Grading the Game
by John Berkowitz on Nov 29, 2009 8:09 AM PST
Email
PrintEnter this one into the record books as a big win for Washington. Sure the Cougars are terrible but any win is big for a team that didn't have one last season.
Quarterback
This was the first time all season we saw the real Jake. You know the Jake Locker who can win a game with his feet as well as his arm. I have seen him run better and I have seen him pass better in the past. That being said the return to health that has harnessed him since the Oregon game was good to see.
Grade A minus
Running backs
Another solid perfomance by Chris Polk who becomes the first Husky freshman to run over 1000 yards in a season. No asterisk on this one since he got it done in eleven games. Paul Homer made his first appearance as an offensive threat since the ND game. One wonders why Sark hasn't used that weapon until now.
Grade A minus
Receivers
Too many dropped balls stalled the offense in the first half of this one. As a unit this may have been one of their more questionable games since mental errors dominated just about everyone's performance.
Grade C plus
Offensive Line
The WSU defense gave these guys way too much trouble in the first half. Washington eventually wore down the Coug D who were on the field way too much. this group needs a better perfomance next week if Washington is going to give Cal much of a game.
Grade C plus
Defensive Line
The return of Cameron Elisara elevates this group a couple of notches. Darion Jones played most of the way and like Paul Homer who I mentioned above you have to wonder why UW didn't use him more this season. It was a great game by this unit overall but you have to facor in they were playing the worst offensive team in the BCS.
Grade A
Linebackers
As usual the play of this unit was solid and it was good to see Trenton Tuiasosopo get some meaninful playing time again. cort Dennison continues to play strong in the absence of EJ Savannah. Mason Foster and Donald butler were all over the place.
Grade A
Secondary
Jason Wells played a great game and the entire secondary was seldom challenged during the game. The young corners seems to be getting more comfortable out on the wings or was that just the competition they were playing against?
Grade A
Special Teams
Erik Folk was 3 for 3 and Nate Fellner once again served notice that he will be a force over the next three years. He had the hit of the day on a KO return that knocked a Cougar out of the game.
Grade A
Coaching
Sark finally let Jake run and we are all happy for that. Despite that the offense is still a work in progress still looking to click on all cylinders in a single game. Give Sark credit for getting his team fired up for this one and Nick Holt for guiding his defense to its first shut out as the Husky DC.
This game highlights how much work still needs to be done for next season to keep this team growing but you come away with the feeling that this staff will get it done.
Grade A
50 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
WOO! HOO!
SWEET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Great job DAWGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOOF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
Nate Fellner
This kid was in on just about every special team play! He was like a man among boys out there!
Special Teams play was “Off The Hook!” GO DAWGS!!
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
Player that Fellner hit
was not the one that was injured. It looked like it was one of the guys from the wedge. The guy Fellner tackled got up and ran right off the field, still a great hit though.
You are correct
But it was still one hell of a hit.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
Well, there's not much to say except...
Congratulations Huskies. Hopefully we’ll give you a better game next year. If we don’t… Wulff may not be around much longer!
Looking forward to the Apple Cup(s) of basketball, should be much better games!
I'm a bit surprised they are keeping him around
They’ve been pretty bad all year, and looked even worse yesterday. Things aren’t looking very good in Pullman.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
As crazy as it may sound...
I thought the cougs didn’t look thaaaat bad. The OL needs to be completely rebuilt and more speed is needed on the back half of the D (safety) but I saw some pieces that should be solid if developed correctly. One thing that needs to be considered for Wulff is the size of the re-building job he is taking over – it’s a HUGE task that would take just about anyone 3-4 years to turn around.
Not so crazy
If the Cougs could have gotten some offense going they more than had a shot in this one. They really need a competent QB.
by John Berkowitz on Nov 29, 2009 1:37 PM PST up reply actions
I have a hard time faulting their QB’s based on Saturday. We had pretty consistant pressure on them, That being said your probably right – they need a bit of an upgrade at QB also.
Counted at least 6 key drops for the Cougs
All of them were 10-30 yards down the field (one was a sure touchdown on a double reverse wide receiver pass type thing?) so they had a lot of chances they couldn’t capitalize on.
Tuel is still a big ?
Tuel has talent as a spread QB, but is Wulff going to be around to see him as an upperclassmen? Better yet can Wulff do a better job of recruiting? Wulff boasted about the recruits he brought in and I’m not seeing much of anything to boast about. Granted they are playing as many true freshmen as we are, but at some point during a season you have to see some results that will look prosperous for seasons to come.
