AP ranking - Preseason - Pac 12 teams

[Coug1990]

We all know by now that the AP Preseason rankings are out. The Pac 12 teams are as follows:

11. Oregon
13. Washington
14. Utah
23. WSU
25. Stanford

For each team, let's play "Goldilocks and the Three Bears". Are they ranked "Too High", "Too Low", or "Just Right".

11. Oregon - Too High
13. Washington - Too High
14. Utah - Too Low
23. WSU - Too Low
25. Stanford - Too Low

What do you all think?

 

[wazzubruce]

OR. Too high
WA. Too high
UT Too high
WSU just right
Furd just right

 

[ATACFD]

O'Clucks-Too High. Pollsters must be smoking some of that Eugene skunk.
Fuskies-Way too High. Although to be honest, I can't be objective here. If they were ranked 100th I'd still say it's too high .
Utah-About Right. Get an Offense, then we'll talk.
WSU-Too Low, even without my crimson glasses. QB situation bothers the pollsters but not me. 10 wins at least.
Trees-Slightly Too High. Brutal schedule. Return 1 OL starter. Stanford often finds a way but this should be the first year in ten years they win less than 8 games.

 

[longtimecoug]

We all know by now that the AP Preseason rankings are out. The Pac 12 teams are as follows:

11. Oregon
13. Washington
14. Utah
23. WSU
25. Stanford

For each team, let's play "Goldilocks and the Three Bears". Are they ranked "Too High", "Too Low", or "Just Right".

11. Oregon - Too High
13. Washington - Too High
14. Utah - Too Low
23. WSU - Too Low
25. Stanford - Too Low

What do you all think?

Ducks, way too high
dawgs too high
utah, too high
WSU too high
stanford too high

 

[Flatlandcoug]

We all know by now that the AP Preseason rankings are out. The Pac 12 teams are as follows:

11. Oregon
13. Washington
14. Utah
23. WSU
25. Stanford

For each team, let's play "Goldilocks and the Three Bears". Are they ranked "Too High", "Too Low", or "Just Right".

11. Oregon - Too High
13. Washington - Too High
14. Utah - Too Low
23. WSU - Too Low
25. Stanford - Too Low

What do you all think?

I agree that Oregon is too high. Their performance over the past several years should make anyone question a Top 15 ranking. They were literally a couple plays away from 6-6 last season.

For a preseason ranking, UW is about right based on the past several years. I think they'll end up as a fringe Top 25 team by the end of the year, but they've earned the respect by winning most of the games that they should win.

Utah is a few spots low in my opinion but then again, they did find a way to lose five games last year. They were in the position to beat us but they were not a good football team to finish last season. Struggled in the Holy War and lost two straight to finish the season. This is supposed to be the year that it all comes together but Utah has always been a bit fragile since jumping up to the Pac-12. They've had a habit of losing games (or playing poorly) in stretches for a while now.

WSU is right where they should be given that we lost a QB to the NFL and we have no established backup at this point.

Stanford is where they should be based on past seasons but I think this is the year that they fall off the map. By the end of the season, they will not be in the Top 25.

 

[MRICoug]

OU- too high, I see them losing 5.
UW-too high, they lose 3-4
Utah- a bit high, they lose 2 regular season one to us.
WSU- too low, should be around 17. I think we lose 1-2.
Furd- too high, schedule and turnover seems like a 7 win ceiling to me.

 

[billyjoecamaro]

11. Oregon - Too High
13. Washington - Too High
14. Utah - Too High
23. WSU - About Right
25. Stanford - Too High

 

[Fab5Coug]

Ducks, way too high
dawgs too high
utah, too high
WSU too high
stanford too high

Wow. That's some kind of negative outlook on the conference.

Out of curiosity, do you think anyone in the Pac should be ranked?

 

[dgibbons]

Ducks, way too high
dawgs too high
utah, too high
WSU too high
stanford too high

The obvious question here- are you high?

I think WSU is about right. For Oregon and Utah, I just don't see what the pollsters are seeing. uw is probably a little high considering the big change over in personnel, but they are the reigning champ.

 

[kougkurt]

The obvious question here- are you high?

I think WSU is about right. For Oregon and Utah, I just don't see what the pollsters are seeing. uw is probably a little high considering the big change over in personnel, but they are the reigning champ.

Oregon’s top 5 receivers and top 2 TE’s are injured.

 

[couginphx]

Oregon-High
Washington-About Right
Utah-About Right
WSU-About Right
Stanford-Way Too High

 

[CougInSpain]

Oregon-High
Washington-About Right
Utah-About Right
WSU-About Right
Stanford-Way Too High

I am in this camp, although I'd add that Oregon is ranked "Too" High.

 

[BSpike76]

I am in this camp, although I'd add that Oregon is ranked "Too" High.

It is a conundrum. Too much Maryjane or just the right amount.

 

[Fab5Coug]

Oregon-High
Washington-About Right
Utah-About Right
WSU-About Right
Stanford-Way Too High

Stanford is "way too high"? They're 25th. What does that mean? 8-9 wins?

What do you think they're gonna go? 6-6?

Shaw has finished the season unranked twice and won fewer than 9 games once. At what point do you just kind of assume 9 wins and ranked around 25 is right around their low point?

 

[couginphx]

Stanford is "way too high"? They're 25th. What does that mean? 8-9 wins?

What do you think they're gonna go? 6-6?

Shaw has finished the season unranked twice and won fewer than 9 games once. At what point do you just kind of assume 9 wins and ranked around 25 is right around their low point?

Yes I think they will be about 6-6 or 7-5 this year, I've got them 5th in the North. I know Shaw has won a bunch of games in past years, but I value what they are rolling out this year and the competition they will face this year, and I don't see them being a top P12 team. They were not very good down the stretch last year, they only return 5 or 6 starters and the QB is solid, but not good enough to elevate them beyond their total talent level.

