I think you’re maybe remembering 97 a little different than it actually happened. They didn’t really “blast” anyone in conference, save for Cal.
CML loses another rivalry game
- Thread starter COCoug
- Start date
That 94 defense was sick. Second in total defense and third in scoring defense. Nebraska was top in both and won a national championship.
This is the best I could find on stats. Page 19 of the PDF is total defense.
We also played a lot of good defenses that year.
9. Illinois (W)
10. Arizona (L)
13. Cal (W)
26. Oregon (W)
33. Tennessee (L)
34. fuskies (W)
38. Oregon State (L)
I believe 97 was the year I didn’t get laid . What position do you believe the 19 team was better than the 97 team? Honestly not even close ?
I'd take the 2018
OL: Dillard, Ryan, Mauigoa, Watson, Lucas over the Fat Five
RB: Williams and Borghi over Black and Gilmore.
WR: Patmon, Winston, Tay Martin, Calvin Jackson, Travell Harris, Renard Bell, Jamire Calvin, and Kyle Sweet over Chris Jackson, Kevin McKenzie, McWashington, Timms, and Nian Taylor.
I'd take the 2018 secondary and LB core over 1997 too.
Call me when 2018 wins the Apple Cup to go to the Rose Bowl
Drop Leaf onto the 2018 squad along with his DL from that year and we don't lose during the regular season.
Weird take. So, the 2018 Cougs were worse than 1997’s 7-5 Arizona, 7-5 Oregon, 6-5 USC, or 5-6 Stanford?
Great memories from that year, but we were a 2 pt conversion away from losing to Arizona and as you mentioned there were several 1 score games. Seems people are forgetting that and in their minds we boat-raced everyone. I’m not sure, I’d take the 2018 team but the defenses were absolutely comparable and the teams as a whole weren’t that far apart.
FWIW, my money is on 1997. The margins of victory are less meaningful to me than the fact that the team did what it needed to do in virtually each game that season in order to reach its ceiling. IMO, the Pac-12 was a much tougher conference from top to bottom in 1997 than 2018 despite what the individual team records might indicate. If it took an OT win vs. Arizona in a game that could've gone the other way? They did it. Need to win the Apple Cup to become conference champs? They did it. And they were ever so close to beating the eventual co-national champion in the Rose Bowl. It wasn't a 2-point Alamo Bowl victory over Iowa State, but the 1997 team acquitted itself well in a game that had national championship ramifications. I'll admit that I probably look at things with Rose Bowl-colored glasses on, but I have little doubt the Leaf-led team was the best of them all.
Glad Cougar
Glad Cougar
Gets into another "how important is the AC" conversation, at which point you've abandoned the meritocracy in favor of a psychological desire to beat one's rivals.
Worth pointing out '97 Huskies were an 8-win team, and the '18 Huskies were a 10-win team with a Rose Bowl appearance and 2x 5-pt ROAD losses to Auburn & Ohio State. '18 Huskies were CLEARLY a bigger prize than '97 Huskies, so if you believe as I do that we win straight up if played w/o weather, then going on to lose the Rose Bowl to Michigan is more "uncle Rico" than it is true feather in our caps.
The 1997 was the only WSU team in the 40 years I've been following the Cougs where I expected them to win.
Using Massey as an "unbiased" source, in 1997, we played 7 teams that he had ranked in his Top 25 and we went 5-2 against them. We went 2-1 against teams in his top 10. He rated our schedule #26 in the country that year. We beat his #5, #9, #19, #20 and #24 ranked teams. Our losses in 1997 were to the #3 and #13 teams in his rankings. We played 3 teams outside his Top 50. Massey rated us as the #5 offense and #39 defense that year.
In 2018, we only played 2 teams in his top 25 and went 1-1. Our best win was against 9-4 Stanford, who he had ranked #25. We played 7 teams that were outside his Top 50. Massey had us rated as the #17 offense and #39 defense in 2018. We had the 52nd ranked schedule in 2018.
What all my rambling above tells you is that we played a far more difficult schedule in 1997 and we went 10-1 in the regular season against that schedule. Anyone who believes that the 2018 team was better than the 1997 team is suffering from recency bias. The 2018 team was good, but they were good like the 2003 team in that they did well against a lot of average to mediocre teams in the regular season but lost to the better teams we played.
In 2018, we only played 2 teams in his top 25 and went 1-1. Our best win was against 9-4 Stanford, who he had ranked #25. We played 7 teams that were outside his Top 50. Massey had us rated as the #17 offense and #39 defense in 2018. We had the 52nd ranked schedule in 2018.
What all my rambling above tells you is that we played a far more difficult schedule in 1997 and we went 10-1 in the regular season against that schedule. Anyone who believes that the 2018 team was better than the 1997 team is suffering from recency bias. The 2018 team was good, but they were good like the 2003 team in that they did well against a lot of average to mediocre teams in the regular season but lost to the better teams we played.
