sarcasm, more than a few times, that your kewg digs are really getting to me, arguing with somebody whose handle is "Squirt" about random shit like being the only fucking Husky I know who doesn't score the 1994 win over Miami as an all-time signature win in Husky history, in a forum and in a thread dedicated to arguing about random shit just. like. that.
You're calling this "creepycoug" fellow a "dumb-ass" and accusing him of lacking a "sense of humor" because this "creepycoug" guy had the audacity to point out that your list is fucking stupid.
Sandy Vag, is that you? Did you mistake this forum for a place of rational, grown-up discussion? You know, there is a sub-forum on here called the Tug Tavern. Check it out! Posters tell other posters to go die in fucking fires, make light of AIDs, cancer, starvation, racism, rape, murder, genocide and homosexuality, question the validity of other cultures and religions, and post gifs of tits, ass, people pissing, puking and taking a shit, and all manner of other morally questionable things. Actually, that happens in all the forums. So if you think this is a board for swooping in and acting like the resident adult with perspective, you can just go fuck off and hang yourself, because you are one stupid mother fucker anyway.
PS: if you had any such perspective, you'd have dropped this 5 posts ago, but you didn't. so, again, fuck off. -
Pressing badly. You know the QB situation as well as anyone here and are just being stupid so you can troll. There isn't a viable option to take a chance on.oregonblitzkrieg said:chuck said:
Pete is playing it safe. He wants the Washington jerb for life, and understands its better to stick it out with a proven but failed commodity rather than take the hard risk and start another QB. In other words, we're going to lose to Auburn and we're ok with that, as long as we lose well. Brownsocks will keep it as close as possible so that the loss looks good for us.oregonblitzkrieg said:Disappointed in you losers. Not really. I like to see the lowered husky standards becoming the norm. Nick Saban pulled his starting QB in the championship game. That was a big time, top 5 coach move. And everyone here is on Brownsocks train with Pete, acting like the second part of what I said, benching Brownsocks, would be a bad thing. Hilarious.
