UW Football Game 2, verses Portland State

[Michael K.]

I told a budy of mine when the Cougar game was 7 to 7 this weekend. The Big 10 aint all that.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

At least the Big10 West isn't.

I still don't want to mess with Ohio State or Michigan at this moment.

[Michael K.]

At least the Big10 West isn't.

I still don't want to mess with Ohio State or Michigan at this moment.

Ohio State trailed ND at the half, and all the Big 10 slurpers on ESPN told us what a great win that was because, it was Notre Dame. That didn't age well. Michigan? They haven't played anyone yet, why do you have to wait and see about your own favorite team, but crown Michigan after those two wins? They lost a BIG part of that defense from last year that made them so special. Are they good? Sure, but all this Bullshit about how GREAT that Conference is? I am sick of these fuckers coming out in July and telling us who is going to be good, then pretending like since some team that never did anything was rated? Every loss is a good one.

The SEC and Big 10 make there nut on that. Oh, this team is really good, so if you lose to them that's fine. Why are they really good? Because some nucklehead voter said so in July! Oregon was highly ranked, then fell out after week 1, then beat a D 2 team and got back in? Come on. These voters know less about the games being played than most people in this forum.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

Ohio State trailed ND at the half, and all the Big 10 slurpers on ESPN told us what a great win that was because, it was Notre Dame. That didn't age well. Michigan? They haven't played anyone yet, why do you have to wait and see about your own favorite team, but crown Michigan after those two wins?

First of all, both Michigan and Ohio State have recruited better than the Dawgs have over the last few years....a lot better.
Second, both Michigan and Ohio State have (at this point) a better and proven coach.
Third, after that shit show the Dawgs put on last season, I have a right to see if they have righted the ship.
Fourth, until DeBoer proves he can coach moderate recruits to beat great recruits, I will question...and wait.

But that doesn't mean I won't watch every game I can, nor does it mean I will assume they'll lose. It just means that I want to see the product before casting judgement.

They lost a BIG part of that defense from last year that made them so special. Are they good? Sure, but all this Bullshit about how GREAT that Conference is? I am sick of these fuckers coming out in July and telling us who is going to be good, then pretending like since some team that never did anything was rated? Every loss is a good one.

Believe me, I am just as tired as you are about all the cock-sucking and brown nosing the Big10 and SEC by all the media. It's almost shameful.

The SEC and Big 10 make there nut on that. Oh, this team is really good, so if you lose to them that's fine. Why are they really good? Because some nucklehead voter said so in July! Oregon was highly ranked, then fell out after week 1, then beat a D 2 team and got back in? Come on. These voters know less about the games being played than most people in this forum.

Anyone 'busting a nut' because of Big10 or SEC football is a little weird.
But I am one of those that believe rankings shouldn't come out until everyone has played 3 games. Just looking at the stats of MSU, I am not impressed. They have turned the ball over a lot against a JV league. Their QB isn't good, but they do seem to have decent running backs. But for some reason they are ranked at 9 and 11. Why is that...because that's where they were originally voted and most of these idiots won't change that ranking until they lose....which is wrong.

[Michael K.]

First of all, both Michigan and Ohio State have recruited better than the Dawgs have over the last few years....a lot better.
Second, both Michigan and Ohio State have (at this point) a better and proven coach.
Third, after that shit show the Dawgs put on last season, I have a right to see if they have righted the ship.
Fourth, until DeBoer proves he can coach moderate recruits to beat great recruits, I will question...and wait.

But that doesn't mean I won't watch every game I can, nor does it mean I will assume they'll lose. It just means that I want to see the product before casting judgement.

All I am pointing out is that you seem to be saying that Michigan, despite losing a ton of talent last year, is going to be great because they beat two shitty teams. While Washington, who is obviously better at most spots in comparison to last year, has FAR superior coaching to last year, blows out two shitty opponents, but you need to see it to believe it? It's college football, last year don't mean shit. I have seen Harbaugh fuck up much better teams than he has right now. I have listened to many people who know a lot about football talk about this team in comparison to last year, and while they try to hide it to not rip Lake....MUCH BETTER COACHING is what it always boils down to. This team is hands down better than last year. I don't give a shit what DeBoer's pedigree was in relation to Lake's, I will take this guy over ANYTHING I saw from Lake. Even the year we went 3 and 1, our offense was dogshit against everyone not named AZ, and so was our run defense.

You can hate on the guys with small college backgrounds all you want, I just won't agree. When Kent State and Boise State are the pedigree of two of the best, and the Weasel came from Colorado and Jimmy was here for six plus years before taking over? I'd say we might want to open our eyes and actually believe until we have a reason NOT to, not doubt until we have a reason not to.

