Peterson's shrinking balls a growing concern?
Comments
-
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.