The only WSU Wulff recruit that impressed by in the Apple Cup was that big D linemen from Spokane. Tuel has shined in a few games, but I think for Tuel to become a “good one” is if WSU commits to Paul Wulff, and if they don’t? Well they’d better bring in another spread coach in order to maximize on Tuel’s talents.
Tuel has skills, but he is a spread system QB.
All I saw was purple
Not bad
With Wulff, WSU has committed to the no-huddle spread offense. Tuel is tailor-made for that offense. Like I said it’s still a big question mark as to what we can expect from Tuel. If WSU plans to fire Wulff, will WSU stay in the spread or will they revert back to Erickson’s one back pro offense?
The key to Tuel becoming something great at WSU depends on which direction the Cougs go.
All I saw was purple
tuel
I haven’t seen any evidence to suggest that tuel is anything more than an average performer. But he’s young – who knows?
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 29, 2009 8:52 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I think Wulff's offense stinks
And if you asked 100 coug fans, I bet they agree with me. WSU just seems totally lost looking to the sideline for the play. I know Oklahoma and Oklahoma State use the no-huddle offense and look to the sideline for the play. But isn’t it just flat out the ugliest football you’ve ever seen? They just look pathetic out there. At Oklahoma it has worked but for good reason. They have recruited around that particular offense. They’ve recruited lighter kids that play like the Energizer Bunny, where they keep going … and going … and going. WSU doesn’t have those sorts of athletes and for that reason I seriously doubt Wulff’s no-huddle spread offense will ever be productive.
I think WSU should revert back to Erickson’s one-back pro offense. And if you asked the same 100 coug fans, I’d bet they’d agree. Coming from a Husky fan, you have to agree that it was a nice piece of work with Bledsoe and Leaf, not so much for Gesser. WSU sort of lost its identity, for starters quit changing uniforms every single season. What are you an Oregon wannabe?
Wulff was a lame hire and I seriously doubt under his guidence the football team will ever get much better. Oh they’ll get better, but not by much. You can’t go 0-10 every season. But you can count the number of wins each season on one hand under Wulff. Good for Huskies though!
All I saw was purple
Looking to the sidelines
Can somebody explain to me how that is not a false start each and everytime? I hate it, it’s the most pathetic style of offensive system, and it’s going to kill college football! I hope the NCAA puts in a new rule or just enforces the current false start rules, if a linemen gets set, how in the hell can he then look back to the sidelines, or even get out of his stance????
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
It's a penalty...
…you can’t be set and then move. I hate it too and I think it worked to their disadvantage to some degree. Their QB did that practically every snap and every time he did the crowd would get even louder.
The cougs had QBs hit numerous times and they were literally knocked out of the game on three separate occasions. That former really didn’t have anything to do with reponding to your post, I just enjoyed it so much I want to talk about it!
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
Lear that “look to the sideline” was spawned by spread offenses. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State have used it for many seasons. It’s ugly football if you ask me. Why did the no-huddle come in? Good question…
I’m not sure who conceived it, but it’s origination was spawned by spread offensive programs. As soon as the NCAA lowered the play clock, programs started looking at the faster clock and wanted to minimize the chances of getting flagged for delay of game. Why did they lower the play clock? The NCAA adopted the clock rule because of the delays coming from “instant replay”. The NCAA needed to shorten the game for TV reasons. Bob Stoops is the first coach that I know of that uses the no-huddle spread. His team doesn’t huddle, they run to the L.O.S. and then look to the sideline for the play.
Blame the NCAA for the no-huddle scheme. They need to put the original time back on the clock. The no-huddle is ugly football. Now you see another angle as to why I don’t like the stinkin’ spread offense. The no-huddle was spawned from the spread, I just don’t like the ugly brand of football. It’s all still very trendy (even the spread). I just don’t like how the game is evolving. I’m not a big fan of more offense- I love defensive, low scoring games that are tight. I don’t like games won by the score of 66-48. Too many big plays are boring. Why? Because of the lack of defense. The Big 12 is almost unwatcable anymore. Nobody is playing defense over there.
College football is evolving into something you only see in video games. Is it real or is it memorex? What ever the hell it is it’s not good football. Why do you suppose the NFL doesn’t incorporate the spread in the pros? They know its ugly football. Ugly does not put fannies in the seats and surely is not the way to run a multi billon $ outfit.
Hate the Spread!
All I saw was purple
Ya, ya, ya, Crazi hates the spread, what a shocker!
I’m well aware that this “ugly” style of offense was spawned from spread offenses, but it’s by no means required to run a spread offense.
