Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options

Petersen's Presser

1246

Comments

  • Options
    FremontTrollFremontTroll Member Posts: 4,717
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes First Comment

    Let me put it this way - the 84 defense won a game when the offense had 3 first downs

    That's a great defense.

    We don't have one. We have a scheme

    Intellectual football on both sides of the ball makes for a soft fucking losing shit team

    Do you think the game may have changed since 1984?
    Do you have a point?
    DNC got it. Pretty sure you did too but you like to pretend to be dense when it suits you.

    College football underwent many massive sea changes over the decades. The game is completely different than it was 15 years ago let alone 34. You can't compare statistics across eras instead you should compare to peers- 2018 teams and recent UW teams.

    Ultimately, despite being saddled by an offense that can't stay on the field and despite not having much fumble luck (causing fumbles is a skill. recovering is luck) this defense will end up very close to the lauded 2016 and 2017 units.

    2016 allowed 4.5 yards per play. 2017 4.4 ypp. 2018 4.5 thus far ties for 10th in the nation.

    It might not be an all time great D as it obviously lacks an edge rusher but its very good- good enough to compete for a national championship. And would look better with a functional offense.
  • Options
    jecorneljecornel Member Posts: 9,611
    5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes First Anniversary First Comment
    Standard Supporter

    Tequilla said:

    Race is spot on here

    The defense does a lot right ...

    But for as much as people shit on Browning for his issues (and fairly so), the defense has shit the bed in key spots more than many would care to admit

    @Tequilla is one of the smartest posters here
    Race a tequila fluffer?? I call bullshit.. haha. You may have a read a sentence or two of his novella's. You made tequila's year though! Your validation will have him beaming through Christmas. His co-workers will notice his strut in the office with his chin held high!
  • Options
    jecorneljecornel Member Posts: 9,611
    5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes First Anniversary First Comment
    Standard Supporter

    Let me put it this way - the 84 defense won a game when the offense had 3 first downs

    That's a great defense.

    We don't have one. We have a scheme

    Intellectual football on both sides of the ball makes for a soft fucking losing shit team

    Do you think the game may have changed since 1984?
    Do you have a point?
    DNC got it. Pretty sure you did too but you like to pretend to be dense when it suits you.

    College football underwent many massive sea changes over the decades. The game is completely different than it was 15 years ago let alone 34. You can't compare statistics across eras instead you should compare to peers- 2018 teams and recent UW teams.

    Ultimately, despite being saddled by an offense that can't stay on the field and despite not having much fumble luck (causing fumbles is a skill. recovering is luck) this defense will end up very close to the lauded 2016 and 2017 units.

    2016 allowed 4.5 yards per play. 2017 4.4 ypp. 2018 4.5 thus far ties for 10th in the nation.

    It might not be an all time great D as it obviously lacks an edge rusher but its very good- good enough to compete for a national championship. And would look better with a functional offense.
    This type of reasoning and facts is not welcomed at HH. It's too logical!!!
  • Options
    Homebrew_DawgHomebrew_Dawg Member Posts: 1,648
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes Name Dropper

    Let me put it this way - the 84 defense won a game when the offense had 3 first downs

    That's a great defense.

    We don't have one. We have a scheme

    Intellectual football on both sides of the ball makes for a soft fucking losing shit team

    Do you think the game may have changed since 1984?
    Do you have a point?
    DNC got it. Pretty sure you did too but you like to pretend to be dense when it suits you.

    College football underwent many massive sea changes over the decades. The game is completely different than it was 15 years ago let alone 34. You can't compare statistics across eras instead you should compare to peers- 2018 teams and recent UW teams.

    Ultimately, despite being saddled by an offense that can't stay on the field and despite not having much fumble luck (causing fumbles is a skill. recovering is luck) this defense will end up very close to the lauded 2016 and 2017 units.

    2016 allowed 4.5 yards per play. 2017 4.4 ypp. 2018 4.5 thus far ties for 10th in the nation.

    It might not be an all time great D as it obviously lacks an edge rusher but its very good- good enough to compete for a national championship. And would look better with a functional offense.
    Is yards per game the proper “stat for losers” to compare these defenses? How do total yards, scoring, and 3rd down conversions compare?

    The 2018 defense seems to bend more and is on the field more than the two prior years squads, but this may be because the offense isn’t. With the offense scoring as many Husky TDs for themselves as for the opponent last game, it may be cerebral to keep the defense on the field.

    I agree the defense is not the problem, but Pete’s neutering seems to have affected the defense too.

  • Options
    RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 101,717
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    Stats remain for losers. Hasn't changed

  • Options
    jecorneljecornel Member Posts: 9,611
    5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes First Anniversary First Comment
    Standard Supporter

    Stats remain for losers. Hasn't changed

    Pete agrees with you.
  • Options
    dirtysouwfdawgdirtysouwfdawg Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 11,993
    5 Awesomes First Comment 5 Up Votes First Anniversary
    Swaye's Wigwam
    salemcoog said:

    Let me put it this way - the 84 defense won a game when the offense had 3 first downs

    That's a great defense.

