What did we learn week one?

[CougEd]

On the positive side they came out with a sense of urgency and confidence. For whatever reason they did not against Portland State and EWU was a really good football team.

I think we have better team speed on defense. Hercules looked lightening quick off the ball, Jaylen T seems to be covering a lot of ground out there. It is hard to tell how the corners did because MSU had a limited passing game.

If we stay healthy on defense we should be a respectable Pac 12 defense, and if Hercules keeps getting that type of penetration they could be a top half of the Pac 12 defense. I just don't know what the MSU game told us or didn't tell us in that regard.

On offense someone else mentioned it was the lack of "it" at the Wr position. Dink and dunk will work against MSU, but against the better defenses in the Pac 12 (are there really any "better defenses"?) that is a tall order to go 80 yards without a misstep. I am not seeing a play-maker out there yet and someone mentioned a lack of speed at that position. We shall see how they develop the next five games.

What I did notice on the negative side is lack of depth on both sides of the ball. It is my hope because they have the numbers on the oline that they will develop experienced and quality depth. And on defense I am not sure how they develop that depth as they are missing a couple of bodies.

 

[bogusto]

Your pronouncement of "lack of depth" is delivered without prelude or specific instances of manifestation. Perhaps you could elaborate, or, as seems evident from said pronouncement, you were pitching manure for the sheer thrill of the endeavor.

 

[Coug-Vandal]

On offense someone else mentioned it was the lack of "it" at the Wr position. Dink and dunk will work against MSU, but against the better defenses in the Pac 12 (are there really any "better defenses"?) that is a tall order to go 80 yards without a misstep. I am not seeing a play-maker out there yet and someone mentioned a lack of speed at that position. We shall see how they develop the next five games.

Johnson-Mack didn't have a good game but a team with him and Martin and Williams and Morrow and Calvin and Bell has playmakers. Montana St dropped 8 and played to contain everything in front. Against that strategy what is stupidly called "dink and dunk" is the right approach. If the other team wants to give Williams and Morrow 8 yards on a swing pass every play why should we care. Would we take 8 yards off tackle every play? I assume we would.

 

[dgibbons]

On offense someone else mentioned it was the lack of "it" at the Wr position. Dink and dunk will work against MSU, but against the better defenses in the Pac 12 (are there really any "better defenses"?) that is a tall order to go 80 yards without a misstep. I am not seeing a play-maker out there yet and someone mentioned a lack of speed at that position. We shall see how they develop the next five games.

Johnson-Mack didn't have a good game but a team with him and Martin and Williams and Morrow and Calvin and Bell has playmakers. Montana St dropped 8 and played to contain everything in front. Against that strategy what is stupidly called "dink and dunk" is the right approach. If the other team wants to give Williams and Morrow 8 yards on a swing pass every play why should we care. Would we take 8 yards off tackle every play? I assume we would.

I'll add that Falk going 20-20 in the first half wasn't some fluke. He will do that again if the defense leaves the flats wide open.

 

[dgibbons]

We learned that CougEd is still CougEd.

 

[CPtheCoug]

We learned that CougEd is still CougEd.

"I like you, buuuuuut......."

 

[YakiCoug]

We learned that CougEd is still CougEd.

Except now he openly wears purple.

 

[CougPatrol]

I'm not a member of the attack Ed club, but that was an odd post. We didn't learn much of anything from the MSU game honestly, and that includes negative feedback. The 1st quarter ended at 14-0, and we didn't do anything wrong. They took the air out of the ball.

The only thing I learned last week is that WSU vs. Montana State was akin to a cat playing with a nearly dead mouse. The outcome was obvious early on. We'll learn more this week.

 

[cr8zyncalif]

I'll add that Falk going 20-20 in the first half wasn't some fluke. He will do that again if the defense leaves the flats wide open.

Ed, there may have been a lack of "it" (as in Cousin It??) at WR, but when you go 20-20 in the first half, I am not particularly concerned about any lacking items. Yes, that is on the QB, but also on the WR's. So long as they catch the ball, I will not make many complaints. For the first game it was a good effort. I am more interested in seeing where they go from here, and BSU is a good next step to measure that.

 

[CPtheCoug]

Ed, there may have been a lack of "it" (as in Cousin It??) at WR, but when you go 20-20 in the first half, I am not particularly concerned about any lacking items. Yes, that is on the QB, but also on the WR's. So long as they catch the ball, I will not make many complaints. For the first game it was a good effort. I am more interested in seeing where they go from here, and BSU is a good next step to measure that.