I partially disagree about the clock issue. Yes the clock has a little to do with it, you can’t look to the sideline after a huddle, there just wouldn’t be enough time, but why call a play twice? I think it has everything to do with inferior coaches trying to get an edge on their opponents. They don’t trust their QB’s to make changes at the line, and they are good play callers, so what better way then to see how the defense is going to line up before choosing which play to run. I think it’s a strategy of cowards and needs to be stopped. I love offense, I love defense, I don’t mind a 7-3 game, and I love a 45-42 game (UW vs ASU in 1998), but the NCAA needs to put a stop to this ugly, cheap style of football.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
meant to say
. . . they are NOT good play callers.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
Totally off topic
But I wanted to make sure that thecassino noticed Klay going off for 43 yesterday against San Diego. The same San Diego that had just beaten #16 (I think) Oklahoma and Stanford. He’s damn good and getting better, watch out!
klay is very good
But he racked up a huge chunk of his points on threes. If the cougs don’t develop an inside scoring threat (which might include Klay getting inside) he’s going to have a difficult time maintaining this pace. He comes into this season with a reputation for being soft and for avoiding contact in the lane. Of course I think it is undeserved, but it is still up to him to dispel it.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 29, 2009 2:38 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I would normally agree with you
But the Pac-10 is weak on frontcourt players this year, so our hit-or-miss inside threat hopefully won’t be as much a factor as it usually would. Klay has been getting inside more and diversifying his game, but the kid just gets unconscious from 3 sometimes.
Until people have had the chance to see him on TV a few times, I can see why he has that soft reputation. He’s worked on it, it will become apparent over the year. Very exciting for us Cougs! Anything to cling to after that debacle of a football season…
by johnnycougar on Nov 29, 2009 10:28 PM PST up reply actions
You mean 3-3 Oklahoma and 3-3 Stanford?
I know he’s good, never said he wasn’t. I’m pretty sure he’s not going to shoot 58% from 3 for the rest of the year though. He’ll regress toward his true numbers once he stops playing teams that don’t have the personnel to match up against him. We’ll get a better indicator of how he’s going to play down the stretch after the Gonzaga and K State games.
Given the season records so far, the WCC might be better top to bottom than the Pac-10
I more meant that San Diego is not IUPFWMISO or whoever they were.
I’m just saying, on your “Evaluation Skills” post, you said Klay had maybe the best game he’ll ever play, and he just torched it yesterday. The point is, you think he’ll regress towards “true numbers” but I think we really don’t know what those are. He’s currently leading the country in scoring average and his worst game so far was a 20pt night (in 28 minutes) on 44% shooting. I’m sure he’ll have tough shooting nights and then we’ll truly see how much the other aspects of his game have developed. But just the threat that he could go off from 3 means other teams will have to defend him cautiously, opening up the opportunity to drive to the hoop.
Gonzaga is a huge game for him, the best chance to legitimize his stats prior to Pac-10 play. I agree with you there.
by johnnycougar on Nov 29, 2009 10:24 PM PST up reply actions
I think the Cougs are a tournament team.
They wont go deep but I think they will get in.
by John Berkowitz on Nov 29, 2009 1:39 PM PST up reply actions
NITers
Klay is a scorer, Castro is an overhyped defender, the foreign kid has a bad knee w/ zero hops. Klay’s best contributor is that kid Tony B. recruited out of Florida. I don’t think this team bags many Pac 10 wins this season. No floor general and a brand new coach, with very little scoring contributions other then Klay is not tournament worthy.
All I saw was purple
I don't entirely disagree with the NIT part
But Klay is hardly the only part to this team. Taking out his point totals, we still scored 50 on better than 50% shooting (and 4-7 from 3). He’s the biggest part, and it’s possible that the rest of the offense will collapse if he’s shut down.
Casto IS an overhyped defender in some ways, which we’re starting to get concerned about. He’s constantly going for the big block and leaving his man open for easy putbacks. Hopefully he’s working on it.
The “kid Tony B. recruited” IS our floor general, and I don’t see how that’s a bad thing. He’s good. Maybe not as good as IT was last year but you’ll see, he can play.
by johnnycougar on Nov 29, 2009 10:38 PM PST up reply actions
It sounds crazy
But I’m starting to think that way. At least compared to the rest of the Pac-10, we’re looking pretty darn good. I fleshed this thought out on a Fan Post on CougCenter, but basically half the teams in the conference already have a BAD loss at HOME. Sure we’ve only beaten one team so far that also has realistic NCAA tourney aspirations, but at least we haven’t lost to the no-names yet either.