I fucked up the quote feature somehow, but Michigan State is ranked where they are because they are in the Big 10. It is exactly what is wrong with college football. As I said, some dudes in July that have no idea at all vote on who is going to be good with very little evidence to support a damn thing. And then, since it was decided in July who is good, losing to one of those teams is deemed a good thing.

Have the polls the end or middle of September. I mean, for fuck sakes, the Cougars needed an interception in the endzone to avoid a tie with Fucking Idaho, and then beat a top 15 Big 10 team? That should open eyes. Notre Dame was deemed a potential Final Four team! Florida beats a Utah team that is being mentioned in the Final Four and then loses to Kentucky! Let these teams play some games, then have a poll about the time you start announcing the BCS points, or what ever the fuck they call it now.

Pre Season top 25

SEC - 6 schools. 3 of them in the Top 6
Big Ten - 4 schools. 2 of them in the Top 8
ACC - 5 Schools. But only 1 in the Top 10. # 4 Clemson
Big 12. 3 Schools. 2 in the Top 10
Pac 12. 2 Schools. Utah at #7 is the only one in the Top 10
Rounding out the Top ten was Notre Dame as an Independent at #5

Even if Utah had beaten Florida, the deck is stacked against them as they already decided no one was worthy. USC has made noise, because they are USC...but that is another part of the problem. Perception matters, and it shouldn't. When USC and Oregon are good, the Pac is viewed as having a good year. When it was Washington and Utah? The Conference sucked, and beating Utah did little for Washington. Think back to the year the Huskies won the Regular season in basketball and didn't make the Big Dance? That NEVER happens if they are AZ or UCLA.

It should not matter what team is good, as long as teams are good. That Washington team would have beaten Clemson had they been the #3 seed like they should have. Getting dropped to four simply because they lost to USC was crazy. Had USC been the preseason favorite, and their only loss was to Washington? They are NOT 4th, and I promise, no one would have lined up cupcakes on the sidelines when talking about their chances.

College football is slowly dying, IMO. This too little too late stuff they are doing with the college playoffs prove they know it too.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

All I am pointing out is that you seem to be saying that Michigan, despite losing a ton of talent last year, is going to be great because they beat two shitty teams.

And yet both of them have filled in with great talent.

While Washington, who is obviously better at most spots in comparison to last year, has FAR superior coaching to last year, blows out two shitty opponents, but you need to see it to believe it?

Yes.
Washington doesn't have as good of talent as the two listed above....from a recruiting standpoint. Furthermore, although coaching seems to be superior to last season for Washington, is it up to the level of Michigan and/or Ohio? We don't know yet. That's right....we don't know yet.

It's college football, last year don't mean shit.

Sure it does. Teams with a bunch of great talent, still have great talent to fill in for those that went to the NFL. Ask Bama, Clemson, Ohio State, etc...

I have listened to many people who know a lot about football talk about this team in comparison to last year, and while they try to hide it to not rip Lake....MUCH BETTER COACHING is what it always boils down to.

So far, I can't argue with that....but the bar was pretty low.

I will take this guy over ANYTHING I saw from Lake

I'd agree with this as well. I did like Lake as the rah rah defensive coordinator that showed emotion. The "keep calm" dude we has the last 2 years didn't impress anyone.

You can hate on the guys with small college backgrounds all you want, I just won't agree.

How have I hated on him. All I want to see is progress. I want people to earn it, not be given something because of something they did at a lower level. And you can't say that "levels" don't count. Ask Kelley and Spurier how they did in the NFL....level counts.

When Kent State and Boise State are the pedigree of two of the best

One of the best. The other you refer to is a certainly a top 5, but positions 2-5 can be argued.

I'd say we might want to open our eyes and actually believe until we have a reason NOT

Not who I am. And I won't change for to make your life happier.

Michigan State is ranked where they are because they are in the Big 10. It is exactly what is wrong with college football. As I said, some dudes in July that have no idea at all vote on who is going to be good with very little evidence to support a damn thing. And then, since it was decided in July who is good, losing to one of those teams is deemed a good thing.

Totally agree....see previous post.

[Michael K.]

2 through 5 can be argued? Again, when I asked you to do this last time you went on a two page love affair with the Weasel, so much as to say "Bowl Games Count", then when I showed you not only was he worse in the regular season but in Bowl games, you said "I didn't say he was better". So, please, stop it. It isn't debatable.

You mentioned some guy that coached before my dad was alive, then pointed out how things were different. No one gives a shit about football before helmets. It's James and it's CP. Bitch all you want, complain about how that really means the bar is pretty low, but that is exactly what it is.