The game definitely lacked "It", which I am okay with...

 

[Cougsocal]

Very hard to judge how we will fare this season on both sides of the ball against a team whose game objective was not to get blown out.

Defensively, if you can't stop an underskilled, one dimensional team, you are in big trouble. We did seem to be much quicker than MSU. I hope that isn't because they were just small and slow. We will see if playing with one DL, 5 LBs and 5 DBs, effectively, is the solution to the yet unsolved problem to stopping modern college offenses. Personally, I like the idea, even though it was forced on Grinch due to personnel limitations. Can't wait to see how it turns out.

On offense, we took what MSU gave us and they had no interest in adjusting. That said, we are ball control, dink and dunk offense, let's be proud of it. Our athleticism remains at RB, that is clear. Can we beat defenses who play our receivers tight? That is what Leach has had a year to figure out. From what I see, we haven't solved this problem with a receiver personnel upgrade. I think it will come down to how well our receivers can block in the flats for our RBs. If they can block well, allowing our RBs to gash opponents a few times, the problem solves itself. 2/3 of our plays against MSU went though our RBs, I see that continuing. Williams/Morrow/Wicks are our best playmakers, getting them the ball often, in a wide variety of ways, seems to be the obvious approach.

 

[SaveFerris]

Very hard to judge how we will fare this season on both sides of the ball against a team whose game objective was not to get blown out.

Defensively, if you can't stop an underskilled, one dimensional team, you are in big trouble. We did seem to be much quicker than MSU. I hope that isn't because they were just small and slow. We will see if playing with one DL, 5 LBs and 5 DBs, effectively, is the solution to the yet unsolved problem to stopping modern college offenses. Personally, I like the idea, even though it was forced on Grinch due to personnel limitations. Can't wait to see how it turns out.

On offense, we took what MSU gave us and they had no interest in adjusting. That said, we are ball control, dink and dunk offense, let's be proud of it. Our athleticism remains at RB, that is clear. Can we beat defenses who play our receivers tight? That is what Leach has had a year to figure out. From what I see, we haven't solved this problem with a receiver personnel upgrade. I think it will come down to how well our receivers can block in the flats for our RBs. If they can block well, allowing our RBs to gash opponents a few times, the problem solves itself. 2/3 of our plays against MSU went though our RBs, I see that continuing. Williams/Morrow/Wicks are our best playmakers, getting them the ball often, in a wide variety of ways, seems to be the obvious approach.

The only thing we could have learned is we are bad. Every question there was going into the season is still in play basically until SC but the rest of the games before SC will give us a better idea.

I'm still concerned about the interior DL but it is what it is. I like all of our players I just wish we had a couple more big bodies that could play.

 

[dgibbons]

Very hard to judge how we will fare this season on both sides of the ball against a team whose game objective was not to get blown out.

Defensively, if you can't stop an underskilled, one dimensional team, you are in big trouble. We did seem to be much quicker than MSU. I hope that isn't because they were just small and slow. We will see if playing with one DL, 5 LBs and 5 DBs, effectively, is the solution to the yet unsolved problem to stopping modern college offenses. Personally, I like the idea, even though it was forced on Grinch due to personnel limitations. Can't wait to see how it turns out.

On offense, we took what MSU gave us and they had no interest in adjusting. That said, we are ball control, dink and dunk offense, let's be proud of it. Our athleticism remains at RB, that is clear. Can we beat defenses who play our receivers tight? That is what Leach has had a year to figure out. From what I see, we haven't solved this problem with a receiver personnel upgrade. I think it will come down to how well our receivers can block in the flats for our RBs. If they can block well, allowing our RBs to gash opponents a few times, the problem solves itself. 2/3 of our plays against MSU went though our RBs, I see that continuing. Williams/Morrow/Wicks are our best playmakers, getting them the ball often, in a wide variety of ways, seems to be the obvious approach.

If defenses jamming the receivers and/or beating them one on one, the solution is easy. Send Morrow down the middle, TD Washington State.

The solutions are all there, and have been practiced. It's a question of execution.

 

[CougEd]

Your pronouncement of "lack of depth" is delivered without prelude or specific instances of manifestation. Perhaps you could elaborate, or, as seems evident from said pronouncement, you were pitching manure for the sheer thrill of the endeavor.

Your pronouncement of "lack of depth" is delivered without prelude or specific instances of manifestation. Perhaps you could elaborate, or, as seems evident from said pronouncement, you were pitching manure for the sheer thrill of the endeavor.