 

[mikalalas]

Yes I think they will be about 6-6 or 7-5 this year, I've got them 5th in the North. I know Shaw has won a bunch of games in past years, but I value what they are rolling out this year and the competition they will face this year, and I don't see them being a top P12 team. They were not very good down the stretch last year, they only return 5 or 6 starters and the QB is solid, but not good enough to elevate them beyond their total talent level.

In deciding how the Pac 12 teams should be ranked, altho the past should get somewhere between semi little to semi lot consideration, the actual situation should receive either as much, more, the semi most consideration.

Also I think they should be ranked near, close to where their final ranking will be.

So with that in mind:

OREGON:

Just barely a little tiny bit to high.

Should be ranked about 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th.

Situation. I know some would say that look at how they did against WSU, and how they did last year, and that Herbert is overrated, etc.

That was last year. Herbert altho might just barely be a little tiny bit overrated, is still a 4,5th year senior QB that turned down going as either a top pick, 1st round, top of 2nd round at worst. He will probably put it all together.

Also he has the OL, WR's, RB Verdell. The only thing that questionable is the defense, but a lot of defensive starters return, so will be better. Cristobal is probably not a good, great coach and is probably a semi bad, semi average, just barely above average at best coach. But that said, he has too much at Oregon this season, that 13th at best, 15th at worst.

UW:

To high.

Yes UW has produced, but their QB is A STATUE, that might or might not be good. They do have the OL to protect that statie tho, but they don't have any good, experienced, replacement WR. Ahmed might probably be a semi good RB, that could help the STATUE QB, but IF the statue, passing offense struggles in a least tiny bit, defenses will semi stack the box, stuff the run, force long 3rd down passing downs, blitz, sack the STATUE, or leave no open WR to throw to.

The Defense lost EVERYTHING. So if the offense struggles, the defense probably wont help.

I think the floor is 7 wins, the ceiling is 9, 10, 9.5 wins, the average is about 8, 8.5 wins.

But that's only because of their EASY schedule.

If not for that there floor would be 6 wins, ceiling would be 8,9,8.5 wins, with average would be about 7,7.5 wins.

So because of that UW should be ranked somewhere between 17th at best, 23rd at worst.

UTAH:

Either about right to Too High.

Utah does have a AWESOME defense. And Zach Moss is a good RB. And Huntly is a OK, Semi good, etc, QB, butthere doesnt seem to be any name WR's to throw to, but his OL, RB will protect him.

The big question is, can Utah put together a offense to go with that defense.

So because of that I think Utah should be ranked about 16th to 20th

WSU:

Somewhere between about right to Too Low.

QB: Not a issue as either Gordon or Gage are battling it out, with Gordon Just barely better, and probably be the starter.

Some worry, think that Gordon, or Gage wouldnt do good enough. But the reality is with WSU having a AWESOME OL, with the tied for PAC 12 BEST, 5th, 6th, 7th best in Nation WR Corp, Borghi, Bazille, RB's, Leach, etc, the OFFENSE should be AWESOME just fine. And the Defense should be at least ok.

The only way WSU doesnt win about 7,8, 7.5 games minimum, to 10,11, 10.5 games at maximum, 8.5, 9 wins at average, over/under, is if there are a LOT of injuries.

So 9 wins average, over/under, would put WSU at about 16th to 22nd.

STANFORD:

Somewhere between about right to just barely to high a little tiniest bit.

The QB is good. But OL will struggle mightily to protect. Ok RB, to help protect, help take heat off QB, but no name WR's to throw to.

Also ONLY 6 returning starters. A LOT OF FRESHMAN, a few, some Sophmores, a couple, few juniors, maybe 1,2 seniors, A EXTREMELY YOUNG TEAM.

Defense might probably struggle a little, some, is probably below average to average, ok at best.

SCHEDULE IS MURDEROUSLY TOUGH

So because of that the Trees, win about 5,6, 5.5 games at minimum, 7,8, 7.5 games at maximum, 6.5, 7 games average as over/under.

So at extreme best Stanford could, would win 8 games, ranked at 24th,25th, but more likely is 6,7,6.5 wins, with a 26th to 39 ranking

 

[CougPatrol]

Other than the fact that they're our hated rival, I'm not sure why you think that UW is too high. They've been the best team in the P12 for several years now, and honestly, I think they should probably be in the top-10 heading into the season. For them to be #13 is another big slap in the face for our conference.

 

[CougInSpain]

It is a conundrum. Too much Maryjane or just the right amount.

Any amount of MaryJane, to me, is Too Much period.

 

[couginphx]

Other than the fact that they're our hated rival, I'm not sure why you think that UW is too high. They've been the best team in the P12 for several years now, and honestly, I think they should probably be in the top-10 heading into the season. For them to be #13 is another big slap in the face for our conference.

It pains me to say, but trying to look objectively, I would agree, they get every schedule break possible this year, they've backed up top of P12 recruiting classes for several years now, are mostly well coached. The amount of players lost can't be taken lightly, and QB is not a proven commodity, though again highly recruited, so likely has the physical tools, I have a hard time seeing them lose more than 2 games given the schedule in particular, and frankly two is even tough to find (only looking at the 12 not the P12 Title or bowl game). And now that I've typed all that, I will go vomit.

 

[mikalalas]

It pains me to say, but trying to look objectively, I would agree, they get every schedule break possible this year, they've backed up top of P12 recruiting classes for several years now, are mostly well coached. The amount of players lost can't be taken lightly, and QB is not a proven commodity, though again highly recruited, so likely has the physical tools, I have a hard time seeing them lose more than 2 games given the schedule in particular, and frankly two is even tough to find (only looking at the 12 not the P12 Title or bowl game). And now that I've typed all that, I will go vomit.

I think UW could lose 1 non con game, most likely BYU will probably beat them.

