Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
These lists are always a joke. Luke Falk has not earned his way into the Top 3, but there are some serious question marks around everybody next year. There's no way the following people earned spots this high:
- Kevin Hogan (Stanford) - terrible. He's a linebacker playing QB.
- Jeff Lockie (Oregon) - all garbage time snaps. How could we know?
- Travis Wilson (Utah) - College football's answer to interception Jesus
- Jerry Neuheisel (UCLA) - 2 games under his belt, one of which is garbage time
Any list that does not have Wilson last is a joke.
Why is Berc and Laufau below Falk?Goff
Kessler
Solomon
Oregon starter
WSU starter
Bercovici
Oregon State starter
Laufau
Neuheisel
Lindquist
Hogan
Wilson
That might be a bit of a chicken/egg debate. The Pac-12 had 5 teams in the top 20 passing offenses (plus UA at #21), and 3 of the top 10. WSU was #1 by a margin of more than 100 yards at 477 ypg. Cal and Oregon were also over 300 ypg. That really screws up the defensive numbers for the rest of the league. But the question becomes, were the defense numbers skewed because the offenses were good, or were the offensive numbers skewed because the defenses were bad? Tough to say.I did laugh at the reasoning of the article for Hogan being ranked high. He played well in his last three games is their basis. One of those games as against Cal. They was so bad on pass defense that our defensive coaches were like, "Damn, Cal is our Mississippi". They gave up 70 more yards per game than we did. If you look at the team that was 70 yards better than us, you've got to jump 60 spots higher in the rankings. Any small sample group that contained Cal is a flawed one.
On a brighter note, for all the bitching about our pass defense, our whole conference (outside of Stanford) wasn't good. Utah was ranked 90th at 248 ypg and they were 2nd best. Eight of the twelve teams (including WSU) finished at #100 or below.
Considering that the P12 has won the majority of their bowl games the last several years, I would think that the offenses were that good.That might be a bit of a chicken/egg debate. The Pac-12 had 5 teams in the top 20 passing offenses (plus UA at #21), and 3 of the top 10. WSU was #1 by a margin of more than 100 yards at 477 ypg. Cal and Oregon were also over 300 ypg. That really screws up the defensive numbers for the rest of the league. But the question becomes, were the defense numbers skewed because the offenses were good, or were the offensive numbers skewed because the defenses were bad? Tough to say.
Personally, I lean toward the offenses were that good and/or leaned heavily on the pass...because there were only 3 passing offenses who were not in the top half (Stanford, UW, and Utah), while 11 defenses were #90 or below. I think if the defenses were that bad, even Stanford, UW, and Utah would have been higher. But it's certainly debatable.
Either way, it's worth noting that of the teams we played, their average ranking in pass defense was #96. Stanford was #8, Rutgers #69, Utah #90, and everyone else was below #100. Consider also that the differences aren't that big - the difference between #50 and #100 on the rankings is only 36 yards.
That might be a bit of a chicken/egg debate. The Pac-12 had 5 teams in the top 20 passing offenses (plus UA at #21), and 3 of the top 10. WSU was #1 by a margin of more than 100 yards at 477 ypg. Cal and Oregon were also over 300 ypg. That really screws up the defensive numbers for the rest of the league. But the question becomes, were the defense numbers skewed because the offenses were good, or were the offensive numbers skewed because the defenses were bad? Tough to say.
Personally, I lean toward the offenses were that good and/or leaned heavily on the pass...because there were only 3 passing offenses who were not in the top half (Stanford, UW, and Utah), while 11 defenses were #90 or below. I think if the defenses were that bad, even Stanford, UW, and Utah would have been higher. But it's certainly debatable.
Either way, it's worth noting that of the teams we played, their average ranking in pass defense was #96. Stanford was #8, Rutgers #69, Utah #90, and everyone else was below #100. Consider also that the differences aren't that big - the difference between #50 and #100 on the rankings is only 36 yards.
