Peterson's shrinking balls a growing concern?
That moment has yet to come. Into year five there have been no epic victories over a premier opponent. For four years now, the Huskies have been led by a noodle-armed sniveling QB to whose star Chris Fetters has now hitched his wagon.
The limp-wristed offensive game plan through two weeks is eroding hope that our new OC will be better than the idiot we suffered through the previous four years. Which goes to show, its Petersons offense. Just like how when Willingham changed defensive coordinators it made zero difference. That was Willingham's defense.
So if indeed Peterson left his balls in Boise, the question is why? What happened? Perhaps in Boise he felt like the constant underdog who had to take chances. But at UW, the resources are better and the stakes and expectations are higher, so he plays not to lose.
He's shown that he's aware of an issue on offense that is beyond his means to fix--- he wouldn't have brought in Tedford otherwise.
But even if he recognizes that benching the crybaby and bringing in Haener gives UW a higher ceiling, he won't do it. Pete's either too stubborn or too near sighted.
Don James was criticized several times for sticking with his QBs too long. But I guarantee that he would have zero patience with Browning's boneheaded turnovers and sideline pouting.
This season has 8-4 written all over it. Commentators like Yogi Roth will fawn over Jake into mid December, citing his assault on the UW record books.
But as much as they want to talk about Browning's legacy, there really is none to any discerning fan who has been paying attention.
Fuck.
Comments
-
Ride the snake, ride the snake
To the lake, the ancient lake, baby
The snake, he's long, seven miles
Ride the snake
-
I never boo the kids.
-
At this point the only explanation is that Browning is blackmailing him and he knows the kid is incapable of anything cerebral.
I think the correct strategy is running more plays like this until the situation resolves itself naturally:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK4Ljtvy2hc -
Time to take jake back in the yard and shoot his qb career, not a call for death
-
Worse than Petereman being is a pussy is the entire fanbase infested by pussies who claim anyone wanting browning to get benched "isn't a REAL fan" or "doesn't know FOOSBALL" because two years ago browning tore up some west-tissue-paper defenses with two of the greatest wide receivers to every play at UW. But even that year he entirely shit the bed against USC, Bama, and even Colorado. This fan base is totally blind and has zero standards. The slightest questioning of Petersen leads to "well just be glad we don't have willingham anymore". Just fucking sad and pathetic. I fucking despise a good 75 percent of this fanbase.
-
if Petersen had any balls he would bench Browning and see how Haener does in a game. Let's be honest, Jake has looked like a steaming pile of shit for quite a few games now. I don't give a fuck about experience if you can't hit an open man and make brain dead decisions in games. A large portion of his passing yards came from his wideouts making great catches on shitty throws. He just isn't any good and he does not deserve to be the starter. 2016 is long gone.
-
*Petersen's
Leach would pull his Senior QB and put in a freshman. I'm hearing he's available. -
What if Petersen came to Washington specifically because he doesn't have balls and knew this was a D 1 payday where no one actually gives a shit about winning big?
Chew on that -
For a more positive spin he cares more about "building for life" young men than winning football games. Which is fucking gay. But it explains why he picked UW and keeps playing unathletic white kids.RaceBannon said:What if Petersen came to Washington specifically because he doesn't have balls and knew this was a D 1 payday where no one actually gives a shit about winning big?
Chew on that -
I love this bored after a scrimmage loss!
-
I actually feel like the HH part of the fanbase has gotten into Jake's head at this point. He knows he's not going to the NFL, he know's he's got physical limitations, and he believes he can't win at the next level. The self-doubt has eliminated the only advantage that he did have as a qb, which was mental(film study and decision making). The lack of confidence is showing up against even shit opponents at this point and infesting the rest of the team. I actually would rather have the tone-deaf, self-aggrandizing, and egotistic Jake back over the self aware, sniveling, pouting, knows he's not good enough to get it done, limp dick, self hating Jake bc at least the former was willing to let it rip! and had some balls.
Cook it. Jake will be posting on HH this time next year about how Haener can't get it done and how we should have gone with Skinny or one of the redshirt freshmen.