Owens competed against fewer teams, had a lower winning percentage, and was ranked in the top 10 twice. In 1959 and 1960. Look at the next 14 years of his career. Looks an awful lot like Seven Sarkisian and Rick the Weasel...only he scattered a few losing seasons in there. Jesus, I can only imagine your vitrial if CP had a Husky resume that inlcuded 3-5-2, followed by 1 - 9 and ended at 2 - 9 and 5 - 6! Good Christ, if he had one season with one or two wins you would have picketed Mountlake! Yet, you throw Owens out there as one of the "debatable" at being better. Bullshit. You give CP Sark, Weasel, or Owens resume and you would have fucking DIED!

Sorry, you can not come up with a list of three other coaches better than Pete. There is James, then Pete, then it gets polluted. Again, the last time we did this, you spewed on and on about Rick! Fuck that.

Your pessimism is unfounded. You keep saying "we don't know". What we do know is they are lighting up the scoreboard, everyone but you is astounded about how much better coached they are, and there is no mistaking the fact that the work was put in in the gym based on the body composition changes.

The simple fact that you bitched and moaned about this very same thing with CP, and now still try to downplay his legacy here tells me all I need to know. You are simply afraid to admit you were most definitely wrong about Coach Pete being ready for the big time. Name a Pac 12 coach with a better resume while he was here? Jesus, bitch all you want about not beating the big guys outside the Conference. NO ONE DOES. There is a reason. No one comes out West to play...and fans like you don't get it. So, coaches get the fuck out.

My hope is this changes with Lincoln Riley coming out West, but now? They are Big 10. Your unreasonable expectations don't help this program.

[Michael K.]

Owens was here 18 years. 6 different times they had a losing season, and 2 other times they finished .500. He had a two win season and a one win season. Again, tell me he belongs ahead of CP? Zero chance. Maybe you want to throw in Lambright? I am sure having a hard time figuring out how CP is "arguably only 5th". Even if I give you the fricking guy that coached before helmets when it was the fucking Pac 4 Conference....he is no way anything but the 3rd best.

Some guy without helmets, Sark, Weasel and Owens. I guess that is your four others that are better?

Six losing seasons. If CP had two you would have TP'd the University.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

2 through 5 can be argued? Again, when I asked you to do this last time you went on a two page love affair with the Weasel, so much as to say "Bowl Games Count", then when I showed you not only was he worse in the regular season but in Bowl games, you said "I didn't say he was better". So, please, stop it. It isn't debatable.

You mentioned some guy that coached before my dad was alive, then pointed out how things were different. No one gives a shit about football before helmets. It's James and it's CP. Bitch all you want, complain about how that really means the bar is pretty low, but that is exactly what it is.

Owens competed against fewer teams, had a lower winning percentage, and was ranked in the top 10 twice. In 1959 and 1960. Look at the next 14 years of his career. Looks an awful lot like Seven Sarkisian and Rick the Weasel...only he scattered a few losing seasons in there. Jesus, I can only imagine your vitrial if CP had a Husky resume that inlcuded 3-5-2, followed by 1 - 9 and ended at 2 - 9 and 5 - 6! Good Christ, if he had one season with one or two wins you would have picketed Mountlake! Yet, you throw Owens out there as one of the "debatable" at being better. Bullshit. You give CP Sark, Weasel, or Owens resume and you would have fucking DIED!

Sorry, you can not come up with a list of three other coaches better than Pete. There is James, then Pete, then it gets polluted. Again, the last time we did this, you spewed on and on about Rick! Fuck that.

Your pessimism is unfounded. You keep saying "we don't know". What we do know is they are lighting up the scoreboard, everyone but you is astounded about how much better coached they are, and there is no mistaking the fact that the work was put in in the gym based on the body composition changes.

The simple fact that you bitched and moaned about this very same thing with CP, and now still try to downplay his legacy here tells me all I need to know. You are simply afraid to admit you were most definitely wrong about Coach Pete being ready for the big time. Name a Pac 12 coach with a better resume while he was here? Jesus, bitch all you want about not beating the big guys outside the Conference. NO ONE DOES. There is a reason. No one comes out West to play...and fans like you don't get it. So, coaches get the fuck out.

My hope is this changes with Lincoln Riley coming out West, but now? They are Big 10. Your unreasonable expectations don't help this program.

Honestly, what is amusing is how much time you are wasting posting YOUR OPINIONS.

[Walla Walla Dawg II]

Owens was here 18 years. 6 different times they had a losing season, and 2 other times they finished .500. He had a two win season and a one win season. Again, tell me he belongs ahead of CP? Zero chance. Maybe you want to throw in Lambright? I am sure having a hard time figuring out how CP is "arguably only 5th". Even if I give you the fricking guy that coached before helmets when it was the fucking Pac 4 Conference....he is no way anything but the 3rd best.

Some guy without helmets, Sark, Weasel and Owens. I guess that is your four others that are better?

Six losing seasons. If CP had two you would have TP'd the University.

What a waste of time.
What is your employer saying?