Spring game impressions?

[random soul]

I wasn't able to be there, so anybody that was have anything interesting to share?

How was the line play? Any new faces standing out?

Who is making plays on defense?

How is Powell looking as a punter, and is the new long snapper looking ok?

 

[COUGinNCW]

I wasn't able to be there, so anybody that was have anything interesting to share?

How was the line play? Any new faces standing out?

Who is making plays on defense?

How is Powell looking as a punter, and is the new long snapper looking ok?

I only was able to see a few minutes of it in TV but I'll say the crowd looked pretty decent, especially after seeing virtually no one at the uw Spring game after their CFP run.

 

[CPtheCoug]

I only was able to see a few minutes of it in TV but I'll say the crowd looked pretty decent, especially after seeing virtually no one at the uw Spring game after their CFP run.

I thought the same until the camera panned upwards and you could see most of the UW fans that attended were sitting in the luxury level seats.

I read/heard somewhere that there were roughly 6,000 people that attended our spring game (about 25% of those never made it past the end zone beer garden lol).

 

[YakiCoug]

I thought the same until the camera panned upwards and you could see most of the UW fans that attended were sitting in the luxury level seats.

I read/heard somewhere that there were roughly 6,000 people that attended our spring game (about 25% of those never made it past the end zone beer garden lol).

I didn't go, but what I watched on TV left me optimistic, particularly with how fast the DBs close. Some of the new WRs had their moments (Bell, Patmon). The d-line will improve with the return of Tapa and the continued growth of Begg, Mattox, and others.
O'Connell is simply a beast. He obliterated Begg and Luvu on different plays.
Some criticism is in order, though. I really like Hilinkski's mobility, but is he giving up on his receivers too soon? Does he doubt he has the arm to get the ball where it needs to go? As long as Falk remains healthy, I doubt we'll see much of Hilinski this season, so it might not matter

 

[dgibbons]

I wasn't able to be there, so anybody that was have anything interesting to share?

How was the line play? Any new faces standing out?

Who is making plays on defense?

How is Powell looking as a punter, and is the new long snapper looking ok?

Williams making that catch over the middle shows he's taken a step forward in his development.

Patmon and Johnson-Mack look the park.

We need some interior guys on the DL. Eukale looks good. McBroom was OK. Tapa did not play. The time is now for guys like Mattox, Bartley and Bender.

 

[YakiCoug]

Williams making that catch over the middle shows he's taken a step forward in his development.

Patmon and Johnson-Mack look the park.

We need some interior guys on the DL. Eukale looks good. McBroom was OK. Tapa did not play. The time is now for guys like Mattox, Bartley and Bender.

Mattox was frequently double-teamed, but you can tell he's definitely getting bigger. Tapa's return is paramount. McBroom will benefit from another summer of weight lifting. Keep in mind the defense was very vanilla, so we didn't see the entire package.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I've only watched the first half so far. FWIW, the game is being replayed on Pac-12 networks at 6:30 PST tonight and I'm going to watch the rest then. I was disappointed in Dimry's hands on one play. Perfect throw and he drops it on what didn't look like a particularly hard hit. The running backs look dynamic although they didn't run many running plays. As mentioned above, Falk is clearly the QB of this team so any talk of Hilinski should wait until next year. I read that the official attendance was over 9,000 but as previously mentioned, most of them obviously didn't make it into the stands.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

I watched the rest of the spring game last night. The last touchdown thrown by Falk was freakin' fabulous and a big reason why he gets so much respect. Perfectly thrown to the receiver in stride and at just the right arc that only one guy had a shot at the ball. I'm a little concerned that our running backs looked so good because part of me wonders if our DL play isn't up to snuff right now on run defense. A big issue was our players over-running plays and biting on juke moves. Hilinski needs to learn to value the ball more. A number of passes went into dangerous territory and he got bailed out by the receivers several times.

Hilinski likes to run a lot more than Falk but was hampered by the spring game rules that meant a touch was a tackle. He may need to learn to avoid that desire to run if he can't take a hit from 230 lb college linebackers.

