ADVERTISEMENT

Number of 4/5 star players on each Pac-12 roster next seasom...

"My" narrative? Why are you coming after me? I'm curious what kind of crazy "narrative" I'm assumed to have.. .

The claim - not necessarily from you but from a dozen others at least - was that recruiting was going to massively fall off once Sark's recruits had gone. That hasn't happened. At all.

HDTH just posted how they're #1, and my Tableau post a month or so back showed they and SC have been doing this for quite awhile.

Citing W/L record is a completely separate point. Nobody disagrees they chronically underperform under the circumstances - although maddeningly, they seem to use talent to perfect advantage every November.

I don't believe recruiting has declined under Peterson, although we'll see how the offense is without Browning's escapability and Gaskin's cuts and speed. Defensively, the EWE appears to have nailed it - again.
 
cristobal wants to run an alabama power offense, but his o line recruiting looks more like wulff than saban. .last time I looked they had 2 ol this year

Wulff signed seven O-linemen in four years. Cristobal has already doubled that. Then again, any coach with a pulse exceeds what the Turd did in Pullman.
 
Petersen has out recruited Sark (look it up) and put a better product on the field. Sark couldn't get any more than 8 total wins and 5 in conference. Contrast that with 2 pac 12 championships and 3 NY6 bowls. Sark was good for UW at the time but not very good overall. I have no doubt that coug fans would love to have him back at UW though.
Again, their starting points when they took over the job are light years apart.

It is like Leach following Wulff and the coach that follows Leach. It won't be in the same universe.
 
Petersen has out recruited Sark (look it up) and put a better product on the field. Sark couldn't get any more than 8 total wins and 5 in conference. Contrast that with 2 pac 12 championships and 3 NY6 bowls. Sark was good for UW at the time but not very good overall. I have no doubt that coug fans would love to have him back at UW though.

FWIW, you apparently forgot that UW went 9-4 in Sarkisian's final season. Personally, I agree with you that Peterson is an upgrade over Sarkisian. It took him three years to get his guys in place and finish 12-2 overall. Still, it's got to be a little discouraging to see your team regress the past two years despite having senior leadership at key positions and now they are gone. A couple questions for you.
  1. In 2017 and 2018, did UW football perform to the level of your preseason expectations?
  2. Looking at your team as it stands right now, what do you expect your final record to be this year?
 
FWIW, you apparently forgot that UW went 9-4 in Sarkisian's final season. Personally, I agree with you that Peterson is an upgrade over Sarkisian. It took him three years to get his guys in place and finish 12-2 overall. Still, it's got to be a little discouraging to see your team regress the past two years despite having senior leadership at key positions and now they are gone. A couple questions for you.
  1. In 2017 and 2018, did UW football perform to the level of your preseason expectations?
  2. Looking at your team as it stands right now, what do you expect your final record to be this year?

I didn't forget UW's record his final season. I also didn't forget Sarks win total his final season at UW = 8. We've fallen short of the CFP the last two years but it seems like nitpicking to call it a regression. It's a lot of fun to be a fan of this team.
 
I didn't forget UW's record his final season. I also didn't forget Sarks win total his final season at UW = 8. We've fallen short of the CFP the last two years but it seems like nitpicking to call it a regression. It's a lot of fun to be a fan of this team.

Heart of Dallas Bowl Champions
9KaaXqs.jpg


It's orgasmic.
 
I didn't forget UW's record his final season. I also didn't forget Sarks win total his final season at UW = 8. We've fallen short of the CFP the last two years but it seems like nitpicking to call it a regression. It's a lot of fun to be a fan of this team.

For the record, your post said that Sark never finished with more than 8 TOTAL wins, not regular season. Don't be trying to move the goal posts to cover your a$$. Regardless, so you answered my first question. The last two years have not been up to your expectations. FWIW, 12 is more than 10 and playing in the national championship playoff is more meaningful than playing in the Fiesta Bowl as the 2nd place Pac-12 team or the Rose Bowl (although I will admit that I'd love to be in the position to say that and be forced to "settle" for a Rose Bowl berth), so your team has most definitely regressed.

Now, back on my second question. What do you expect from your team this year? How many wins do you really think are there for you? Are you going to win the conference? Or do you look at your team and think, "Man, we might only win 8 games this year"?
 
For the record, your post said that Sark never finished with more than 8 TOTAL wins, not regular season. Don't be trying to move the goal posts to cover your a$$. Regardless, so you answered my first question. The last two years have not been up to your expectations. FWIW, 12 is more than 10 and playing in the national championship playoff is more meaningful than playing in the Fiesta Bowl as the 2nd place Pac-12 team or the Rose Bowl (although I will admit that I'd love to be in the position to say that and be forced to "settle" for a Rose Bowl berth), so your team has most definitely regressed.

Now, back on my second question. What do you expect from your team this year? How many wins do you really think are there for you? Are you going to win the conference? Or do you look at your team and think, "Man, we might only win 8 games this year"?