Look, I've got no problem with someone saying '97 would beat '18. No problem saying '97 was a better season. I just don't get how you get to "it would be a blowout". The only conference team they blew out was 3-8 Cal. So, unless you think the '18 Cougs would have been one of the worst teams in the conference back then, then I'm not understanding the argument. Kind of just feels like Leach erasure.
That's plenty fair. I think the 1997 team wins 9 out of 10 times....but I agree that the results of that season suggest that it would have been a 7-10 point win on average...not really a blowout.
The argument about each position group from 1997 being stronger than 2018 is thin. Has a 95 Mariners feel to it where fans have way overrated the contributions of certain players because they were part of a magical run rather than being dominant.
I think it would have been a blowout. The 2018 team gave up 39 points to USC, 37 to Oregon State and 38 to Stanford.
I have little doubt that the 1997 team would have hung 40+ on the 2018 defense, and I don't think the 2018 team would have scored more than 28 on the 1997 team.
You're new this internet thing?
Pac 10 circa 1997 was waaaay different than Pac 12 circa 2018. For those of us who were sowing their wild oats in the 80's and 90's, the Pac WAS the SEC of the era.
I understand the conference was better then. You think that takes the '18 team from 11 wins to...3?
Thanks for doing the homework on this Flat sounds about right to me. My only beef was with the claim that the 97 D was superior to the 18 D. While both defenses were pretty good, simply not the case that 97 was better. As I suspected about even. 97 offense was ahead of its time nobody will argue that.
The 1997 team would score points without a doubt, but that team gave up 34+ points on five occasions. It's not like it was a lockdown defense the way that the Posse was. FWIW, Massey thought that the 2002 and 2003 defenses were better than the 1997 defense.
Massey had the 1994 defense rated #1 in the country, but we all knew that already.
They also averaged 36.5 PPG in conference. Why would they only score 28 against the '97 D? That D allowed 37 to Cal.
Where did I ever say the 2018 team was a 3-win team?
I said - and continue to say - 1997 would blast 2018.
Also worth pointing out that the 1997 team beat a 20th ranked Husky team in Seattle (yes, UW only had 8 wins, but still ranked 20th) while the 2018 team lost to a 16th ranked Husky team in Pullman. Not a lot of difference between a 16th vs a 20th ranked Husky team, in my opinion. But a huge difference in beating them vs. not beating them. (And also note that the 2018 Husky team played 14 games, while the 1997 Husky team played only 12. So yeah, they ended up winning 2 more games in '18. Both teams lost 4 games in their respective seasons.)
Whether or not the '18 Huskies were CLEARLY a bigger prize, it doesn't matter to me. The real prize was getting to the Rose Bowl. Both WSU teams needed to beat the Huskies. The 97 Cougars did it. The 2018 Cougars did not.
Glad Cougar
Good research Flat. This is what it comes down to for me. I just can't see the '97 D allowing few enough points for the game to be a blowout. Not to mention, we're talking time travel here and the '97 D didn't see anything resembling the Air Raid.
Anyway, this is a silly exercise that has us downplaying some of our greatest teams. I'm not going to argue any further about a Gardner Minshew led team being blown out by anyone.
If you look deeper at the 1997 Husky team, they lost to 13-0 Nebraska, 10-2 WSU, 10-2 UCLA and 7-5 Oregon. They beat 9-3 ASU (who beat the Cougs). Don't tell the mutts, but they had a damned fine team that faced a brutal schedule. No offense to the 2018 Huskies, but I'd say that the 1997 version of the mutts would have given their 2018 brethren a hell of a fight.
There's one thing we can all agree on: if we suit up the 2018 guys today, they're gonna take the 44-year-olds from the 1997 team to the woodshed. There will be more torn ACLs than Saturday at a dog track.
Weather is part of football. If you run a system that becomes castrated by certain weather conditions, then you leave the argument open as to how good that team actually is.
We'll never know how good that team was against elite competition because instead of adjusting the game plan or playbook for blizzard conditions, Leach opted to ask his team to execute a passing attack in whiteout conditions with poor footing .
Personally, I still think we lose to the mutts without the weather due to their NFL defense being able to get pressure every down with a 3 man rush. I'd say we could win 1 out of 10 games in that match up if we manage to create a turnover or two.
You severely underestimate old man strength.
There is truth to old man strength. I may be able to lift more now than I did back in school, and I was fairly strong. However, the 1990 me can run circles around the 2021 me in a sprint.
Well, I was already 35 years old in 1990....so you can do the math and see where I'm at today. I don't have the strength anymore, I don't have the quickness anymore, I don't have the agility anymore. But I do now have enhanced girth.
Glad Cougar
Glad Cougar
Old man strength is great till you are on the IR. I say this 3 weeks removed from shoulder surgery.