 

[Glad Cougar]

I've only watched the first half so far. FWIW, the game is being replayed on Pac-12 networks at 6:30 PST tonight and I'm going to watch the rest then. I was disappointed in Dimry's hands on one play. Perfect throw and he drops it on what didn't look like a particularly hard hit. The running backs look dynamic although they didn't run many running plays. As mentioned above, Falk is clearly the QB of this team so any talk of Hilinski should wait until next year. I read that the official attendance was over 9,000 but as previously mentioned, most of them obviously didn't make it into the stands.

Dimry will always look the part and he certainly is a nice, big target for a QB. But he's far from reaching his potential, even in his 6th year of eligibility. I keep seeing the pass thrown to him in the Holiday Bowl along the sideline near the 5 yard line that should have been a relatively easy catch, but his footwork was out of whack and he caught the pass with one foot out of bounds. Not sure about his hands either. He'll help, but I'm not counting on him being as big of a factor as several other WRs.

In the spring game, I liked Martin, Johnson-Mack, Patmon, and the walk-on Arcanado impressed me as well.

Glad Cougar

 

[CougPatrol]

I think we're in big trouble next season. We had zero production at the fullback and tight end positions. Once again, Leach seems determined to stick with the air-raid instead of the power running game that many people are calling for.

 

[CPtheCoug]

My perspecitive is both optomistic but also worried.

Overall I think we are probably about the same team we were last year. I think, barring Luke regressing, we will have a good offense that can score a lot of points in bunches. I think we will have another year of solid-to-good offensive line play and great running backs. With 10 seniors listed on the 2-deeps on defense we should be hypothetically better there (I did like the speed to appears we have on defense now). This is a good thing, consistency is a good thing. I think we should rattle off another 7+ wins and flirt with the Pac-12 title game for the third year in a row (in 2015 we would have gone to the Pac-12 title game if we had made that kick against Stanford, the season could have ended in the exact same manner, we just needed that win over Stanford). Winning solves problems!

What worries me:

WR toughness. I know its just a spring game, but I was hoping to see some anger/nastiness/toughness out of our receivers. One thing I noticed last year (Boise game, UCLA, Colorado and UW games) is that when our WR's faced very physical aggressive secondaries we sort of got slapped around. For example our WR's were flat out avoiding #20 when we went against Boise St. last year. It pissed me off too during the Colorado and the Apple Cup games how our WRs just looked rattled out there which led to a lot of dropped passes. River was a beast and was pretty much the only consistent WR we had that would not only catch the ball and take the hit, he would later get revenge and just BLAST defensemen during plays where he would be a blocker. I hope for 2017 our WR's get a little more physical and take the fight to the defense.

Size on defense. I know its almost always a trade off between size and speed. I just hope we didn't downsize too much for the sake of speed. I am worried about our d-line play and the speed of our middle line backers.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

CP, I understand your WR comments. My guess is that we will get used to seeing two of the running backs most of the time. Not sure what set they will run from... two backs? Two backs with one in motion? RB starting as an inside receiver? Three WR to one side (one of which is a RB)? I suspect we'll see all of that and more. If you look at the returning playmakers, there seem to be more RB's than WR's, or at least as many RB's...and you have to have your playmakers on the field as frequently as possible. Harrington is as close to an explosive guy as we have now that Marks is gone, and he will be harder to bring down. If he can show that he can hang on to the ball, he will be in the game a lot, and I would not be surprised to see him line up as a receiver some of the time.

On a slightly different tangent, many people have commented about Leach's reluctance to run trick plays. Part of that is Leach and his belief that execution trumps all. But part of it is also the personnel that he has had. Harrington lined up as a receiver practically begs for the occasional end around, Statue of Liberty, fake screen, delay play of any sort, etc. His speed makes many things possible that would not be practical with our typical group of possession-type receivers.