No moving goal posts. Team had 9 but Sark only had a total of 8 wins that year, not sure why so confusing for you. You call it regression, I call it two good seasons that I am happy with. There's pretty thin margins when you are talking about CFP or not.
 
No moving goal posts. Team had 9 but Sark only had a total of 8 wins that year, not sure why so confusing for you. You call it regression, I call it two good seasons that I am happy with. There's pretty thin margins when you are talking about CFP or not.

Fair enough. I like the fact that you hate Sark enough to assume that he'd lose the bowl game and that he doesn't deserve credit for that team....but hey, whatever floats your boat.

As far as regression goes, were you really happy with falling short of the playoff? Was #16 your goal and are you really good with that? And again....you keep dodging my question about this season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PINGDUDE4
No moving goal posts. Team had 9 but Sark only had a total of 8 wins that year, not sure why so confusing for you. You call it regression, I call it two good seasons that I am happy with. There's pretty thin margins when you are talking about CFP or not.

On the "pretty thin margins" comment. Do you think the CFP committee was torn on whether they should take 10-3 UW or 12-1 Oklahoma? You think there was a chance that 11-2 Georgia, 12-1 OSU, or 10-2 Michigan might have gotten passed up by the mutts? Your team spent the entire second half of the 2018 season scrapping for relevance but you think it was a "pretty thin margin"? Husky fans really are as delusional as the stereotypes suggest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PINGDUDE4
Fair enough. I like the fact that you hate Sark enough to assume that he'd lose the bowl game and that he doesn't deserve credit for that team....but hey, whatever floats your boat.

As far as regression goes, were you really happy with falling short of the playoff? Was #16 your goal and are you really good with that? And again....you keep dodging my question about this season.

Strange that you are so adamant in giving Sark credit for a game he didn't coach and even more strange that you seem so invested in having me be "discouraged" by the team the last two years. I believe this program is focused on the right things and will always strive to excel. As for this coming season, I haven't even looked at this year's schedule yet so no guess at this time.
 
On the "pretty thin margins" comment. Do you think the CFP committee was torn on whether they should take 10-3 UW or 12-1 Oklahoma? You think there was a chance that 11-2 Georgia, 12-1 OSU, or 10-2 Michigan might have gotten passed up by the mutts? Your team spent the entire second half of the 2018 season scrapping for relevance but you think it was a "pretty thin margin"? Husky fans really are as delusional as the stereotypes suggest.

Thin margins meaning margins for error.
 
Strange that you are so adamant in giving Sark credit for a game he didn't coach and even more strange that you seem so invested in having me be "discouraged" by the team the last two years. I believe this program is focused on the right things and will always strive to excel. As for this coming season, I haven't even looked at this year's schedule yet so no guess at this time.

I really don't care about the credit for Sark. Frankly, I forgot that he left for USC before the bowl game. I was just dicking with you about the not giving Sark credit.

As far as looking at the schedule......I'm calling BS on that one. But hey, 10 seconds on the internet yields the following schedule.

8/31 - EWU
9/7 - Cal
9/14 - Hawaii
9/21 @ BYU
9/28 - USC
10/5 @ Stanford
10/12 @ UA
10/19 - Oregon
10/26 - Bye
11/2 - Utah
11/8 - @ OSU
11/16 - Bye
11/23 @ CU
11/29 - WSU

I see you going 7-5 next year. You do get most of your tough games at home and because of the soft early schedule, you'll be 4-0 and ranked #12 in the country when USC knocks you off. The loss to Stanford will put you at the outside edge of the Top 25 and the loss to Oregon will finish you off. You play Utah late enough that their QB may be injured (again), but I still say you lose. Cougs finally get the monkey off our backs and win the AC.

How do you feel about this year.....or are you still too much of a pussy to say anything?
 
The issue I have with the straight comparison between Sarkisian and Petersen is that the starting points for each was way different. Sarkisian took over a winless program with little talent and Petersen took over a nine win team that had gone to four straight bowls.

Willingham had destroyed recruiting inroads for the uw in both Washington and California. Sarkisian had to build the trust back up for the program. That was not a problem for Petersen.

Petersen has done well getting the highest rated players from the Greater Seattle-Tacoma area. Still, Sarkisian was doing the same thing the last few years of his time on montlake.

In the next few years, we will see just how good his coaching and recruiting classes are.
You're right. But that's why it's silly to read the prognostications about how today's UW - built on Sark's back - is heading imminently into the abyss as his legacy fades. It's just not happening.
 
You're right. But that's why it's silly to read the prognostications about how today's UW - built on Sark's back - is heading imminently into the abyss as his legacy fades. It's just not happening.

Nor is uw rising into any kind of national powerhouse, and it is declining since Sarkisian's recruits have departed. The national media no longer heaps overwhelming platitudes on Petersen. Those are the province of the Seattle media only, when they're not too busy fellating Pete Carrol.
 