Some qbs have have been vilified on these boards because they didn't win. Hogan wins. I'm not sure why all the dislike.
Only 3 teams gave up more passing TDs than we did. Only 9 gave up more yards per attempt. A whopping 21 gave up more yards per completion...which still means we were #104 in YPC. (most of the teams behind us in all of these categories were not Pac-12 teams.) Opponents completed 64.3% of their passes against us for the season.All I was getting at was that we have fans who are worried that our pass defense was so horrible last year. I won't disagree that we had some terrible breakdowns at critical times. Still, when you look at everyone else in our conference, we are in the same ballpark as them. The critical difference for us was that we just couldn't generate turnovers. Colorado was terrible in that respect but OSU generated 8 more picks than we did in the #10 spot ahead of us. We had 3...they had 11. Over the course of the year, if we had been able to stop 8 scoring drives with interceptions, it's easy to imagine us making a bowl game just by getting that straightened out.
Well, you seem to be disagreeing in typical passive/aggressive fashion. One of my strongest factors is how much the offense relies on the quarterback.Why is Berc and Laufau below Falk?
Starting from the bottom in total offense last year was Utah and Stanford. Wilson was that efficient and anyone could pass a little bit behind Stanford's Oline.Well, you seem to be disagreeing in typical passive/aggressive fashion. One of my strongest factors is how much the offense relies on the quarterback.
Only 3 teams gave up more passing TDs than we did. Only 9 gave up more yards per attempt. A whopping 21 gave up more yards per completion...which still means we were #104 in YPC. (most of the teams behind us in all of these categories were not Pac-12 teams.) Opponents completed 64.3% of their passes against us for the season.
Based on that, I think it's fair to say our pass defense was horrible.
If asking a question why is passive aggressive then guilty as charged. I don't have a strong opinion to be honest, and it was a legit question because at first blush I think the success and experience the two qb's mentioned might have an edge over falk. Now I could reciprocate the "dick" remark and say "just because the QB in the offense is the main piece in Leach's offense, that doesn't mean falk has shown himself to be consistently productive or is good enough to supplant the other two. Or I could say that every QB should do well in Leach's offense because it only takes three days to install. Now see, that is passive aggressive.Well, you seem to be disagreeing in typical passive/aggressive fashion. One of my strongest factors is how much the offense relies on the quarterback.
If asking a question why is passive aggressive then guilty as charged. I don't have a strong opinion to be honest, and it was a legit question because at first blush I think the success and experience the two qb's mentioned might have an edge over falk. Now I could reciprocate the "dick" remark and say "just because the QB in the offense is the main piece in Leach's offense, that doesn't mean falk has shown himself to be consistently productive or is good enough to supplant the other two. Or I could say that every QB should do well in Leach's offense because it only takes three days to install. Now see, that is passive aggressive.
Wow...how did you get Wulff and Ball into this conversation? Nice work. As I stated I don't have a strong opinion either way. Which Falk will we see, the one who played as well as one can against OSU? Five TD's? Or the one in the last two starts once their was film on him he threw 5td's and 6 picks. Not sure I would agree that Falk is ahead or better than 2013 Halliday if that is what you mean and I didn't misread what you wrote.Okay well let's take a look at some things simple Ed.
Falk had a higher completion% and more tds and a similar rating to Bercovici
Falk also had a higher QB rating than Liuafu
Falk will get his offensive line back. Marks, Cracraft, D Williams, Wicks, and Morrow are all returning weapons. That's a lot of protection and firepower coming back, and with experience being the main limiting factor for him he should be set to in excellent shape.
Falk also had a better completion % and rating than Halliday did in 2013.
His INT / ATT % is also better than Halliday in 2013 at 2.8% to Halliday's 3%
So from a development standpoint he should be coming in about where Halliday was last year.
Leach's system will continually be able to reload in QBs not because it takes 3 days to install, but because of the structure and repetition that make it move. The more you throw in it the better you get. Case in point 2012,2013,2014 Halliday. Falk is already slightly better than 2013 Halliday, and Continually the offense will steadily grow till it hits the optimal production level.
The system will continually reload a new QB right in building on the level it was at before. Just like Oregon does with their system. There is some fluctuation, but it's slight.
This is why Leach has had more Danny O'Brien, Heisman Invitees, Maxwell award winners than your piece of crap Wulff overlord and Chris Ballsack licking heroes could ever dream of.
[QUOTE="CougEd,
But I do have to commend you on keeping Wulff's name alive in a simple discussion about QB rankings. It is interesting that you can't even talk about our current Qb without bringing up a guy who left three plus seasons ago.
I know your stupid thought process. You want the ASU guy ahead of falk because you like ball and ASU more than the cougs, and you want Sefo Liufau ahead of Falk because in your head you want to say that Leach missed out on an instate QB that Wulff totally would have gotten.
I've been on here long enough to see how you think and operate on here. It's like watching the stupid girl run around trying to spread dissension because her fat ugly friend got dumped.
Oh why aren't these two ahead of our guy? Blah blah blah... Oh his offense is only installed in 3 days blah blah blah.
Ah...which "agenda" would that be Whit? The board survived the Rosie Brink debates, the board survived the immature name calling and the debates over whether Wulff should be given time. And one to three people have killed the board? Where were you when at least 8 people I know left in 2011 and 2012? I think once there is content and the season starts the board will be "revived"This is dead-on Cougatron. His pathetic agenda has killed this board.
(Cue Sponge's 2-cents...3,2,1)
Message board conspiracy theorists unite!This is dead-on Cougatron. His pathetic agenda has killed this board.
(Cue Sponge's 2-cents...3,2,1)
Fish is the only one calling anyone a "dick" on this board for the record. If you were to say that every WSU QB is great because the offense takes 3 days to install....that would make you stupid in a very assertive way.If asking a question why is passive aggressive then guilty as charged. I don't have a strong opinion to be honest, and it was a legit question because at first blush I think the success and experience the two qb's mentioned might have an edge over falk. Now I could reciprocate the "dick" remark and say "just because the QB in the offense is the main piece in Leach's offense, that doesn't mean falk has shown himself to be consistently productive or is good enough to supplant the other two. Or I could say that every QB should do well in Leach's offense because it only takes three days to install. Now see, that is passive aggressive.
I think it's hilarious because you can watch these idiots show up every single time.
CougEd - Shows up and tries to put a negative light on anything positive about the program
Spongebob - Same ilk, but just takes a negative approach to anything related to Leach.
Chinook - The most confusing because he's like manic either way overboard in his praise, or absolutely delusional in his criticisms. I like to think that he's a true fan but with a really really warped logic.
Now the other interesting ones...
El Comanche - Hates Halliday on a very personal level. Still a coug, but he is way too fixated on this aspect.
Yaki - One of my favorites to watch because he caught on to the dissension spreaders early and likes to haunt them.
Biggs - Reasonable smart guy loves the cougs loves football
1990 - Level headed Coug loves the team and is fair in his assessment
Wulffui - Reasonable guy not afraid to take an unpopular opinion but will argue it well
etc. etc. etc.
It's not conspiracy. It's who you are. When you have a pattern of the same behavior over and over and over it's obvious to people.
My favorite CougEd moment is when he came on here posting "Halliday leaving the team?" which was deleted because it was rumor and fear mongering, and that's pretty much all CougEd does.
So forgive me when I jump down this guys throat when his only point of discussion is...
"Why aren't two other QBs ahead of our guy"
Falk is low on the list because of 3-9 in 2014. It really has nothing to do with ability of any of the QB's. Oh, and lists are stupid.Is that a record?! It took a whopping 21 posts before someone felt the need to bring Wulff into the conversation. Amazing.
I think Falk is a little low on the list but I think he will be in the middle of the pack by the years end. Hogan and Wilson are overrated.