I’m trying to stay cautious, but we look good so far. Let’s beat or at least push Gonzaga to the limit first.
by johnnycougar on Nov 29, 2009 10:32 PM PST up reply actions
I don't put much stock in early nonleague action
The Pac 10 might’ve taken some lumps in early nonleague action, but I think once the tournament is here, the league will be just fine. We can’t gage college basketball right now. It’s a long season and most coaches are working more on rotation patterns, finding kids off the bench that can contribute in some way. Sure Ucla lost a game to a cupcake, but was Ucla at full strength and tournament-ready? Keep in mind that Syracuse took one on the chin too. The media is making too big a deal out of Ucla’s early loss.
I’m not buying the WCC is tougher top to bottom then the Pac 10. You my friend are putting way too much emphasis on early nonleague action. See the thing is the WCC is going to look strong early. Why? Because they have to be ready to go as soon as the season begins. They live off of RPI and they don’t get that in the WCC, they get it in early nonleague action. Gonzaga has to be tournament-ready early on so that they can bag some big wins over good programs so that their RPI looks better by the time March rolls around. Believe me, their RPI drastically goes into shock by the time they are at the mid point of WCC play.
A good indication as to how your team looks is when they begin facing tougher competition. Ucla will be Ucla by the time you face them. Pac 10 play is where you will see how truly good the Cougs are.
All I saw was purple
All I can say on the WCC is "maybe"
I was being a little tongue-in-cheek, but I can see the WCC this year replicating the Missouri Valley Conference from a few years ago. If the league as a whole has a pretty decent RPI going into conference play then beating each other up might not as bad a thing as in years past. The best teams have already notched quality wins and the worst teams are still beating teams from BCS conferences.
I think these non-conference games matter more than you think. Maybe not in the polls, but definitely in the Selection Committee. Results matter more than how a team “looks” at the end of the year. UCLA is 2-4. They sandwiched a good close loss to Butler with a thumping in Anaheim by Portland and losing by 11 to Long Beach State. If, as you say, UCLA is UCLA of old by the time we play them, it will actually make the rest of the Pac 10 look worse.
by johnnycougar on Nov 30, 2009 10:03 AM PST up reply actions
Sure you want to win early
You want to win every game, but if you ask all 10 coaches in the Pac 10, I’m sure they tell you that they’d rather lose early and win later.
What is the ultimate goal? Is it to win a national championship? If it is, then your standards are way too high. The goal is to win your league, do that and you get a good spot in the NCAA tournament, do that and you are set up for recruiting, do that and the donations are there. Do that and you’ve got a winning program.
I’m more interested in winning Pac 10 championships over national championships. If we have that as a goal, then surely we are more primed to win a national championship eventually. But if you think Ucla is going to play this horrible for the entire season you are delusional. The Bruins will hit their stride and when they do, watch out. It’s never how you start the season that really matters … it’s how you finish. College basketball is a long season. RPI is not a very good indication of anything. Just continue to get better and bag as many wins as you can, that’s what really matters.
All I saw was purple
But if you lose early, conference wins are diminished
The Pac 10 is doing very little to dispel the belief that the conference is as bad as it’s been in 20 years or so. When you have a horrible non-conference record you end up with fewer teams in the tournament. The teams that do get in will get worse seeds. I don’t think a team that goes 12-6 in conference is a lock to get in this year the way the conference as a whole has been playing.
It’s true that winning later is better. That doesn’t mean a team can completely overcome their non-con record. When UCLA is fighting for an at-large bid with Portland, people aren’t going to look past the obliteration Portland put on the other night just because it was early in the season.
Clearly if you win your league you’ve had a successful season, no matter what happened earlier. How many teams have completely sucked it up their first 10 games and then went crazy the last 18? It doesn’t happen often. It’s easier to get into the tournament by winning your conference tourney but I don’t think recruits and donors confuse a four game winning streak with a good season.
In the national media and possibly the eyes of the Selection Committee, a UCLA team that plays horrible early but still manages to win the conference isn’t a good UCLA team, it’s just the best team in a bad Pac 10. That’s a big difference. That UCLA team gets a 3 or a 4 seed, and maybe the 4th place team in the conference plays in the NIT. That’s why it’s important to win early, if not as much for your own team then for the good of the conference.
by johnnycougar on Nov 30, 2009 12:32 PM PST up reply actions
The Pac 10 was supposively down last year
And we got how many invites? Washington, USC, Ucla, Arizona, Cal, Arizona State. That’s more then half. Still we didn’t receive many high seeds, but thems the breaks.