Your pronouncement of "lack of depth" is delivered without prelude or specific instances of manifestation. Perhaps you could elaborate, or, as seems evident from said pronouncement, you were pitching manure for the sheer thrill of the endeavor.

Manure spreader here....I would hope against a D2 team with game well in hand that you don't risk getting your left tackle hurt with four minutes left in the game. When I say we dont have depth, that doesn't mean numbers like it has meant in the past, it means we don't know their quality. We don't have experience so they could be "just guys".

1997 the fat 5 I think took all but maybe 20 snaps as a unit. They had no depth. They didn't have one d 1 body behind the starters and they didn't have anyone with experience. So saying they don't have depth isn't an insult, it is an observation. But maybe I missed something. Who did you see and I missed that played that you could remark "we have some quality depth along the oline?" Who did you see against MSU along the dline that you thought showed promise to back up McBroom, Eukale, and Hercules?

 

[CougEd]

Ed, there may have been a lack of "it" (as in Cousin It??) at WR, but when you go 20-20 in the first half, I am not particularly concerned about any lacking items. Yes, that is on the QB, but also on the WR's. So long as they catch the ball, I will not make many complaints. For the first game it was a good effort. I am more interested in seeing where they go from here, and BSU is a good next step to measure that.

I guess I just view the game differently than you. When Cracraft went down our offense sputtered. No he wasn't a burner, but he knew routes, the seams, and he knew how to get open. 20/20 is outstanding against anyone. But I view football as a game of match ups, and how we match up against Minnesota in the Holiday Bowl, or UW in the Apple Cup where we couldnt dink and dunk all the way down the field and score 31 points.

 

[CougEd]

Except now he openly wears purple.

Coming from a guy who openly criticizes Falk's ability. Pretty funny as I haven't even seen a UW game except the Apple Cups, which I hope someday soon we can be competitive in them again.

And yes I wish Peterson would take another job as I think he is a good guy and a fantastic coach.

 

[CougEd]

I'm not a member of the attack Ed club, but that was an odd post. We didn't learn much of anything from the MSU game honestly, and that includes negative feedback. The 1st quarter ended at 14-0, and we didn't do anything wrong. They took the air out of the ball.

The only thing I learned last week is that WSU vs. Montana State was akin to a cat playing with a nearly dead mouse. The outcome was obvious early on. We'll learn more this week.

Well when you play the oline all game and your LT gets rolled up on very late in the game it tells me the younger kids aren't quite ready. Do you disagree?

 

[dgibbons]

Well when you play the oline all game and your LT gets rolled up on very late in the game it tells me the younger kids aren't quite ready. Do you disagree?

Or he doesn't want to burn Lucas' redshirt.

 

[froropmkr72]

The only thing we could have learned is we are bad. Every question there was going into the season is still in play basically until SC but the rest of the games before SC will give us a better idea.

I'm still concerned about the interior DL but it is what it is. I like all of our players I just wish we had a couple more big bodies that could play.

yes, a couple of 6-5 260-270 DE's with a couple of other younger players would be nice. Why coudn't the staff sell one or two of the better JC DE's to play in the Pac 12? Even if they're just solid with good grades.

 

[YakiCoug]

Manure spreader here....I would hope against a D2 team with game well in hand that you don't risk getting your left tackle hurt with four minutes left in the game. When I say we dont have depth, that doesn't mean numbers like it has meant in the past, it means we don't know there quality. We don't have experience so they could be "just guys".

1997 the fat 5 I think took all but maybe 20 snaps as a unit. They had no depth. They didn't have one d 1 body behind the starters and they didn't have anyone with experience. So saying they don't have depth isn't an insult, it is an observation. But maybe I missed something. Who did you see and I missed that played that you could remark "we have some quality depth along the oline?" Who did you see against MSU along the dline that you thought showed promise to back up McBroom, Eukale, and Hercules?

All this from a Wulff stooge who stained his Fruit of the Looms over massive wins against Idaho State and a beaten-down UNLV team back "in the day." B.J. Salmonson, who started and fared well Saturday, was a back-up a year ago on an O-line you're suggesting has numbers no different from the late 1990s. The fact is you have any number of people who, if needed, could step up this year and will have to step up next year. The fact is there are actually choices this program hasn't ever seen on the O-line. It's not as if Leach has signed only two HS linemen in five seasons.
What you're doing here simply bleeds purple, as in the husky fan you've been, are, and will continue to be. You're a FAKE COUG, ediot. You sent your daughter to the UW. How's the XXL Husky Dad T-shirt feel?