And you are on of the idiot Kool Aid drinkers similar to brand x who, to use a line from your favorite poster, has their legs wrapped around Leach.I think it's hilarious because you can watch these idiots show up every single time.
CougEd - Shows up and tries to put a negative light on anything positive about the program
Spongebob - Same ilk, but just takes a negative approach to anything related to Leach.
Chinook - The most confusing because he's like manic either way overboard in his praise, or absolutely delusional in his criticisms. I like to think that he's a true fan but with a really really warped logic.
Now the other interesting ones...
El Comanche - Hates Halliday on a very personal level. Still a coug, but he is way too fixated on this aspect.
Yaki - One of my favorites to watch because he caught on to the dissension spreaders early and likes to haunt them.
Biggs - Reasonable smart guy loves the cougs loves football
1990 - Level headed Coug loves the team and is fair in his assessment
Wulffui - Reasonable guy not afraid to take an unpopular opinion but will argue it well
etc. etc. etc.
It's not conspiracy. It's who you are. When you have a pattern of the same behavior over and over and over it's obvious to people.
My favorite CougEd moment is when he came on here posting "Halliday leaving the team?" which was deleted because it was rumor and fear mongering, and that's pretty much all CougEd does.
So forgive me when I jump down this guys throat when his only point of discussion is...
"Why aren't two other QBs ahead of our guy"
And you are on of the idiot Kool Aid drinkers similar to brand x who, to use a line from your favorite poster, has their legs wrapped around Leach.
Were you even around during the Price years? I'm guessing not since you have Leach and 3-9 so far up on a pedestal.
You are very good with numbers tron. But just like your Transformer brethren, it is not always what it appears to be. You think you are looking at a yellow Camaro and next thing you know it is "Bungle Bee", probably a fav of yours. When you write it took Price four years to get to a post season, that is true. But he had a better record in year one than the 2013 season, year two, of the Leach era. Now you could argue it is much more competitive today than it was back in the early 90's, but Price was 9-3 off his first three recruiting classes. That alone was pretty impressive to me.Yes I was around for Price. And here's where your hypocrisy with 3-9 shines through.
4 times Price finished with a 3 win season of his 14 years. 28% To be exact.
8 times Price finished with a losing season. 57% of the Time.
It took him 4 years to get to the post season.
And even after Coaching for 9 years at the program. 3 TIMES the duration that Leach has had to setup a program... he posted the following.
Year 10 - 3-8
Year 11 - 3-9
Year 12 - 4-7
So when you start throwing fits about Leach who took us to a bowl game in year 2 and is having to rebuild from what was described as THE WORST teams in the BCS era by some..and bring up Price.I find you to be absolutely 100% stupid in all of your statements.
I loved Mike Price, but at the same time I remember what it was like when he was here. It wasn't Rose Bowls every year like you want to remember. There were a lot of rough years but it was clear he was always trying to build and move the program forward...even when it was bad. I see that in Leach now, and if only you would open your eyes you'd see the same thing.
Ah yes the selective memory duo let's see the record of what the 4 previous years were before Price came in and Leach.
Before Price
9-3 (Ericson)
3-7-1 (Ericson)
3-7-1 - Walden
4-7 - Walden
19 - 24 - 2 or a .446 win %
In his first 3 years Price was 13-20 or .393 %
Before Leach
4-8
2-10
1-11
2-11
9 - 40 or a .183 win %
In his first 3 years Leach is 12-25 or .324%
So to sum it up for you.
Price inherited a program that was coming off a 9 win season
The previous 4 years were 2.4 times better by average than what Leach got.
Price's first 3 years were worse by average than the previous 4 while Leach's was better
He had only 1 more win than Leach.
See the thing about numbers is they don't lie. They don't have an agenda, or an axe to grind, they don't practice hypocrisy, they just are facts, and the one thing charlatan, liars, and delusional people can't stand...are facts.