And I see them losing to Oregon, Cal, WSU(Unless UW BUTLUCKS again, with either a SNOW STORM, HAIL, MASS FLOODING, 90 MPH WIND RAIN STORM, ETC, or Gordon, Gage, both get injured, like Falk getting injured(dont think tinsley would be able to beat them, just like WSU's 2nd string, 3rd String QB, couldnt beat them, or both Gordon, an or Gage play recovering from a just barely a slight semi concussion, like Falk against UW, Minshew at end of USC game)

So I see 3,4 losses, a 9-3, 8-4 record.

Also, altho UW has been both BUTLUCKY, PRODUCTIVE, etc, the positives you guys name.

You cant go by just that. You have to go by the situation, factors the Defense LOSING EVERYTHING, the lack of WR, the schedule, etc, THAT MATTERS MORE THEN UW'S PRODUCTIVE HISTORY.

If it doesnt then Stanford should win 8,9,10 games becsuse of their PRODUCTIVE HISTORY.

Yes they have a EASY schedule, but they are probably not going to beat BYU, Oregon, Cal, , WSU.

They might win one of those games(Best chance would be BYU.

But UW will probably not go 10-2, and CERTAINLY NOT 11-1.

9-3 is LIKELY at semi best, and 10-2 at EXTREME ULTIMATE BUTLUCKY BEST, if they find a way to BUTLUCKILY beat either Oregon, Cal, WSU.

So 7-5 at ultimate extreme worst, 8-4 at likely worst, 9-3 at likely best, 10-2 at EXTREME ULTIMATE BUTLUCKY BEST, with 6-6, 11-1, almost impossible.

9-3, is good enough for about 15th to about 20th at best, certainly NOT 11th,12th,13th, and 10th or higher should be almost impossible, or as ULTIMATELY EXTREMELY UNLIKELY as 6-6.

Even with a EASY schedule, Oregon, Cal, WSU, BYU, championship game, if they make it, Rosebowl, Fiesta Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Alamobowl(If they go to those bowls), etc, is PROBABLY MORE THEN THE UW CAN HANDLE.

 

[CognitiveDissonance]

I think UW could lose 1 non con game, most likely BYU will probably beat them.

And I see them losing to Oregon, Cal, WSU(Unless UW BUTLUCKS again, with either a SNOW STORM, HAIL, MASS FLOODING, 90 MPH WIND RAIN STORM, ETC, or Gordon, Gage, both get injured, like Falk getting injured(dont think tinsley would be able to beat them, just like WSU's 2nd string, 3rd String QB, couldnt beat them, or both Gordon, an or Gage play recovering from a just barely a slight semi concussion, like Falk against UW, Minshew at end of USC game)

So I see 3,4 losses, a 9-3, 8-4 record.

Also, altho UW has been both BUTLUCKY, PRODUCTIVE, etc, the positives you guys name.

You cant go by just that. You have to go by the situation, factors the Defense LOSING EVERYTHING, the lack of WR, the schedule, etc, THAT MATTERS MORE THEN UW'S PRODUCTIVE HISTORY.

If it doesnt then Stanford should win 8,9,10 games becsuse of their PRODUCTIVE HISTORY.

Yes they have a EASY schedule, but they are probably not going to beat BYU, Oregon, Cal, , WSU.

They might win one of those games(Best chance would be BYU.

But UW will probably not go 10-2, and CERTAINLY NOT 11-1.

9-3 is LIKELY at semi best, and 10-2 at EXTREME ULTIMATE BUTLUCKY BEST, if they find a way to BUTLUCKILY beat either Oregon, Cal, WSU.

So 7-5 at ultimate extreme worst, 8-4 at likely worst, 9-3 at likely best, 10-2 at EXTREME ULTIMATE BUTLUCKY BEST, with 6-6, 11-1, almost impossible.

9-3, is good enough for about 15th to about 20th at best, certainly NOT 11th,12th,13th, and 10th or higher should be almost impossible, or as ULTIMATELY EXTREMELY UNLIKELY as 6-6.

Even with a EASY schedule, Oregon, Cal, WSU, BYU, championship game, if they make it, Rosebowl, Fiesta Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Alamobowl(If they go to those bowls), etc, is PROBABLY MORE THEN THE UW CAN HANDLE.

Interesting take. (I'm pulling some things from your other post)

You're really banking on Eason being shitty. The Huskies went to the Fiesta and Rose Bowl with noodle armed Jake Browning playing in the most conservative passing offense of all time. They did not throw the ball down the field his JR and SR seasons except for the rare occasion where he'd throw a deep cross to the sideline (like in the Apple Cup), which happened less than 10 times all year. Absolutely 0 streaks to WR's like he used to throw to Pettis and Ross. He was literally Alex Smith for the 49ers... except he made stupid decisions all the f'n time and held on to the ball way too long. I'd be surprised if Eason is worse... he certainly has far more zip on his ball to air it out a bit more and give the WR's a chance. All opposing defenses did (like the CAL game) was stack the box and the Huskies kept banging their heads against the wall refusing to take shots cause Browning lost his arm.

As for the wideouts... for what they lack in "talent" their starting core certainly makes up in experience. Aaron Fuller, Andre Baccellia and Chico McClatcher are seniors, Ty Jones is a junior. Plus they are expecting big things from RS freshman Austin Osborne and Marquis Spiker who were both highly-recruited 4 stars... also Puka Nakua, a highly-ranked true freshman, is expected to be a stud the second he walks out there and is turning heads every practice. You also might be forgetting that Hunter Bryant missed almost all of last season... he's a nightmare, and expect Devin Culp to be a serious down-the-field threat as well as a TE/WR hybrid... not to mention Otten and Kizer who are more than capable. Yeah their replacements might not have experience, but they sure as hell are talented.

Running Back is going to be the huge question for the Huskies on offense. Ahmed is a blazer, sure... but he also goes down like a glass ballerina on first contact. I doubt anybody is Husky land is sold on Sean McGrew... Kamari Pleasent has a chance to be the bruiser... but overall I think it's a weak position group. Then again, UW always seems to have a good ground game, so until they prove they don't... you'll have to assume it will at least be solid until it's not. You already know about the OL... so that should help things.

The defense did lose a lot, but some would argue the defense also lost a lot when Baker, King, Victor, Bierria, Qualls, Jones and Vea went in 2 drafts... yet they were still quality.

Here's the issue for the doom and gloom predictions for the Husky D. Last year's D finished tied for 100th in sacks with just 24 on the season and it hurt them. Tevis Bartlett was an awful OLB, Benning Potoae was not/is not an edge rusher, and as good as BBK was, he was not a pass rusher. They had to rely on corner blitzes or the defensive interior for most of their disruption which is sad... I just wouldn't expect that trend to continue. Joe Tryon is going to be a serious problem, Liatu Latu is the talk of Fall camp as an edge rusher and Zion Tupuola-Fetui is right there with him. Plus Ariel Ngata was a highly-recruited wild card... they just have far more talent ready to step in last year where they basically had nobody off the edge... now they have tons of athletes.

The defensive interior may have lost Gaines... but that's all they'd be slightly worried about. Levi Onwuzarike is gonna be a monster and has been mocked in the first round in a few places (PFF being one) and they are moving Benning Potoae inside for the the first time in his career which he's far better suited for... he's huge and athletic, great run stopper... just not a great pass rusher, and Tuli Letuligasenoa, a massive, former top-100 guy, will take over Gaines' role at NT. Behind them are top-50 4-star recruits in Jacob Bandes and Faatui Tuitele... Sam Taimaini is expected to get good run and he was a highly-recruited guy. They had 0 depth at the position last year and certainly nowhere near as much developed talent... this should actually be a real strength.

Linebacker is going to be a problem for the Huskies. Brandon Wellington is a senior, and while he's experienced, it remains to be seen what the Huskies are going to get out of him. Nobody in Husky land is thrilled about Kyler Manu and would probably assume to Jackson Sirmon or Daniel Heimuli get the starting nod. This is far and away the weakest position group both depth and talent wise in the program. Heimuli and Josh Calvert are going to a lethal duo in the future, but not right now and that may hurt them given how important BBK was last year.

The defensive backfield should never be questioned for the Huskies as long as Jimmy Lake is coaching the unit. Keith Taylor finally gets his shot and will likely turn himself into a Kevin King-like late bloomer and will fly up draft boards during his senior season. Opposite him is Elijah Molden who is already an absolute stud. Kyler Gordon gets his shot in the slot and he's one of the most athletic guys in the country. On the back-end you're getting a repeat in Taylor Rapp with Cameron Williams... Rapp started as a true freshman at SS, Williams is slated to do the same, so that should tell you something about his capabilities. Myles Bryant is an all P12 FS.

 

[triscuit one]

Interesting take. (I'm pulling some things from your other post)

You're really banking on Eason being shitty. The Huskies went to the Fiesta and Rose Bowl with noodle armed Jake Browning playing in the most conservative passing offense of all time. They did not throw the ball down the field his JR and SR seasons except for the rare occasion where he'd throw a deep cross to the sideline (like in the Apple Cup), which happened less than 10 times all year. Absolutely 0 streaks to WR's like he used to throw to Pettis and Ross. He was literally Alex Smith for the 49ers... except he made stupid decisions all the f'n time and held on to the ball way too long. I'd be surprised if Eason is worse... he certainly has far more zip on his ball to air it out a bit more and give the WR's a chance. All opposing defenses did (like the CAL game) was stack the box and the Huskies kept banging their heads against the wall refusing to take shots cause Browning lost his arm.

As for the wideouts... for what they lack in "talent" their starting core certainly makes up in experience. Aaron Fuller, Andre Baccellia and Chico McClatcher are seniors, Ty Jones is a junior. Plus they are expecting big things from RS freshman Austin Osborne and Marquis Spiker who were both highly-recruited 4 stars... also Puka Nakua, a highly-ranked true freshman, is expected to be a stud the second he walks out there and is turning heads every practice. You also might be forgetting that Hunter Bryant missed almost all of last season... he's a nightmare, and expect Devin Culp to be a serious down-the-field threat as well as a TE/WR hybrid... not to mention Otten and Kizer who are more than capable. Yeah their replacements might not have experience, but they sure as hell are talented.

Running Back is going to be the huge question for the Huskies on offense. Ahmed is a blazer, sure... but he also goes down like a glass ballerina on first contact. I doubt anybody is Husky land is sold on Sean McGrew... Kamari Pleasent has a chance to be the bruiser... but overall I think it's a weak position group. Then again, UW always seems to have a good ground game, so until they prove they don't... you'll have to assume it will at least be solid until it's not. You already know about the OL... so that should help things.

The defense did lose a lot, but some would argue the defense also lost a lot when Baker, King, Victor, Bierria, Qualls, Jones and Vea went in 2 drafts... yet they were still quality.

Here's the issue for the doom and gloom predictions for the Husky D. Last year's D finished tied for 100th in sacks with just 24 on the season and it hurt them. Tevis Bartlett was an awful OLB, Benning Potoae was not/is not an edge rusher, and as good as BBK was, he was not a pass rusher. They had to rely on corner blitzes or the defensive interior for most of their disruption which is sad... I just wouldn't expect that trend to continue. Joe Tryon is going to be a serious problem, Liatu Latu is the talk of Fall camp as an edge rusher and Zion Tupuola-Fetui is right there with him. Plus Ariel Ngata was a highly-recruited wild card... they just have far more talent ready to step in last year where they basically had nobody off the edge... now they have tons of athletes.

The defensive interior may have lost Gaines... but that's all they'd be slightly worried about. Levi Onwuzarike is gonna be a monster and has been mocked in the first round in a few places (PFF being one) and they are moving Benning Potoae inside for the the first time in his career which he's far better suited for... he's huge and athletic, great run stopper... just not a great pass rusher, and Tuli Letuligasenoa, a massive, former top-100 guy, will take over Gaines' role at NT. Behind them are top-50 4-star recruits in Jacob Bandes and Faatui Tuitele... Sam Taimaini is expected to get good run and he was a highly-recruited guy. They had 0 depth at the position last year and certainly nowhere near as much developed talent... this should actually be a real strength.

Linebacker is going to be a problem for the Huskies. Brandon Wellington is a senior, and while he's experienced, it remains to be seen what the Huskies are going to get out of him. Nobody in Husky land is thrilled about Kyler Manu and would probably assume to Jackson Sirmon or Daniel Heimuli get the starting nod. This is far and away the weakest position group both depth and talent wise in the program. Heimuli and Josh Calvert are going to a lethal duo in the future, but not right now and that may hurt them given how important BBK was last year.

The defensive backfield should never be questioned for the Huskies as long as Jimmy Lake is coaching the unit. Keith Taylor finally gets his shot and will likely turn himself into a Kevin King-like late bloomer and will fly up draft boards during his senior season. Opposite him is Elijah Molden who is already an absolute stud. Kyler Gordon gets his shot in the slot and he's one of the most athletic guys in the country. On the back-end you're getting a repeat in Taylor Rapp with Cameron Williams... Rapp started as a true freshman at SS, Williams is slated to do the same, so that should tell you something about his capabilities. Myles Bryant is an all P12 FS.

Cool...

 

[kougkurt]

Interesting take. (I'm pulling some things from your other post)

You're really banking on Eason being shitty. The Huskies went to the Fiesta and Rose Bowl with noodle armed Jake Browning playing in the most conservative passing offense of all time. They did not throw the ball down the field his JR and SR seasons except for the rare occasion where he'd throw a deep cross to the sideline (like in the Apple Cup), which happened less than 10 times all year. Absolutely 0 streaks to WR's like he used to throw to Pettis and Ross. He was literally Alex Smith for the 49ers... except he made stupid decisions all the f'n time and held on to the ball way too long. I'd be surprised if Eason is worse... he certainly has far more zip on his ball to air it out a bit more and give the WR's a chance. All opposing defenses did (like the CAL game) was stack the box and the Huskies kept banging their heads against the wall refusing to take shots cause Browning lost his arm.

As for the wideouts... for what they lack in "talent" their starting core certainly makes up in experience. Aaron Fuller, Andre Baccellia and Chico McClatcher are seniors, Ty Jones is a junior. Plus they are expecting big things from RS freshman Austin Osborne and Marquis Spiker who were both highly-recruited 4 stars... also Puka Nakua, a highly-ranked true freshman, is expected to be a stud the second he walks out there and is turning heads every practice. You also might be forgetting that Hunter Bryant missed almost all of last season... he's a nightmare, and expect Devin Culp to be a serious down-the-field threat as well as a TE/WR hybrid... not to mention Otten and Kizer who are more than capable. Yeah their replacements might not have experience, but they sure as hell are talented.

Running Back is going to be the huge question for the Huskies on offense. Ahmed is a blazer, sure... but he also goes down like a glass ballerina on first contact. I doubt anybody is Husky land is sold on Sean McGrew... Kamari Pleasent has a chance to be the bruiser... but overall I think it's a weak position group. Then again, UW always seems to have a good ground game, so until they prove they don't... you'll have to assume it will at least be solid until it's not. You already know about the OL... so that should help things.

The defense did lose a lot, but some would argue the defense also lost a lot when Baker, King, Victor, Bierria, Qualls, Jones and Vea went in 2 drafts... yet they were still quality.

Here's the issue for the doom and gloom predictions for the Husky D. Last year's D finished tied for 100th in sacks with just 24 on the season and it hurt them. Tevis Bartlett was an awful OLB, Benning Potoae was not/is not an edge rusher, and as good as BBK was, he was not a pass rusher. They had to rely on corner blitzes or the defensive interior for most of their disruption which is sad... I just wouldn't expect that trend to continue. Joe Tryon is going to be a serious problem, Liatu Latu is the talk of Fall camp as an edge rusher and Zion Tupuola-Fetui is right there with him. Plus Ariel Ngata was a highly-recruited wild card... they just have far more talent ready to step in last year where they basically had nobody off the edge... now they have tons of athletes.

The defensive interior may have lost Gaines... but that's all they'd be slightly worried about. Levi Onwuzarike is gonna be a monster and has been mocked in the first round in a few places (PFF being one) and they are moving Benning Potoae inside for the the first time in his career which he's far better suited for... he's huge and athletic, great run stopper... just not a great pass rusher, and Tuli Letuligasenoa, a massive, former top-100 guy, will take over Gaines' role at NT. Behind them are top-50 4-star recruits in Jacob Bandes and Faatui Tuitele... Sam Taimaini is expected to get good run and he was a highly-recruited guy. They had 0 depth at the position last year and certainly nowhere near as much developed talent... this should actually be a real strength.

Linebacker is going to be a problem for the Huskies. Brandon Wellington is a senior, and while he's experienced, it remains to be seen what the Huskies are going to get out of him. Nobody in Husky land is thrilled about Kyler Manu and would probably assume to Jackson Sirmon or Daniel Heimuli get the starting nod. This is far and away the weakest position group both depth and talent wise in the program. Heimuli and Josh Calvert are going to a lethal duo in the future, but not right now and that may hurt them given how important BBK was last year.

The defensive backfield should never be questioned for the Huskies as long as Jimmy Lake is coaching the unit. Keith Taylor finally gets his shot and will likely turn himself into a Kevin King-like late bloomer and will fly up draft boards during his senior season. Opposite him is Elijah Molden who is already an absolute stud. Kyler Gordon gets his shot in the slot and he's one of the most athletic guys in the country. On the back-end you're getting a repeat in Taylor Rapp with Cameron Williams... Rapp started as a true freshman at SS, Williams is slated to do the same, so that should tell you something about his capabilities. Myles Bryant is an all P12 FS.