 

[YakiCoug]

Coming from a guy who openly criticizes Falk's ability. Pretty funny as I haven't even seen a UW game except the Apple Cups, which I hope someday soon we can be competitive in them again.

And yes I wish Peterson would take another job as I think he is a good guy and a fantastic coach.

Says the husky wannabe moron who placed Falk below Liufau and a couple other Pac-12 QBs going into the 2016 season. Yes, a 13-5 Pac-12 record isn't enough for Mr. 6 and 40. Go make some more bad loans, loser.

 

[CougEd]

Or he doesn't want to burn Lucas' redshirt.

I agree, they don't want to burn Abraham's redshirt. But they only recruited one OT? Your post kind of makes my point.

 

[CougEd]

All this from a Wulff stooge who stained his Fruit of the Looms over massive wins against Idaho State and a beaten-down UNLV team back "in the day." B.J. Salmonson, who started and fared well Saturday, was a back-up a year ago on an O-line you're suggesting has numbers no different from the late 1990s. The fact is you have any number of people who, if needed, could step up this year and will have to step up next year. The fact is there are actually choices this program hasn't ever seen on the O-line. It's not as if Leach has signed only two HS linemen in five seasons.
What you're doing here simply bleeds purple, as in the husky fan you've been, are, and will continue to be. You're a FAKE COUG, ediot. You sent your daughter to the UW. How's the XXL Husky Dad T-shirt feel?

Hmmmm.... I guess that is one interpretation of what I posted. I didn’t make a comparison to the 1990's other than to say there are teams that win without having depth. Sure there is a little luck on our side when we have the same five starters. If you re-read my initial post I very clearly said they have the numbers to choose from. That doesn't make depth however. A body is a body. I said they don't have experienced depth and we don't have quality depth yet. And the fact their starters except Ryan were in the game late in the 4th quarter suggests they don't have the depth we would all like to see.


Again "Hood's Laki", I never even remotely suggested they had numbers that rivaled 1997 or 1998, or 2004-2013.

 

[CougEd]

Says the husky wannabe moron who placed Falk below Liufau and a couple other Pac-12 QBs going into the 2016 season. Yes, a 13-5 Pac-12 record isn't enough for Mr. 6 and 40. Go make some more bad loans, loser.

Pretty funny....are you saying I put Falk behind Sefo and Bercovici in 2016? Interesting. So I saw the best comeback QB in WSU history for a season and out him behind Sefo and Mike B, who by the way his last season was 2015. Yes, I put him behind those two qb's because they had more time behind center.

But I don't remember ever calling for his job to be up for competition like someone who was banned on this board.

Bad loans...never. And until you come up with a better plan how to finance homes, I will be helping people get into an investment in this area that appreciates 15% a year. Doesn't seem all that sinister.

 

[Fab5Coug]

I don't know, do most of the teams in our conference have a lot of experienced backups on their line 1 game into the season?

 

[CougEd]

I don't know, do most of the teams in our conference have a lot of experienced backups on their line 1 game into the season?

No doubt, but I would think in a game that is wrapped up in the 4th quarter that is where they get experience and we get to see flashes of kids who can play.

 

[dgibbons]

I agree, they don't want to burn Abraham's redshirt. But they only recruited one OT? Your post kind of makes my point.

Um, the next guy up happens to be a true freshman. If you think the coaches only recruited one OT, I invite you to look at the roster.

 

[Coug1990]

No doubt, but I would think in a game that is wrapped up in the 4th quarter that is where they get experience and we get to see flashes of kids who can play.

This early in the season, coaches are more worried about getting the team fine-tuned for upcoming games than getting the backups experience. It is a long season, there is plenty of time to get backups in games.

 

[YakiCoug]

Hmmmm.... I guess that is one interpretation of what I posted. I dodn't make a comaprison to the 1990's other than to say there are teams that win without having depth. Sure there is a little luck on our side when we have teh same five starters. If you re-read my initial post I very clearly said they have the numbers to choose from. That doesn't make depth however. A body is a body. I said tehy don't have experienced depth and we don't have quality depth yet. And the fact their starters except Ryan were in the game late in the 4th quarter suggests they don't have the depth we would all like to see.

Again "Hood's Laki", I never even remotely suggested they had numbers that rivaled 1997 or 1998, or 2004-2013.

Is the beer-soaked Sponge your ghost writer? Or is he in comaprison?