-
He's totally internalized his critics, is now living up to the worst of it bc of that, and is causing the rest of the team to internalize that they can't win bc of Jake. The resentment and isolation are real enough we are all picking up on it even through the weight of Petermen's culture. No excuses, Jake is "good enough", even with his limitations, that with the talent around him and how good this defense should be that this team should curb stomp the rest of the Pac12. We need the defense to assume that leadership of "winners win" if they are going to get it done. We need some kind of offense that reduces Jake's roll, de-leverages his importance to the overall game plan, and allows him to at least build some confidence back in what he IS capable of doing which is game managing on the big stage and front running the little guys. Don't think Jake can get it done on a game winning drive in the 4th quarter? Cool, neither do I. Don't rely on him to do that then.
TLDR IDGAF about Jake as a scapegoat. Winners win. -
You're correct in the sense that he could go 10-2, 8-4, 9- 3 in perpetuity and Doogs would be totally content. That said, the massive leveling up in recruiting I think is all the proof we need that Pete is committed to winning titles here. All head coaches - even the greats - are stubborn fucks. Deeper rosters are the insurance policy against bad decisions.RaceBannon said:What if Petersen came to Washington specifically because he doesn't have balls and knew this was a D 1 payday where no one actually gives a shit about winning big?
Chew on that -
I’ve been thinking exactly this. He’s regressed mentally and that’s the most obvious explanation why.UW_Doog_Bot said:I actually feel like the HH part of the fanbase has gotten into Jake's head at this point. He knows he's not going to the NFL, he know's he's got physical limitations, and he believes he can't win at the next level. The self-doubt has eliminated the only advantage that he did have as a qb, which was mental(film study and decision making). The lack of confidence is showing up against even shit opponents at this point and infesting the rest of the team. I actually would rather have the tone-deaf, self-aggrandizing, and egotistic Jake back over the self aware, sniveling, pouting, knows he's not good enough to get it done, limp dick, self hating Jake bc at least the former was willing to let it rip! and had some balls.
Cook it. Jake will be posting on HH this time next year about how Haener can't get it done and how we should have gone with Skinny or one of the redshirt freshmen.
2016 Browning isn’t walking through that door. -
He wouldn't have "fired" his long term buddies had he not been committed to winning at least in the long term. I think we've all seen enough evidence to know he's not capable of killing his only son to win in the short term though.YellowSnow said:
You're correct in the sense that he could go 10-2, 8-4, 9- 3 in perpetuity and Doogs would be totally content. That said, the massive leveling up in recruiting I think is all the proof we need that Pete is committed to winning titles here. All head coaches - even the greats - are stubborn fucks. Deeper rosters are the insurance policy against bad decisions.RaceBannon said:What if Petersen came to Washington specifically because he doesn't have balls and knew this was a D 1 payday where no one actually gives a shit about winning big?
Chew on that
-
It always feel great to realize we're just like Cal again..
-
Sometimes in football it's better to be lucky than good. The glorious 2016 campaign was almost over before it started, but Jake got lucky and tore up the script in OT to beat Arizona. What if the ball bounces our way one more time against Auburn and we convert one of those red zone opportunities into 7 more pts? Would Jake somehow be a better QB because he got lucky and we won? Would the program somehow be a better place because we finally got the marque non-con win?
-
We have a chance at a truly special season. No. Yes.YellowSnow said:Sometimes in football it's better to be lucky than good. The glorious 2016 campaign was almost over before it started, but Jake got lucky and tore up the script in OT to beat Arizona. What if the ball bounces our way one more time against Auburn and we convert one of those red zone opportunities into 7 more pts? Would Jake somehow be a better QB because he got lucky and we won? Would the program somehow be a better place because we finally got the marque non-con win?
Edited: I do actually think Jake might be a better QB with that win. It might have gotten that monkey of "not good enough to win it big" off of his back. Now it's ingrained. -
Yes, we did have a chance to do something truly speshial. It was a coin flip game that didn't work out. So be it.UW_Doog_Bot said:
We have a chance at a truly special season. No. Yes.YellowSnow said:Sometimes in football it's better to be lucky than good. The glorious 2016 campaign was almost over before it started, but Jake got lucky and tore up the script in OT to beat Arizona. What if the ball bounces our way one more time against Auburn and we convert one of those red zone opportunities into 7 more pts? Would Jake somehow be a better QB because he got lucky and we won? Would the program somehow be a better place because we finally got the marque non-con win?
Edited: I do actually think Jake might be a better QB with that win. It might have gotten that monkey of "not good enough to win it big" off of his back. Now it's ingrained.
Speaking of risk taking: scheduling games like this is the very definition of taking risks for the bigger reward. -
He didn't want the Oregon job because there would be expectations.RaceBannon said:What if Petersen came to Washington specifically because he doesn't have balls and knew this was a D 1 payday where no one actually gives a shit about winning big?
Chew on that
That's an interesting poont. -
So Cristoball should be gone after going for less than 10 wins this year with a soft as charmin schedule then right?Mosster47 said:
He didn't want the Oregon job because there would be expectations.RaceBannon said:What if Petersen came to Washington specifically because he doesn't have balls and knew this was a D 1 payday where no one actually gives a shit about winning big?
Chew on that
That's an interesting poont. -
Built for life philosophy, upper campus wet dream for block head football players.RaceBannon said:What if Petersen came to Washington specifically because he doesn't have balls and knew this was a D 1 payday where no one actually gives a shit about winning big?
Chew on that
An outstanding D 1 payday at that.
Browning will force Pete's hand to play Haener at some point versus Utah. We know the receivers want it. COOK IT. -
The why it didn't work out is important though. It's not because we had some flukey football shit happen or something with a high level of variance. It's because Jake performed in a manner that consistently sabotaged the success of the rest of the team.YellowSnow said:
Yes, we did have a chance to do something truly speshial. It was a coin flip game that didn't work out. So be it.UW_Doog_Bot said:
We have a chance at a truly special season. No. Yes.YellowSnow said:Sometimes in football it's better to be lucky than good. The glorious 2016 campaign was almost over before it started, but Jake got lucky and tore up the script in OT to beat Arizona. What if the ball bounces our way one more time against Auburn and we convert one of those red zone opportunities into 7 more pts? Would Jake somehow be a better QB because he got lucky and we won? Would the program somehow be a better place because we finally got the marque non-con win?
Edited: I do actually think Jake might be a better QB with that win. It might have gotten that monkey of "not good enough to win it big" off of his back. Now it's ingrained.
Speaking of risk taking: scheduling games like this is the very definition of taking risks for the bigger reward.
I can accept a loss to a good team on some statistical randomness. It's a lot tougher to accept a game we should have won by all of the football play except at one position.
ex. the random bounce of an out of character fumble vs. the super in character throwing a pick straight to the defense -
How do we know this?jecornel said:
Built for life philosophy, upper campus wet dream for block head football players.RaceBannon said:What if Petersen came to Washington specifically because he doesn't have balls and knew this was a D 1 payday where no one actually gives a shit about winning big?
Chew on that
An outstanding D 1 payday at that.
Browning will force Pete's hand to play Haener at some point versus Utah. We know the receivers want it. COOK IT. -
Look, UWDB, I don't disagree with any of your poonts here. The oft stated cliché around (shout out to @Dennis_DeYoung ) is that Pete is doing about 95% really well here and 5% FS. The shitty QB play from a 4 year starter is in the 5% and it's fair game to criticize Pete on this. I suppose I've just reached the point of bashing Browning fatigue and would rather just change the subject when it comes up. I still think a Pac title is well within reach weather Jake or Jake starts and I'd rather focus on the 95% that makes me happy.UW_Doog_Bot said:
The why it didn't work out is important though. It's not because we had some flukey football shit happen or something with a high level of variance. It's because Jake performed in a manner that consistently sabotaged the success of the rest of the team.YellowSnow said:
Yes, we did have a chance to do something truly speshial. It was a coin flip game that didn't work out. So be it.UW_Doog_Bot said:
We have a chance at a truly special season. No. Yes.YellowSnow said:Sometimes in football it's better to be lucky than good. The glorious 2016 campaign was almost over before it started, but Jake got lucky and tore up the script in OT to beat Arizona. What if the ball bounces our way one more time against Auburn and we convert one of those red zone opportunities into 7 more pts? Would Jake somehow be a better QB because he got lucky and we won? Would the program somehow be a better place because we finally got the marque non-con win?
Edited: I do actually think Jake might be a better QB with that win. It might have gotten that monkey of "not good enough to win it big" off of his back. Now it's ingrained.