 

[95coug]

CP, I understand your WR comments. My guess is that we will get used to seeing two of the running backs most of the time. Not sure what set they will run from... two backs? Two backs with one in motion? RB starting as an inside receiver? Three WR to one side (one of which is a RB)? I suspect we'll see all of that and more. If you look at the returning playmakers, there seem to be more RB's than WR's, or at least as many RB's...and you have to have your playmakers on the field as frequently as possible. Harrington is as close to an explosive guy as we have now that Marks is gone, and he will be harder to bring down. If he can show that he can hang on to the ball, he will be in the game a lot, and I would not be surprised to see him line up as a receiver some of the time.

On a slightly different tangent, many people have commented about Leach's reluctance to run trick plays. Part of that is Leach and his belief that execution trumps all. But part of it is also the personnel that he has had. Harrington lined up as a receiver practically begs for the occasional end around, Statue of Liberty, fake screen, delay play of any sort, etc. His speed makes many things possible that would not be practical with our typical group of possession-type receivers.

I agree with this, except that I can see either Morrow or Harrington in the slot. Morrow is a solid receiver, Harrington is explosive.

I think our RBs open up not so much trick plays, but certainly multiple options. Imagine - Morrow and Williams in the backfield, Harrington in the slot. Harrington in motion left, Morrow goes right at the snap. As the D, what do you do? You have to respect both as receivers, but you can't ignore Williams on the draw (or Wicks on the plunge).

Having options in the backfield really should take a little pressure off of our receivers, so it's not as immediately critical that someone step up to replace Marks and Cracraft. We still need solid performances from someone on the outside, but our primary weapons don't have to be there this year.

As for prognosis, just like last year, I can see us flirting with 10 wins again, and also see the Apple Cup being for the Pac-12 North. I could also see us struggling to be bowl eligible. I think the D will be better, but the way the O ended the season worries me. If we go back to the old saying, "you're only as good as your last game", right now we're not very good. If our Holiday Bowl team is the one that shows up in 2017, we may not make a bowl - and we don't deserve one.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Based on spring FPI projections, ESPN pegs us at 8-4 and basically tied for 4th in the conference with UCLA and Oregon. Following is a list of where they see Pac-12 teams finishing (I did some rounding):

UW: 10-2
Stanford: 9-3
USC: 9-3
Oregon: 8-4
WSU: 8-4 (UCLA is rated slightly higher than us but we have the projected win advantage)
UCLA: 7-5
CU: 6-6
ASU: 6-6
Arizona: 6-6 (they are actually rated lower than Utah and OSU but projected to have more wins)
Utah: 5-7
OSU: 5-7
Cal: 4-8

I think they have USC under-rated and Stanford over-rated. Oregon has the potential to go 8-4 if they can get their defensive woes straightened out quickly. Cal is certainly the team with the greatest chance of finishing in the cellar. Utah will most likely exceed their prediction. Willingham knows how to get wins out of his guys and I don't see them falling back to 5-7. If USC performs at the level I expect and Stanford struggles, they will make the college football playoff, the mutts will be in the Rose Bowl and we'll have a real shot at the Alamo Bowl. UW's schedule is so freakin' easy this year that they'll have to work at not getting to 10 wins.

 

[CougPatrol]

I don't see Oregon winning 8 games. Maybe 6-6.

 

[YakiCoug]

Based on spring FPI projections, ESPN pegs us at 8-4 and basically tied for 4th in the conference with UCLA and Oregon. Following is a list of where they see Pac-12 teams finishing (I did some rounding):

I see USC winning it all. Barring a sophomore slump, Sam Darnold is the best quarterback in the conference, and USC's recruiting is on the uptick. It appears the UW hasn't recruited well enough to offset the losses on defense. And is there another John Ross on that roster? If there isn't, Pettis and Browning aren't going to be as effective.

 

[random soul]

Based on spring FPI projections, ESPN pegs us at 8-4 and basically tied for 4th in the conference with UCLA and Oregon. Following is a list of where they see Pac-12 teams finishing (I did some rounding):

UW: 10-2
Stanford: 9-3
USC: 9-3
Oregon: 8-4
WSU: 8-4 (UCLA is rated slightly higher than us but we have the projected win advantage)
UCLA: 7-5
CU: 6-6
ASU: 6-6
Arizona: 6-6 (they are actually rated lower than Utah and OSU but projected to have more wins)
Utah: 5-7
OSU: 5-7
Cal: 4-8

I think they have USC under-rated and Stanford over-rated. Oregon has the potential to go 8-4 if they can get their defensive woes straightened out quickly. Cal is certainly the team with the greatest chance of finishing in the cellar. Utah will most likely exceed their prediction. Willingham knows how to get wins out of his guys and I don't see them falling back to 5-7. If USC performs at the level I expect and Stanford struggles, they will make the college football playoff, the mutts will be in the Rose Bowl and we'll have a real shot at the Alamo Bowl. UW's schedule is so freakin' easy this year that they'll have to work at not getting to 10 wins.

USC is the favorite hands-down this year. The only team in their division that I expect to have a shot at pushing them, on paper, is UCLA, but their offensive line situation really has to get better and they lose a lot on defense. I expect Utah to be more in the middle simply because I see no evidence that RichRod will get Arizona to stop anybody and while CU's program is in better shape they'll take a step back after losing so much veteran leadership. I figure USC, UCLA, ASU, Utah, CU, Arizona, with RichRod gone in the South. And if UCLA tanks Mora could feel it too. In the north UW is on top until somebody beats them. On paper I'd like our chances best, but until they prove it I can't predict that because of how terrible our last few Apple Cup performances have been. Stanford has a lot of talent, but they lose some top defenders and McCaffrey. I expect them to possibly be the North favorite next year. Like Arizona, Oregon has to prove they can play a little defense. More talent to work with here, and the new coaching staff will probably generate some improvement, but I think they're stuck duking it out with the improving Beavs for 4th. Cal will likely be the worst team in the conference this year, and I'm not sure it will be close.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

USC is the favorite hands-down this year. The only team in their division that I expect to have a shot at pushing them, on paper, is UCLA, but their offensive line situation really has to get better and they lose a lot on defense. I expect Utah to be more in the middle simply because I see no evidence that RichRod will get Arizona to stop anybody and while CU's program is in better shape they'll take a step back after losing so much veteran leadership. I figure USC, UCLA, ASU, Utah, CU, Arizona, with RichRod gone in the South. And if UCLA tanks Mora could feel it too. In the north UW is on top until somebody beats them. On paper I'd like our chances best, but until they prove it I can't predict that because of how terrible our last few Apple Cup performances have been. Stanford has a lot of talent, but they lose some top defenders and McCaffrey. I expect them to possibly be the North favorite next year. Like Arizona, Oregon has to prove they can play a little defense. More talent to work with here, and the new coaching staff will probably generate some improvement, but I think they're stuck duking it out with the improving Beavs for 4th. Cal will likely be the worst team in the conference this year, and I'm not sure it will be close.

Agree all around. Here is the link to the ESPN projections: LINK

The records I listed above are weighted by ESPN to factor in losses that average out over the course of a season. When you look at each team in depth, you get the following records based on game by game predictions:

North
Stanford: 11-1 (8-1)
UW: 11-1 (8-1)
Oregon: 9-3 (6-3)
WSU: 8-4 (5-4)
OSU: 4-8 (2-7)
Cal: 2-10 (1-8)

South
USC: 11-1 (9-0) (losing to ND!)
UCLA: 9-3 (6-3)
ASU: 5-7 (3-6)
CU: 5-7 (2-7)
Arizona: 5-7 (2-7)
Utah: 4-8 (2-7)

FPI says that Stanford beats UW at home. The averages shown in my earlier post expect Stanford to have a lot more close games than UW and that the odds are that they'll lose a couple of them. I'm not drinking the Stanford kool-aid this year. I believe that they are an 8-4 type team this year. I agree that USC is the definite favorite. I'm kind of wondering if UCLA at 7-5 (5-4) would keep Mora on-board or if they would dump him.