You can’t keep your story straight. People, like me, repeatedly now in this thread, have pointed out that uw has been declining since Sarkisian’s recruits left.
You want credit for repeatedly making false claims?

It really doesn't matter what my "story" is - if you go on recruiting class rankings, you're wrong. If you go on W/L, you're wrong.
 
Nor is uw rising into any kind of national powerhouse, and it is declining since Sarkisian's recruits have departed. The national media no longer heaps overwhelming platitudes on Petersen. Those are the province of the Seattle media only, when they're not too busy fellating Pete Carrol.
Talk about changing stories: now the bar is "rising into...national powerhouse"?

In what way is UW declining? We've established they're winning more and recruiting better post-Sark. What is left?
 
You want credit for repeatedly making false claims?

It really doesn't matter what my "story" is - if you go on recruiting class rankings, you're wrong. If you go on W/L, you're wrong.

Do you know how to read or maintain a cogent thought? How am I wrong? Sarkisian was pulling NFL guys with serious talent like Shaq Thompson, Shelton, Peters and Ross.
 
Talk about changing stories: now the bar is "rising into...national powerhouse"?

In what way is UW declining? We've established they're winning more and recruiting better post-Sark. What is left?

Do you understand W-L record? Do you understand that Sarkisian's recruits remained on the roster after he left uw? Do you understand where Sarkisian's recruits went in the draft?
 
Do you know how to read or maintain a cogent thought? How am I wrong? Sarkisian was pulling NFL guys with serious talent like Shaq Thompson, Shelton, Peters and Ross.
How many times should I say it? Recruiting rankings are better under CP. You want to talk about how the NFL now (back to changing stories)?
Do you understand W-L record? Do you understand that Sarkisian's recruits remained on the roster after he left uw? Do you understand where Sarkisian's recruits went in the draft?
Just so I'm clear: you think asking if I "understand W-L record" when the actual W-L record directly contradicts your point is a knockout punch?
 
How many times should I say it? Recruiting rankings are better under CP. You want to talk about how the NFL now (back to changing stories)?

Just so I'm clear: you think asking if I "understand W-L record" when the actual W-L record directly contradicts your point is a knockout punch?

Recruiting rankings are super cool and awesome. Compare the NFL draft picks. Your reading comprehension is at Loyal and CougEd level. I actually feel sorry for you. uw is past the sweet spot of Petersen coaching up Sarkisian’s recruits. The decline in the W-L record is obvious. Do you not understand that 10-3 and 10-4 is worse than 12-2? Do you not see uw’s offense going backward? This is genuine Dunning-Kruger stuff.
 
Recruiting rankings are super cool and awesome. Compare the NFL draft picks. Your reading comprehension is at Loyal and CougEd level. I actually feel sorry for you. uw is past the sweet spot of Petersen coaching up Sarkisian’s recruits. The decline in the W-L record is obvious. Do you not understand that 10-3 and 10-4 is worse than 12-2? Do you not see uw’s offense going backward? This is genuine Dunning-Kruger stuff.
I want you to know that both of us - me and you - recognize you're wrong.

But we also know you can't back down now because to do so would be to lose more face than you're comfortable with (hint: nobody cares).

So we are to believe that the team which just won our entire conference for the 2nd time in 3 years, posted double-digit wins for all of the last 3 years, reeled off their 6th straight Apple Cup victory (on the road no less), and turned in the most star-studded recruiting class in 2019 - that is the team you are pointing to as one in clear and irreversible decline?

I want you to stop for one moment and just ponder how insane that is, and the ludicrous corner you have backed yourself into here. These are the types of actually maniacal positions that hubris can force you into.

PS If the Internet had grades, blasting people for spelling, grammar and "reading comprehension" would put you at a 3rd grade level.
 
I want you to know that both of us - me and you - recognize you're wrong.

But we also know you can't back down now because to do so would be to lose more face than you're comfortable with (hint: nobody cares).

So we are to believe that the team which just won our entire conference for the 2nd time in 3 years, posted double-digit wins for all of the last 3 years, reeled off their 6th straight Apple Cup victory (on the road no less), and turned in the most star-studded recruiting class in 2019 - that is the team you are pointing to as one in clear and irreversible decline?

I want you to stop for one moment and just ponder how insane that is, and the ludicrous corner you have backed yourself into here. These are the types of actually maniacal positions that hubris can force you into.

PS If the Internet had grades, blasting people for spelling, grammar and "reading comprehension" would put you at a 3rd grade level.

And you would be at pre-school level.
 
Annual Offseason Internet Condescension Olympiad is UNDERWAY. Spectators are advised to bring raincoats
 
Annual Offseason Internet Condescension Olympiad is UNDERWAY. Spectators are advised to bring raincoats
Only 6 1/2 months more of it until we can focus on football and ridiculing Spongiform brains if he manages to get himself unbanned.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT