Honestly I think it's the defense this season that has a better chance of letting us down than Jake and the offense. lack of pass rush and ZERO play making ability in the front 7 is very concerning. No picks by our DBs in two games doesn't look good either.
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 He didn't want the Oregon job because there would be expectations. 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?
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 He didn't want the Oregon job because there would be expectations. That's an interesting poont.
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
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.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. Speaking of risk taking: scheduling games like this is the very definition of taking risks for the bigger reward. 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.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 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. 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.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. The minimum bar to judge Pete on is DJ- i.e., win the Pac once every three years, and always be playing football games that matter in November. DJ took 9 17 years to win his NT. Dabo took 8.5. Where in year 5 of Pete. It's way to early to start making judgments as to whether or not he can win a NT or let along match DJ's level of success. Hey, I still think Pete is on the right track long term but to quote an economist, "We're all dead in the long term." We all know the on the field success is lagging all the other metrics like recruiting right now but how many other fan bases do we make fun of for that same trope? 2019 2020 2021 [Fill in the blank] could be special. At what point do we have to have a special season and not just the future hope of one?Nut up and win the PAC12 and a rosebowl this year. It's tim. Wrong, wrong, wrong. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-college-football-teams-do-the-most-with-the-least-talent-and-vice-versa/ That's only for 2015-2016...which no one denied we were outperforming ourselves in 2016.Got a fupdate to include last year?
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.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. Speaking of risk taking: scheduling games like this is the very definition of taking risks for the bigger reward. 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.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 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. 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.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. The minimum bar to judge Pete on is DJ- i.e., win the Pac once every three years, and always be playing football games that matter in November. DJ took 9 17 years to win his NT. Dabo took 8.5. Where in year 5 of Pete. It's way to early to start making judgments as to whether or not he can win a NT or let along match DJ's level of success. Hey, I still think Pete is on the right track long term but to quote an economist, "We're all dead in the long term." We all know the on the field success is lagging all the other metrics like recruiting right now but how many other fan bases do we make fun of for that same trope? 2019 2020 2021 [Fill in the blank] could be special. At what point do we have to have a special season and not just the future hope of one?Nut up and win the PAC12 and a rosebowl this year. It's tim. Wrong, wrong, wrong. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-college-football-teams-do-the-most-with-the-least-talent-and-vice-versa/
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.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. Speaking of risk taking: scheduling games like this is the very definition of taking risks for the bigger reward. 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.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 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. 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.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. The minimum bar to judge Pete on is DJ- i.e., win the Pac once every three years, and always be playing football games that matter in November. DJ took 9 17 years to win his NT. Dabo took 8.5. Where in year 5 of Pete. It's way to early to start making judgments as to whether or not he can win a NT or let along match DJ's level of success. Hey, I still think Pete is on the right track long term but to quote an economist, "We're all dead in the long term." We all know the on the field success is lagging all the other metrics like recruiting right now but how many other fan bases do we make fun of for that same trope? 2019 2020 2021 [Fill in the blank] could be special. At what point do we have to have a special season and not just the future hope of one?Nut up and win the PAC12 and a rosebowl this year. It's tim.
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.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. Speaking of risk taking: scheduling games like this is the very definition of taking risks for the bigger reward. 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.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 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. 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.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. The minimum bar to judge Pete on is DJ- i.e., win the Pac once every three years, and always be playing football games that matter in November. DJ took 9 17 years to win his NT. Dabo took 8.5. Where in year 5 of Pete. It's way to early to start making judgments as to whether or not he can win a NT or let along match DJ's level of success.
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.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. Speaking of risk taking: scheduling games like this is the very definition of taking risks for the bigger reward. 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.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 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. 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.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.
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.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. Speaking of risk taking: scheduling games like this is the very definition of taking risks for the bigger reward. 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.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 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.
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.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. Speaking of risk taking: scheduling games like this is the very definition of taking risks for the bigger reward. 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.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
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.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. Speaking of risk taking: scheduling games like this is the very definition of taking risks for the bigger reward.
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.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.
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?
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 He didn't want the Oregon job because there would be expectations. 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? Not what I was saying at all and Oregon was a different program in 2012 than it was in 2017. Slingblade shit all over the mattress.What I am saying is Oregon was coming off of three conference titles in four years, NC game, multi BCS games, and had a sure fire playoff roster when Petersen was offered the job and said no because he didn't want to have to live up to the expectations. Then a few years later he takes over a UW program that hasn't won in ages and the fan base had mostly lost interest. If Cristobal isn't pushing for the playoffs in November of his fifth year the fan base is going to be fucking livid. UW's fan base isn't going to really care because there has only been one good season in the last 20.Race has a point. Peterman turned down the Ferrari for a Toyota Camry.
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.
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. CONFIRMEDhttps://twitter.com/jdub2379/status/1039225252427980800?s=21
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 He didn't want the Oregon job because there would be expectations. 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? Not what I was saying at all and Oregon was a different program in 2012 than it was in 2017. Slingblade shit all over the mattress.What I am saying is Oregon was coming off of three conference titles in four years, NC game, multi BCS games, and had a sure fire playoff roster when Petersen was offered the job and said no because he didn't want to have to live up to the expectations. Then a few years later he takes over a UW program that hasn't won in ages and the fan base had mostly lost interest. If Cristobal isn't pushing for the playoffs in November of his fifth year the fan base is going to be fucking livid. UW's fan base isn't going to really care because there has only been one good season in the last 20.Race has a point. Peterman turned down the Ferrari for a Toyota Camry. Pete made the playoffs his third year. Giving Cristobal 5 hardly shows tuffer expectations Oregon is a piece of shit not a Ferrari. Hope this helps
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 He didn't want the Oregon job because there would be expectations. 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? Not what I was saying at all and Oregon was a different program in 2012 than it was in 2017. Slingblade shit all over the mattress.What I am saying is Oregon was coming off of three conference titles in four years, NC game, multi BCS games, and had a sure fire playoff roster when Petersen was offered the job and said no because he didn't want to have to live up to the expectations. Then a few years later he takes over a UW program that hasn't won in ages and the fan base had mostly lost interest. If Cristobal isn't pushing for the playoffs in November of his fifth year the fan base is going to be fucking livid. UW's fan base isn't going to really care because there has only been one good season in the last 20.Race has a point. Peterman turned down the Ferrari for a Toyota Camry. Pete made the playoffs his third year. Giving Cristobal 5 hardly shows tuffer expectations Oregon is a piece of shit not a Ferrari. Hope this helps Cute, but you know that isn't true. If you lose in Eugene this year you've already lost the war again.
After the SJSU scrimmage, 70regon is going to drop four in a row and will then have to travel down to Tuscon to play a "must game win" with "bowl prospects on the line".
Agree Petersen should be fired for that explanation Dumb it down and get a player in there
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 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. 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.
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 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.