Speaking of risk taking: scheduling games like this is the very definition of taking risks for the bigger reward.
I can accept a loss to a good team on some statistical randomness. It's a lot tougher to accept a game we should have won by all of the football play except at one position.
ex. the random bounce of an out of character fumble vs. the super in character throwing a pick straight to the defense -
Everyone likes to talk about how shit Browning has been, and its correct, but there really is a disturbing trend in not developing the QB or calling a mildly respectable offense that caters to the talents of the QB they have picked to go with.
1) The only time the offense has been moderately good was with two legitimate NFL WRs, gaskins+Coleman, and Tedford telling everyone to fuck off.
2) UW has had plenty of decent bodies and time to recruit and then DEVELOP a decent QB, seriously not one fucking QB has gotten better during their time in the program, all either regress, show up to campus worse than Taylor Bean, or LEAVE.
2014 QBs - Cyler Miles, Troy Williams, Jeff Lindquist all somehow sucked and Pete chose to go with Cyler Miles.
2015 QBs - Jake Browning and KJ Magna Carta, both sucked and Pete chose Jake
2016 QBs - Jake browning and everyone else forgotten and Pete rides or dies with the cobra, Tedford makes the offense look passable at least.
2017 & 2018 TSIFO
3) The offensive play calling has always been fucking full retard.
-
You have to have 2001 Miami talent to overcome your own version of Ken Dorsey.
-
Like I said, I'm tired of Jake being the scapegoat too. Winners win. This team SHOULD win the Pac12 regardless of Jake. No excuses.YellowSnow said:
Look, UWDB, I don't disagree with any of your poonts here. The oft stated cliché around (shout out to @Dennis_DeYoung ) is that Pete is doing about 95% really well here and 5% FS. The shitty QB play from a 4 year starter is in the 5% and it's fair game to criticize Pete on this. I suppose I've just reached the point of bashing Browning fatigue and would rather just change the subject when it comes up. I still think a Pac title is well within reach weather Jake or Jake starts and I'd rather focus on the 95% that makes me happy.UW_Doog_Bot said:
The why it didn't work out is important though. It's not because we had some flukey football shit happen or something with a high level of variance. It's because Jake performed in a manner that consistently sabotaged the success of the rest of the team.YellowSnow said:
Yes, we did have a chance to do something truly speshial. It was a coin flip game that didn't work out. So be it.UW_Doog_Bot said:
We have a chance at a truly special season. No. Yes.YellowSnow said:Sometimes in football it's better to be lucky than good. The glorious 2016 campaign was almost over before it started, but Jake got lucky and tore up the script in OT to beat Arizona. What if the ball bounces our way one more time against Auburn and we convert one of those red zone opportunities into 7 more pts? Would Jake somehow be a better QB because he got lucky and we won? Would the program somehow be a better place because we finally got the marque non-con win?
Edited: I do actually think Jake might be a better QB with that win. It might have gotten that monkey of "not good enough to win it big" off of his back. Now it's ingrained.
Speaking of risk taking: scheduling games like this is the very definition of taking risks for the bigger reward.
I can accept a loss to a good team on some statistical randomness. It's a lot tougher to accept a game we should have won by all of the football play except at one position.
ex. the random bounce of an out of character fumble vs. the super in character throwing a pick straight to the defense
Jakes bad but he's not some next level of bad that torpedoes the rest of the talent on the team. If he is that bad and you are allowing him to torpedo the whole team then that's not on Jake that's on the coaches.
That means you are higher than 5% FS. That means I really do start to wonder if Petermen can win a Natty here which in turn leads to the question, are you willing to have a "good" coach that can win against inferior talent but can't win it big at UW? If I told you we can win the Pac12 1/3 years and occasionally a NY6 but nothing more is that good enough?
Don't twist, I'm not there yet but if Jake/coaching fucks our season again and we lose the North I'm going to be wondering at these things.
-
Front page material, IMO.
-
Oregon's last three head coaching hires prove that Oregon has no expectations.Mosster47 said:
He didn't want the Oregon job because there would be expectations.RaceBannon said:What if Petersen came to Washington specifically because he doesn't have balls and knew this was a D 1 payday where no one actually gives a shit about winning big?
Chew on that
That's an interesting poont.