 

[95coug]

Agree all around. Here is the link to the ESPN projections: LINK

The records I listed above are weighted by ESPN to factor in losses that average out over the course of a season. When you look at each team in depth, you get the following records based on game by game predictions:

North
Stanford: 11-1 (8-1)
UW: 11-1 (8-1)
Oregon: 9-3 (6-3)
WSU: 8-4 (5-4)
OSU: 4-8 (2-7)
Cal: 2-10 (1-8)

South
USC: 11-1 (9-0) (losing to ND!)
UCLA: 9-3 (6-3)
ASU: 5-7 (3-6)
CU: 5-7 (2-7)
Arizona: 5-7 (2-7)
Utah: 4-8 (2-7)

FPI says that Stanford beats UW at home. The averages shown in my earlier post expect Stanford to have a lot more close games than UW and that the odds are that they'll lose a couple of them. I'm not drinking the Stanford kool-aid this year. I believe that they are an 8-4 type team this year. I agree that USC is the definite favorite. I'm kind of wondering if UCLA at 7-5 (5-4) would keep Mora on-board or if they would dump him.

I agree, for the most part. UW is the team to beat in the North, USC in the south...and both of them have favorable schedules so it'll be tough to knock either of them down unless they underperform. I'd like to say that UW is more likely to do so, based on their lack of apparent answers for their graduation/draft losses, but their schedule stacks up so well that I think they've got a lot of room for error. USC is similar, but they play a far tougher non-conference schedule than the Huskies, including a trip to Notre Dame.

I don't see Stanford at 11-1. They were a significantly weaker team without McCaffrey last year, and they won't have him at all now. They have too many question marks to see them as a favorite. They have to travel to some tough opponents, so looking at their schedule I see at least 4 games that I'd count as likely losses. If they don't get solid QB play, that number goes up quickly.

I'm not so sure about Utah at 4-8. Willingham does a good job of getting his team prepared, and finds ways to claw out wins when on paper they shouldn't. Not sure I see much better than 7-5, but not worse than 4-8. Their schedule might work against them though, they've got a reasonable non-conference schedule, and then they travel to USC, Oregon, and UW. They might need some good bounces to get bowl eligible.

I think both RichRod and Mora are in trouble, especially RichRod. There's no way to be nice about it - Arizona sucked last year. Bad - as in "Idaho probably could have beat them" bad. I don't see that they've picked up a messiah that's going to turn them around - in fact, I'm not even sure that you can see hope from where they are. They should go 2-1 in non-conference, but after that they have to hope that things break their way, and that Utah, Colorado, and UCLA don't put the pieces together until the second half. UA travels for 4 of their last 6 - including trips to USC, Oregon, and ASU - so they probably need to start 5-1 to have a shot at a bowl. I don't see that happening. I think it's more realistic that we could knock them out of bowl contention when we visit before Halloween, and the Wildcats have an interim coach in November.
As for UCLA, I think it's amazing how they make such a science out of underperforming. It's been almost 20 years since Leon Bender made his infamous comment about them...and it's still true. On paper, they really should be able to contend, and their game against USC could be for the lead in the South. But UCLA is the opposite of Utah. While the Utes, on paper, should rarely be as good as they are, the Bruins are never as good as they look on paper. That makes them very hard to project. I could see them basically coasting to a 4-2 or 5-1 start (which isn't that great, considering they have gimme games against Hawaii, Memphis, and Arizona)...but then I can see them tanking the back half and barely getting bowl eligible (or not - I don't think 0-6 is totally out of the question). To be fair, their second half is tough - trips to UW, Utah, and USC, plus Oregon, ASU, and Cal.

Here's another one - I don't think Todd Graham is safe at ASU. Even in his 10-win seasons, they performed below expectations, and his last two years have been bad. They've got a lot of question marks this year, and what could be a tough schedule. I could see them going 0-8 through the middle of it, and he won't survive that. They do get the toughest opponents - UW and USC - at home, but I don't think ASU has the horses to compete with either of them on any field. They get Oregon and Colorado at home too, but on paper they both look better than the devils too. Mix in trips to Stanford, Utah, and UCLA, and I think the Duel in the Desert might just turn out to be the fight for the cellar.