Copy and paste is obviously your friend. Go Dogs

 

[SDCoug]

It pains me to say, but trying to look objectively, I would agree, they get every schedule break possible this year, they've backed up top of P12 recruiting classes for several years now, are mostly well coached. The amount of players lost can't be taken lightly, and QB is not a proven commodity, though again highly recruited, so likely has the physical tools, I have a hard time seeing them lose more than 2 games given the schedule in particular, and frankly two is even tough to find (only looking at the 12 not the P12 Title or bowl game). And now that I've typed all that, I will go vomit.

Let’s hope that one of those two fusky losses is to our undefeated Cougs!

 

[fingerdisco]

Copy and paste is obviously your friend. Go Dogs

You’re dealing with CognitiveDisability, so don’t expect too much.

 

[Fab5Coug]

I think UW could lose 1 non con game, most likely BYU will probably beat them.

And I see them losing to Oregon, Cal, WSU(Unless UW BUTLUCKS again, with either a SNOW STORM, HAIL, MASS FLOODING, 90 MPH WIND RAIN STORM, ETC, or Gordon, Gage, both get injured, like Falk getting injured(dont think tinsley would be able to beat them, just like WSU's 2nd string, 3rd String QB, couldnt beat them, or both Gordon, an or Gage play recovering from a just barely a slight semi concussion, like Falk against UW, Minshew at end of USC game)

So I see 3,4 losses, a 9-3, 8-4 record.

Also, altho UW has been both BUTLUCKY, PRODUCTIVE, etc, the positives you guys name.

You cant go by just that. You have to go by the situation, factors the Defense LOSING EVERYTHING, the lack of WR, the schedule, etc, THAT MATTERS MORE THEN UW'S PRODUCTIVE HISTORY.

If it doesnt then Stanford should win 8,9,10 games becsuse of their PRODUCTIVE HISTORY.

Yes they have a EASY schedule, but they are probably not going to beat BYU, Oregon, Cal, , WSU.

They might win one of those games(Best chance would be BYU.

But UW will probably not go 10-2, and CERTAINLY NOT 11-1.

9-3 is LIKELY at semi best, and 10-2 at EXTREME ULTIMATE BUTLUCKY BEST, if they find a way to BUTLUCKILY beat either Oregon, Cal, WSU.

So 7-5 at ultimate extreme worst, 8-4 at likely worst, 9-3 at likely best, 10-2 at EXTREME ULTIMATE BUTLUCKY BEST, with 6-6, 11-1, almost impossible.

9-3, is good enough for about 15th to about 20th at best, certainly NOT 11th,12th,13th, and 10th or higher should be almost impossible, or as ULTIMATELY EXTREMELY UNLIKELY as 6-6.

Even with a EASY schedule, Oregon, Cal, WSU, BYU, championship game, if they make it, Rosebowl, Fiesta Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Alamobowl(If they go to those bowls), etc, is PROBABLY MORE THEN THE UW CAN HANDLE.

What does "BUTLUCKY" mean?

 

[mikalalas]

What does "BUTLUCKY" mean?

Best way to help define it:

Poker Example:

AA goes all in preflop, A2 calls. Only about a 7 to 13% chance to win. A 2, comes on the Turn, 4th community card. Now there is only about a 3.5% chance that a 2 will hit the River(5th final community card), for the win. The 2 hits, comes and wins.

That is BUTLUCK.

BUTLUCK is a term I came up with that means a person, thing, team, gets EXTREMELY LUCKY in BEATING the extremely bad, low odds, percents, chances, where they either shouldnt, extremely unlikely, almost impossible to do that.

The Fuskies got BUTLUCKY that against WSU:

1. They got to play 2nd, 3rd string back up, etc, Bender, instead of Falk

2. When they did play Falk, that Falk was recovering from a borderline slight concussion.

3. That they got to play in a snow storm that shut down WSU's offense, passing game, that is better suited to help the Fuskies non pass heavy, run based offense to win. Minshew, WSU would have won that game if not for the snowstorm.

So far during Leach's Tenure the Fuskies have gotten BUTLUCKY against WSU teams that would, could, should, beat the fuskies.

The only time the Fuskies didnt get BUTLUCKY was against the 2, 3-9 Leach, WSU teams.

Some Keep on saying that WSU hasnt proven that they can beat the Fuskies, during Leach's Tenure.

Well I say the Fuskies have only proven they can beat 2, 3-9 Leach teams, and havent proven that they can beat WSU's good teams, because the Fuskies didnt BEAT WSU's good teams(Technically won yes), they BUTLUCKED, got BUTLUCKY against WSU's teams. Thats not BEATING WSU's teams.

So the Fuskies havent proven they can beat Leach's good WSU teams

 

[79COUG]

You’re dealing with CognitiveDisability, so don’t expect too much.

Plus it's a conversation between him and Mik.
God help us...

 

[Fab5Coug]

Best way to help define it:

Poker Example:

AA goes all in preflop, A2 calls. Only about a 7 to 13% chance to win. A 2, comes on the Turn, 4th community card. Now there is only about a 3.5% chance that a 2 will hit the River(5th final community card), for the win. The 2 hits, comes and wins.

That is BUTLUCK.

BUTLUCK is a term I came up with that means a person, thing, team, gets EXTREMELY LUCKY in BEATING the extremely bad, low odds, percents, chances, where they either shouldnt, extremely unlikely, almost impossible to do that.

The Fuskies got BUTLUCKY that against WSU:

1. They got to play 2nd, 3rd string back up, etc, Bender, instead of Falk

2. When they did play Falk, that Falk was recovering from a borderline slight concussion.

3. That they got to play in a snow storm that shut down WSU's offense, passing game, that is better suited to help the Fuskies non pass heavy, run based offense to win. Minshew, WSU would have won that game if not for the snowstorm.

So far during Leach's Tenure the Fuskies have gotten BUTLUCKY against WSU teams that would, could, should, beat the fuskies.

The only time the Fuskies didnt get BUTLUCKY was against the 2, 3-9 Leach, WSU teams.

Some Keep on saying that WSU hasnt proven that they can beat the Fuskies, during Leach's Tenure.

Well I say the Fuskies have only proven they can beat 2, 3-9 Leach teams, and havent proven that they can beat WSU's good teams, because the Fuskies didnt BEAT WSU's good teams(Technically won yes), they BUTLUCKED, got BUTLUCKY against WSU's teams. Thats not BEATING WSU's teams.

So the Fuskies havent proven they can beat Leach's good WSU teams

So "BUTLUCKY" means..."lucky"?

 

[fingerdisco]

Best way to help define it:

Poker Example:

AA goes all in preflop, A2 calls. Only about a 7 to 13% chance to win. A 2, comes on the Turn, 4th community card. Now there is only about a 3.5% chance that a 2 will hit the River(5th final community card), for the win. The 2 hits, comes and wins.

That is BUTLUCK.

BUTLUCK is a term I came up with that means a person, thing, team, gets EXTREMELY LUCKY in BEATING the extremely bad, low odds, percents, chances, where they either shouldnt, extremely unlikely, almost impossible to do that.

The Fuskies got BUTLUCKY that against WSU:

1. They got to play 2nd, 3rd string back up, etc, Bender, instead of Falk

2. When they did play Falk, that Falk was recovering from a borderline slight concussion.

3. That they got to play in a snow storm that shut down WSU's offense, passing game, that is better suited to help the Fuskies non pass heavy, run based offense to win. Minshew, WSU would have won that game if not for the snowstorm.

So far during Leach's Tenure the Fuskies have gotten BUTLUCKY against WSU teams that would, could, should, beat the fuskies.

The only time the Fuskies didnt get BUTLUCKY was against the 2, 3-9 Leach, WSU teams.

Some Keep on saying that WSU hasnt proven that they can beat the Fuskies, during Leach's Tenure.

Well I say the Fuskies have only proven they can beat 2, 3-9 Leach teams, and havent proven that they can beat WSU's good teams, because the Fuskies didnt BEAT WSU's good teams(Technically won yes), they BUTLUCKED, got BUTLUCKY against WSU's teams. Thats not BEATING WSU's teams.

So the Fuskies havent proven they can beat Leach's good WSU teams

I personally thought the singing burgerflipper analogy was some of your better work compared to the poker example.

 

[CognitiveDissonance]

Copy and paste is obviously your friend. Go Dogs

Not sure what that means really... I typed it out. Gave it some thought. If you think I’m wrong about my assessment I’d love to hear why.

 

[CognitiveDissonance]

Best way to help define it:

Poker Example:

AA goes all in preflop, A2 calls. Only about a 7 to 13% chance to win. A 2, comes on the Turn, 4th community card. Now there is only about a 3.5% chance that a 2 will hit the River(5th final community card), for the win. The 2 hits, comes and wins.

That is BUTLUCK.

BUTLUCK is a term I came up with that means a person, thing, team, gets EXTREMELY LUCKY in BEATING the extremely bad, low odds, percents, chances, where they either shouldnt, extremely unlikely, almost impossible to do that.

The Fuskies got BUTLUCKY that against WSU:

1. They got to play 2nd, 3rd string back up, etc, Bender, instead of Falk

2. When they did play Falk, that Falk was recovering from a borderline slight concussion.

3. That they got to play in a snow storm that shut down WSU's offense, passing game, that is better suited to help the Fuskies non pass heavy, run based offense to win. Minshew, WSU would have won that game if not for the snowstorm.

So far during Leach's Tenure the Fuskies have gotten BUTLUCKY against WSU teams that would, could, should, beat the fuskies.

The only time the Fuskies didnt get BUTLUCKY was against the 2, 3-9 Leach, WSU teams.

Some Keep on saying that WSU hasnt proven that they can beat the Fuskies, during Leach's Tenure.

Well I say the Fuskies have only proven they can beat 2, 3-9 Leach teams, and havent proven that they can beat WSU's good teams, because the Fuskies didnt BEAT WSU's good teams(Technically won yes), they BUTLUCKED, got BUTLUCKY against WSU's teams. Thats not BEATING WSU's teams.

So the Fuskies havent proven they can beat Leach's good WSU teams

The Cougars didn’t have a snowballs chance in hell beating the Huskies under any conditions in recent years. Getting mauled in the trenches when the Huskies rushed just 3 guys and got home on a consistent basis is why the games weren’t close.

It’s just the truth... not “but lucky” lol. The Cougs weren’t losing by small margins and were frankly terrible in a lot of areas against the Huskies in all those games. The Dawgs finished on a what? A 10 minute drive in last year’s apple cup where they did nothing but run the ball... is that lucky or were the Cougars just getting tossed around? You tell me.

 

[dgibbons]

So "BUTLUCKY" means..."lucky"?

Pretty self explanatory....

Or maybe self exploratory....

 

[Fab5Coug]

The Cougars didn’t have a snowballs chance in hell beating the Huskies under any conditions in recent years. Getting mauled in the trenches when the Huskies rushed just 3 guys and got home on a consistent basis is why the games weren’t close.

It’s just the truth... not “but lucky” lol. The Cougs weren’t losing by small margins and were frankly terrible in a lot of areas against the Huskies in all those games. The Dawgs finished on a what? A 10 minute drive in last year’s apple cup where they did nothing but run the ball... is that lucky or were the Cougars just getting tossed around? You tell me.

Last year's game was, at least, relatively competitive. But you're right, the Cougs have more or less had the piss kicked out of them in the Apple Cup since Peterson got there.

It's a chump excuse to try to call it "luck". Teams don't get lucky in a single game 6 years in a row.

I call it like it is, the Huskies have just been A) a really bad matchup for WSU and B) just really good. No surprise the team that gives the Air Raid the most fits is the one that pumps a DB or two into the NFL every year.

 

[CougEd]

Last year's game was, at least, relatively competitive. But you're right, the Cougs have more or less had the piss kicked out of them in the Apple Cup since Peterson got there.

It's a chump excuse to try to call it "luck". Teams don't get lucky in a single game 6 years in a row.

I call it like it is, the Huskies have just been A) a really bad matchup for WSU and B) just really good. No surprise the team that gives the Air Raid the most fits is the one that pumps a DB or two into the NFL every year.

Agreed. Truth is the game probably was lost on Minshew's first toss, he looked very uncomfortable trying to throw the ball. UW had 250 plus yards on the ground, that is problematic in any game.

 

[chipdouglas]

When I see a long page (tiny scroll bar @ right) I don't know if there are a lot of posts, or if it's just that mikalalas has been posting

 

[chipdouglas]

• Too High
  • Oregon: are you kidding? Justin's back. At his prime he was down to WSU 27-0 at half. Too much obsession with the physicals, not enough with the performance.
  • Utah: what is it about Utah's offense for the last 10 years is getting ANYBODY excited? How many faceplants do they need to see?
• About Right
  • Furd: fringe Top 25. I can see it.
  • UW: you could say they're too high but they won the P12 and we were once again helpless against them at home while ranked #10 in the AC. If I'm a voter, change my mind
• Too Low
  • WSU: sounds like classic homerism to think your own team is too low, but if you think Mike Leach losing a QB automatically means he'll need 5 years to rebuild, you haven't been watching Mike Leach football

 

[mikalalas]

So "BUTLUCKY" means..."lucky"?

Close, means EXTREMELY LUCKY

 

[Flatlandcoug]

One question that I thought of after reading this thread again today is what Pac-12 teams might surprise this year and finish in the Top 25 that aren't currently ranked?

First, Oregon State is off the table. They have no shot for a couple years at best.

Cal was a trendy pick last year and they managed to be truly awful on offense. They don't have the easy schedule this year to help so they are probably going to be lucky to make a bowl game.

Colorado looks pretty sketchy, but if they beat Nebraska at home, the rest of their early schedule isn't that daunting. It doesn't matter, the second half of their schedule is the height of brutality and they are unlikely to finish better than 5-7.

Arizona is another team that is shooting for a bowl game rather than worrying about finishing in the Top 25.

ASU could be 5-0 when they face off against WSU if they can find a way to beat a Michigan State team that wasn't great last year. They'll probably lose the next four games though. No joy for them.

USC always has the talent to run with anyone, even if it isn't quite where it's been. Will the new Air Raid look down there be explosive enough to make a difference?

I'm not sold on Chip Kelly at UCLA, but they have a great shot at being 5-1 if they can pull off an upset over the Cougs. If that happens, 4-2 to finish the second half at 9-3 would put them there.​

So, after stumbling through the list, UCLA is probably the most likely to have a shot if I were placing bets....but again, not sold on it just yet.

 

[mikalalas]

The Cougars didn’t have a snowballs chance in hell beating the Huskies under any conditions in recent years. Getting mauled in the trenches when the Huskies rushed just 3 guys and got home on a consistent basis is why the games weren’t close.

It’s just the truth... not “but lucky” lol. The Cougs weren’t losing by small margins and were frankly terrible in a lot of areas against the Huskies in all those games. The Dawgs finished on a what? A 10 minute drive in last year’s apple cup where they did nothing but run the ball... is that lucky or were the Cougars just getting tossed around? You tell me.

IF, WHEN, IF the Fuskies beat a GOOD Leach, WSU team that win 8 to 11 games that:

1. Not starting 2nd, 3rd string, BENDER like QB, due to a injury of a GOOD STARTING QB

2. The GOOD Starting QB, recovering from a condition like a concussion, injury.

3. A Snowstorm that dump 1/2 foot to 1 and 1/2, 1.5 feet of snow that will stop a AIR RAID OFFENSE, but BENEFIT a UW power running game

UNTIL, IF THAT HAPPENS, ITS LUCK, UNTIL THAT HAPPENS.

And IF that happens, THEN you can rightly say that UW beat a GOOD Leach, WSU team.

Untii then, you can't rightly say that UW beat a GOOD Leach,WSU team during Leach's Tenure at WSU.

Would UW have beaten a GOOD WSU LEACH team if UW had to play without STARTING QB BROWNING, due to injury, if Browning had been injured?

PROBABLY NOT.

And if WSU had technically won against that without Browning UW team, could WSU have rightly claimed it BEAT UW?

NO

And if UW was a AIR RAID team, and WSU was a POWER RUNNING team, and if a Snow storm dumped snow, that shut down a UW AIR RAID, and were to benefit a WSU Power Running game, so that WSU technically won vs UW, could WSU rightly claim that BEAT UW?

No

Not only that, but the SPORTS MEDIA, the Pollsters, etc, would not give WSU any credit, and would say that WSU just got LUCKY, to TECHNICALLY win.

Its a FREAKING DOUBLE STANDARD.

So until, if UW actually beats, not just technically, luckily win, but beats a GOOD WSU, LEACH TEAM, WITH ITS GOOD STARTING QB, AND WITHOUT 1+ KEY, VITAL TO WINNING PLAYERS BEING INJURED, AND WITHOUT EXTREME BAD WEATHER THAT SHUT DOWN AIR RAID, ETC, FULL STRENGTH, ETC.

UNTIL, IF THAT HAPPENS, UW CAN'T rightly say that BEAT a GOOD WSU LEACH team.

They can rightly say they TECHNICALLY WON vs WSU.