 

[brettcraycraft51]

This early in the season, coaches are more worried about getting the team fine-tuned for upcoming games than getting the backups experience. It is a long season, there is plenty of time to get backups in games.

totally agree. this is a point that tends to get lost in the "it's a blowout. why aren't the backups getting out there?" it's not always so cut and dried, and, in this case, i'm actually really happy that the starters stayed in as long as they did. personally, i value the fine-tuning in week one more than getting a handful of backups a little more time.

 

[YakiCoug]

totally agree. this is a point that tends to get lost in the "it's a blowout. why aren't the backups getting out there?" it's not always so cut and dried, and, in this case, i'm actually really happy that the starters stayed in as long as they did. personally, i value the fine-tuning in week one more than getting a handful of backups a little more time.

The fine tuning is exactly what the coaches are doing. It's what any good staff would do in the first game.

 

[CougEd]

Um, the next guy up happens to be a true freshman. If you think the coaches only recruited one OT, I invite you to look at the roster.

No I don't think they recruited one OT. But the fact the next man up is a true freshman confirms the question about depth is legit.

 

[CougEd]

Is the beer-soaked Sponge your ghost writer? Or is he in comaprison?

Nah.....but just give me an update me on your email...nanook email is outdated...and and I will send you my posts for you to edit,

 

[CougEd]

This early in the season, coaches are more worried about getting the team fine-tuned for upcoming games than getting the backups experience. It is a long season, there is plenty of time to get backups in games.

What part of Falk's game (and the team) were they fine tuning when Hillinski was on the field the last five minutes? Interesting take. Like I said, maybe they are really good back ups, we just haven't seen it.

 

[longtimecoug]

What part of Falk's game (and the team) were they fine tuning when Hillinski was on the field the last five minutes? Interesting take. Like I said, maybe they are really good back ups, we just haven't seen it.

one game into the season and you are questioning leach? get over it, your icon is long gone

 

[Coug1990]

What part of Falk's game (and the team) were they fine tuning when Hillinski was on the field the last five minutes? Interesting take. Like I said, maybe they are really good back ups, we just haven't seen it.

I know you haven't thought this out or you wouldn't ask. Why would you presume that Falk needs fine-tuning? WR's can still run routes and block for their teammates no matter the QB. The OL can still block in unison and at different levels no matter the QB. The RB's can still pass block and run the ball no matter the QB.

Maybe Leach was satisfied that Falk was playing in midseason form. Maybe McGuire was not entirely happy with the OL and wanted them to have more playing time. As I wrote above, fine-tuning is more important right now and cherry picking one player (at the most important position) is more for arguments sake than legitimate discussion.

 

[fingerdisco]

What part of Falk's game (and the team) were they fine tuning when Hillinski was on the field the last five minutes? Interesting take. Like I said, maybe they are really good back ups, we just haven't seen it.

This is Luke's 4th season as QB; this line has been playing as a unit for 1 game. You can't comprehend the difference?

You must be a blast at parties.

 

[CougEd]

one game into the season and you are questioning leach? get over it, your icon is long gone

Yes, I questioned what? This team hasn't shown experienced depth? As Fab said most teams have a question about there depth.

What I can tell you after two weeks that I couldn't tell you after week one is our future is very bright at the QB position for the next two years.

 

[CougEd]

This is Luke's 4th season as QB; this line has been playing as a unit for 1 game. You can't comprehend the difference?

You must be a blast at parties.

Parties? Are they suppose to be fun?

I would certainly agree with the premise they are "fine tuning" things, but really what are you fine tuning against Montana State? If fine tuning was what they were really doing, why was Ryan in at left guard? I guess I am confused? If you were to tell me they were fine tuning the offensive line play then don't substitute at all and get the whole unit to get their reps in.

When Dillard got rolled up on is that worth the risk of "fine tuning" the line play when all your starters are not in. My guess is we would all be saying something different if he suffered the same fate as George Fant did.

 

[CougEd]

I know you haven't thought this out or you wouldn't ask. Why would you presume that Falk needs fine-tuning? WR's can still run routes and block for their teammates no matter the QB. The OL can still block in unison and at different levels no matter the QB. The RB's can still pass block and run the ball no matter the QB.

Maybe Leach was satisfied that Falk was playing in midseason form. Maybe McGuire was not entirely happy with the OL and wanted them to have more playing time. As I wrote above, fine-tuning is more important right now and cherry picking one player (at the most important position) is more for arguments sake than legitimate discussion.

No I thought it out. Your answer would make sense if Ryan wasn't playing left guard, and if MSU actually offered some resistance. It is a big deal? Nope. I would just love to see the younger bodies get some snaps in and see what they have to work with.