 

[CougPatrol]

Stanford always has the linemen to be elite, but of late they've lacked a top shelf QB. If they don't replace McCafferey with an explosive running back, I don't see their offense being able to grind out 11 wins. They'll still be a formidable team, but it's tough to win in the pac-12 if you can't score points.

 

[ElComanche]

The cougs have a lot of "ifs' but i think that they are capable of going 10-2 next year and being in contention. Seeing is believing and we shall soon see.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

Based on spring FPI projections, ESPN pegs us at 8-4 and basically tied for 4th in the conference with UCLA and Oregon. Following is a list of where they see Pac-12 teams finishing (I did some rounding):

UW: 10-2
Stanford: 9-3
USC: 9-3
Oregon: 8-4
WSU: 8-4 (UCLA is rated slightly higher than us but we have the projected win advantage)
UCLA: 7-5
CU: 6-6
ASU: 6-6
Arizona: 6-6 (they are actually rated lower than Utah and OSU but projected to have more wins)
Utah: 5-7
OSU: 5-7
Cal: 4-8

I think they have USC under-rated and Stanford over-rated. Oregon has the potential to go 8-4 if they can get their defensive woes straightened out quickly. Cal is certainly the team with the greatest chance of finishing in the cellar. Utah will most likely exceed their prediction. Willingham knows how to get wins out of his guys and I don't see them falling back to 5-7. If USC performs at the level I expect and Stanford struggles, they will make the college football playoff, the mutts will be in the Rose Bowl and we'll have a real shot at the Alamo Bowl. UW's schedule is so freakin' easy this year that they'll have to work at not getting to 10 wins.

Flat, I see UW as having at least 3 losses, but that is partly because I think we win the Apple Cup this year. Yes, they skip SC and play nobody non-conf. Cal, OSU and UCLA are not serious threats. But between Stanford, Oregon, Utah and the Arizonas, I think they manage to lose 2 more. I don't think UW will be as good as they were last year unless a half dozen guys really step up to replace some good people (especially on D). Stanford IMHO is about right at 9 wins, though 8 would not surprise. I expect SC to win 10 this year. You could take UCLA, CU, ASU, UA and Utah and almost throw darts to predict their order of finish, but I would put Utah at the top of that heap, followed by who ever wins the UCLA/Colorado game. This will be the year to see how long it will take OSU to return to relevance.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

I agree, for the most part. UW is the team to beat in the North, USC in the south...and both of them have favorable schedules so it'll be tough to knock either of them down unless they underperform. I'd like to say that UW is more likely to do so, based on their lack of apparent answers for their graduation/draft losses, but their schedule stacks up so well that I think they've got a lot of room for error. USC is similar, but they play a far tougher non-conference schedule than the Huskies, including a trip to Notre Dame.

I don't see Stanford at 11-1. They were a significantly weaker team without McCaffrey last year, and they won't have him at all now. They have too many question marks to see them as a favorite. They have to travel to some tough opponents, so looking at their schedule I see at least 4 games that I'd count as likely losses. If they don't get solid QB play, that number goes up quickly.

I'm not so sure about Utah at 4-8. Willingham does a good job of getting his team prepared, and finds ways to claw out wins when on paper they shouldn't. Not sure I see much better than 7-5, but not worse than 4-8. Their schedule might work against them though, they've got a reasonable non-conference schedule, and then they travel to USC, Oregon, and UW. They might need some good bounces to get bowl eligible.

I think both RichRod and Mora are in trouble, especially RichRod. There's no way to be nice about it - Arizona sucked last year. Bad - as in "Idaho probably could have beat them" bad. I don't see that they've picked up a messiah that's going to turn them around - in fact, I'm not even sure that you can see hope from where they are. They should go 2-1 in non-conference, but after that they have to hope that things break their way, and that Utah, Colorado, and UCLA don't put the pieces together until the second half. UA travels for 4 of their last 6 - including trips to USC, Oregon, and ASU - so they probably need to start 5-1 to have a shot at a bowl. I don't see that happening. I think it's more realistic that we could knock them out of bowl contention when we visit before Halloween, and the Wildcats have an interim coach in November.
As for UCLA, I think it's amazing how they make such a science out of underperforming. It's been almost 20 years since Leon Bender made his infamous comment about them...and it's still true. On paper, they really should be able to contend, and their game against USC could be for the lead in the South. But UCLA is the opposite of Utah. While the Utes, on paper, should rarely be as good as they are, the Bruins are never as good as they look on paper. That makes them very hard to project. I could see them basically coasting to a 4-2 or 5-1 start (which isn't that great, considering they have gimme games against Hawaii, Memphis, and Arizona)...but then I can see them tanking the back half and barely getting bowl eligible (or not - I don't think 0-6 is totally out of the question). To be fair, their second half is tough - trips to UW, Utah, and USC, plus Oregon, ASU, and Cal.