    We don't have one. We have a scheme

    Intellectual football on both sides of the ball makes for a soft fucking losing shit team

    Do you think the game may have changed since 1984?
    Do you have a point?
    DNC got it. Pretty sure you did too but you like to pretend to be dense when it suits you.

    College football underwent many massive sea changes over the decades. The game is completely different than it was 15 years ago let alone 34. You can't compare statistics across eras instead you should compare to peers- 2018 teams and recent UW teams.

    Ultimately, despite being saddled by an offense that can't stay on the field and despite not having much fumble luck (causing fumbles is a skill. recovering is luck) this defense will end up very close to the lauded 2016 and 2017 units.

    2016 allowed 4.5 yards per play. 2017 4.4 ypp. 2018 4.5 thus far ties for 10th in the nation.

    It might not be an all time great D as it obviously lacks an edge rusher but its very good- good enough to compete for a national championship. And would look better with a functional offense.
    What’s a DNC?!!
    It’s a venereal disease that can’t be cured with a VD shot.
  • Options
    whuggywhuggy Member Posts: 2,088
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes First Comment
    I'll try one more time then I give up. With THIS anemic offense you need a defense that can HELP OUT the offense as much as possible. Bend and break scheme that lets the other team drive down the field and create long fields for the offense is the worst possible scheme to complement THIS offense. The scheme should be much more oriented to trying to create short fields for THIS offense. It is a good defense. They are the strength of the team. The passive scheme though is not a good fit
    in trying to maximize opportunity for this abortion of an offense. I can't figure out any other way to say it. The whole point is for the stronger part of the team to do it's best to make things easier for the weaker parts of the team. Just like it was Petersen's job to make that kick easier for Henry. Or you can just believe in the tooth fairy and think Hamdan and Browning and Petersen are going to magically figure things out in the next 4 or 5 games.
  • Options
    KaepskneeKaepsknee Member Posts: 14,751
    5 Up Votes First Anniversary 5 Awesomes First Comment
    whuggy said:

    I'll try one more time then I give up. With THIS anemic offense you need a defense that can HELP OUT the offense as much as possible. Bend and break scheme that lets the other team drive down the field and create long fields for the offense is the worst possible scheme to complement THIS offense. The scheme should be much more oriented to trying to create short fields for THIS offense. It is a good defense. They are the strength of the team. The passive scheme though is not a good fit
    in trying to maximize opportunity for this abortion of an offense. I can't figure out any other way to say it. The whole point is for the stronger part of the team to do it's best to make things easier for the weaker parts of the team. Just like it was Petersen's job to make that kick easier for Henry. Or you can just believe in the tooth fairy and think Hamdan and Browning and Petersen are going to magically figure things out in the next 4 or 5 games.


    Yikes!! It’s sad that a lowly sodbuster has to spell this out. But Myles Gaskin is, has and will be the MVP of this Squad. Without him on the field, you’re fucked. Your D gave up 6 pts. You held the other “hot squad” in the Conference to 7 pts. They’ve had one bad game at Oregon. Probably the last one they will have all year.
  • Options
    Neighbor2972Neighbor2972 Member Posts: 4,298
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes First Comment 5 Awesomes
    whuggy said:

    I'll try one more time then I give up. With THIS anemic offense you need a defense that can HELP OUT the offense as much as possible. Bend and break scheme that lets the other team drive down the field and create long fields for the offense is the worst possible scheme to complement THIS offense. The scheme should be much more oriented to trying to create short fields for THIS offense. It is a good defense. They are the strength of the team. The passive scheme though is not a good fit
    in trying to maximize opportunity for this abortion of an offense. I can't figure out any other way to say it. The whole point is for the stronger part of the team to do it's best to make things easier for the weaker parts of the team. Just like it was Petersen's job to make that kick easier for Henry. Or you can just believe in the tooth fairy and think Hamdan and Browning and Petersen are going to magically figure things out in the next 4 or 5 games.

    While it seems like we have been 'bend but don't break', the lack of turnovers is just awful luck, we should be forcing way more

    shoutout @AIRWOLF


  • Options
    FremontTrollFremontTroll Member Posts: 4,717
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes First Comment

    Let me put it this way - the 84 defense won a game when the offense had 3 first downs

    That's a great defense.

    We don't have one. We have a scheme

    Intellectual football on both sides of the ball makes for a soft fucking losing shit team

    Do you think the game may have changed since 1984?
    Do you have a point?
    DNC got it. Pretty sure you did too but you like to pretend to be dense when it suits you.

    College football underwent many massive sea changes over the decades. The game is completely different than it was 15 years ago let alone 34. You can't compare statistics across eras instead you should compare to peers- 2018 teams and recent UW teams.

    Ultimately, despite being saddled by an offense that can't stay on the field and despite not having much fumble luck (causing fumbles is a skill. recovering is luck) this defense will end up very close to the lauded 2016 and 2017 units.

    2016 allowed 4.5 yards per play. 2017 4.4 ypp. 2018 4.5 thus far ties for 10th in the nation.

    It might not be an all time great D as it obviously lacks an edge rusher but its very good- good enough to compete for a national championship. And would look better with a functional offense.
    Is yards per game the proper “stat for losers” to compare these defenses? How do total yards, scoring, and 3rd down conversions compare?

    The 2018 defense seems to bend more and is on the field more than the two prior years squads, but this may be because the offense isn’t. With the offense scoring as many Husky TDs for themselves as for the opponent last game, it may be cerebral to keep the defense on the field.

    I agree the defense is not the problem, but Pete’s neutering seems to have affected the defense too.

    Yes, yards per play is the most predictive simple statistic. Total yard or points are not great because games are not of equal length and neither are fields.

    But 2018 we are allowing 16.8 points per game. 2017 also 16.8. 2016 18.8.
  • Options
    AIRWOLFAIRWOLF Member Posts: 1,840
    5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Anniversary First Comment
    edited October 2018
    Anybody calling out the defense as the problem is an idiot. FULL STOP

    Could it be better? Sure. Everything could always be better. It would be great to create more turnovers when there is the opportunity, to create more pressure, and to get home rushing the QB when there is pressure. But this is a very good defense, even while rotating multiple walk-ons in the front seven.

    The #1 problem is the offense. Specifically its inability to convert scoring chances into points. Followed by a relative lack of big plays.

    The #2 problem is special teams.

    The defense falls in behind those.
  • Options
    AIRWOLFAIRWOLF Member Posts: 1,840
    5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Anniversary First Comment

    whuggy said:

    I'll try one more time then I give up. With THIS anemic offense you need a defense that can HELP OUT the offense as much as possible. Bend and break scheme that lets the other team drive down the field and create long fields for the offense is the worst possible scheme to complement THIS offense. The scheme should be much more oriented to trying to create short fields for THIS offense. It is a good defense. They are the strength of the team. The passive scheme though is not a good fit
    in trying to maximize opportunity for this abortion of an offense. I can't figure out any other way to say it. The whole point is for the stronger part of the team to do it's best to make things easier for the weaker parts of the team. Just like it was Petersen's job to make that kick easier for Henry. Or you can just believe in the tooth fairy and think Hamdan and Browning and Petersen are going to magically figure things out in the next 4 or 5 games.

    While it seems like we have been 'bend but don't break', the lack of turnovers is just awful luck, we should be forcing way more

    shoutout @AIRWOLF


    While Bill Connelly terms it turnover "luck" and there is an element of randomness, I am persuaded that it isn't ALL random. Playmakers thrive on confidence and the defense doesn't have enough of either.
  • Options
    BasemanBaseman Member Posts: 12,365
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes Combo Breaker
    Pete is not the GUY.

    The guy replaces his QB when his QB wilts, time and again, under pressure. The guy gives his backup more reps in meaningless non-conference games so the backup can handle a close game late in the second half. The guy doesn’t let his petulant QB hold the program hostage and develops a contingency plan in case his starting QB isn’t getting it done.

    The guy replaces his LB coach who has proven he can’t recruit championship level players or handle special teams with a coach who can.

    The guy doesn’t keep telling everyone, including his team how “hard” it is to win. The guy sleeps in his office, figuring how to make it hard for other teams to win, then executes.

    The guy doesn’t fuck the fan base that buy the tickets and make the donations to pay his salary, highest in the PAC-12, by allowing the above to continue.

    Chris Petersen is NOT the GUY.
  • Options
    TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,815
    First Anniversary 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes 5 Fuck Offs
    The problem is that there isn’t another QB on the roster capable of taking over from Jake ... that’s a different issue

    I’m pretty sure Pete would move on from Jake if he had an option
  • Options
    HillsboroDuckHillsboroDuck Member Posts: 9,186
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes Combo Breaker
    Baseman said:

    Pete is not the GUY.

    The guy replaces his QB when his QB wilts, time and again, under pressure. The guy gives his backup more reps in meaningless non-conference games so the backup can handle a close game late in the second half. The guy doesn’t let his petulant QB hold the program hostage and develops a contingency plan in case his starting QB isn’t getting it done.

    The guy replaces his LB coach who has proven he can’t recruit championship level players or handle special teams with a coach who can.

    The guy doesn’t keep telling everyone, including his team how “hard” it is to win. The guy sleeps in his office, figuring how to make it hard for other teams to win, then executes.

    The guy doesn’t fuck the fan base that buy the tickets and make the donations to pay his salary, highest in the PAC-12, by allowing the above to continue.

    Chris Petersen is NOT the GUY.

    This is so dumb
  • Options
    RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 101,717
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    From pre season overwhelming favorite to 6 and 3 playing out the string with no fire or care

    Great job by everyone. Look at our stats!!!!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.