Here's another one - I don't think Todd Graham is safe at ASU. Even in his 10-win seasons, they performed below expectations, and his last two years have been bad. They've got a lot of question marks this year, and what could be a tough schedule. I could see them going 0-8 through the middle of it, and he won't survive that. They do get the toughest opponents - UW and USC - at home, but I don't think ASU has the horses to compete with either of them on any field. They get Oregon and Colorado at home too, but on paper they both look better than the devils too. Mix in trips to Stanford, Utah, and UCLA, and I think the Duel in the Desert might just turn out to be the fight for the cellar.

'95, I expect RichRod to be gone after this season and Mora either wins this year or next year will be his last. Mora won't be gone after this season, even with more disappointment, because UCLA has really low standards for football performance. But another disappointing season this year will lead to a scorching hot seat next season. As for Graham, I think he had better win 7 games plus a bowl if he wants to avoid the scorching seat for the following season...and even 7 + bowl will still not meet expectations and the seat will be pretty warm.

 

[Flatlandcoug]

Flat, I see UW as having at least 3 losses, but that is partly because I think we win the Apple Cup this year. Yes, they skip SC and play nobody non-conf. Cal, OSU and UCLA are not serious threats. But between Stanford, Oregon, Utah and the Arizonas, I think they manage to lose 2 more. I don't think UW will be as good as they were last year unless a half dozen guys really step up to replace some good people (especially on D). Stanford IMHO is about right at 9 wins, though 8 would not surprise. I expect SC to win 10 this year. You could take UCLA, CU, ASU, UA and Utah and almost throw darts to predict their order of finish, but I would put Utah at the top of that heap, followed by who ever wins the UCLA/Colorado game. This will be the year to see how long it will take OSU to return to relevance.

I'd love to see them finish 9-3 or worse but I don't have any faith in the Arizona schools being capable of laying an upset on them. See the comments above by others for justification. FWIW, my listing above is not my opinion of the finish, it's simply a listing of the records for each time if the FPI played out in each game. I think we beat Oregon again and we will be 8-1 and tied for first in the North heading into the game against Stanford. If we can beat Stanford, I figure we'll be ranked around #12 in the country with a difficult trip to Utah ahead. Win that one and it sets up the Apple Cup as an epic game with playoff implications for both teams. Our chances would be incredibly thin, but we'd be in the conversation and I can live with that. We'll see how it goes.

 

[Coug90]

Flat, I see UW as having at least 3 losses, but that is partly because I think we win the Apple Cup this year. Yes, they skip SC and play nobody non-conf. Cal, OSU and UCLA are not serious threats. But between Stanford, Oregon, Utah and the Arizonas, I think they manage to lose 2 more. I don't think UW will be as good as they were last year unless a half dozen guys really step up to replace some good people (especially on D). Stanford IMHO is about right at 9 wins, though 8 would not surprise. I expect SC to win 10 this year. You could take UCLA, CU, ASU, UA and Utah and almost throw darts to predict their order of finish, but I would put Utah at the top of that heap, followed by who ever wins the UCLA/Colorado game. This will be the year to see how long it will take OSU to return to relevance.

Love your positivity but I don't see us winning the AC till we can be competitive in one, especially in Seattle when UW is as good as they've been in almost 30 years. No way in hell UW goes back to the playoff, but I wouldn't say I think we are gonna beat them. We are sure due though.