We are a BCS league and we’ll always get no fewer the four selected for the tournament, even when the league is at an all-time low. We’ve got enough schools to draw in television revenue and truthfully that’s what the tournament and bowls are really about. They want sell outs and large television viewing audiances. The Pac 10 along with the other BCS leagues will always provide that. The Moorehead States, Idaho States, and St. Mary’s don’t and there you go.
If you’re worried about getting an invite to the tournament, just make sure you are within the top 5 of the Pac 10 once league play is over. If not do what USC did last season- win the automatic qualifier by winning the Pac 10 Tournament.
But regardless of all the indicators, the Pac 10 will get no fewer then 4 invites and no more then 6. The rest is a beautty contest.
All I saw was purple
If that's what you want to believe, that's fine
I personally think that the selection committee does a pretty good job of disregarding fancy names and traditional powers when it comes to picking tournament teams. Just because a team is on TV a lot doesn’t mean they’ll get picked. Last year, Arizona was on the fringes of not being picked and USC only got in because they won the tournament.
I would argue that the lesser teams you mentioned don’t get into the tournament because they actually aren’t that good. Crazy, I know. St. Mary’s vs. Arizona last year is a good debate but I think the committee got the pick right. I think it’s more that the teams that are on TV a lot get more exposure and revenue, leading to better recruiting and better teams, and that’s why they’re picked for the tournament, not the other way around.
Maybe it comes down to this, let’s play a game. Let’s say hypothetically UCLA loses to Kansas and Notre Dame. Let’s even give them wins against the rest of their non-con schedule. That puts them at 6-6 entering Pac 10 play, having lost to every good team they played and even to some bad ones. If they finish 4th in an unimpressive Pac 10 are they really going to get into the tournament? Especially if they get swept by Cal and UW, the only consensus (and even then barely) Top 25 teams? I say no, but it sounds to me like you would say yes. If that’s the case, I guess we just disagree.
by johnnycougar on Nov 30, 2009 4:28 PM PST up reply actions
Recruits
There were a lot of them at the game. The atmosphere was electric, so hopefully it’ll pay off in a few key verbals. There aren’t many spots left so it’ll be interesting to see how it all fits together.
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
Recruiting news will come in later than usual
From what we are hearing the recruits are staying on campus later than usual today. The guys at DM don’t bother them till they are headed home. So expect news to trickle in later tonight or in the morning.
Homer
John I agree with your analysis, except for the Homer/weapon thing. Now I agree, I think Sark should’ve used Homer more in 3rd and managable situations. Homer has shown that he is “gold” when coming out of play action and catching out in the flat. That’s been there every time and it has been a productive play to get a 1st down on 3rd and managables.
But is Homer a weapon? I don’t think so. He wasn’t going to get many carries this season- not with Polk, Locker, and Fogerson back there. We know he doesn’t have sprinter speed so you can’t put him on a wheel route or anything. Screens? Those plays are slow developers and w/ Homer’s lack of speed it would be even slower. So what do you do? Use him merely for obvious passing downs as Locker’s personal protector, and run him in play action out to the flat for a decent and managable pick up.
The delemma: If we use Homer more for that one particular play, opposing defenses will key Homer in those situations more. So what did Sark do? He used him sparringly so that opposing defenses wouldn’t acknowlege his pressense as often.
Paul Homer is a stud and a Husky for life. But even he’d tell you that he is not pro material. He’s a good football player from Nebraska and if the Cornhuskers were still using Osborn’s wishbone attack, Homer might’ve become the most beloved Husker fullback in Cornhusker history.
How would’ve Homer looked at Mike LB? Can you say WOW!
All I saw was purple
Fogerson
He’s the big play threat catching the ball out of the backfield. Of course Polk can do that too. It probably had a lot to do with this being the Apple Cup and Paul’s a senior. He also hasn’t done that a whole lot this season which makes him get less attention.
Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!
Something to Build on, but we still have Cal
How sweet it was to totally destroy our in-state rival. How sweet it would’ve been to end the season on such a high note … yet we still have Cal.
I think if we can beat Cal at home and end the season on a 2 game winning streak, which would vault us up the league W/L column. It would definetly give us a lot of momentum going into the offseason. Can we beat Cal?
I think we have a solid shot of upsetting them. Why? This game is going to take place in the Northwest in December. Cal is not going to like that very much, where they will be draped with wind breakers and huddled around the heater. We’ve got to come out ready to play an not worry about how cold it is- let Cal do all the complaining.
Locker and Polk seem to be clicking together finally. Our receivers have looked better, but hopefully their AC drops were due to the excitement and not their consentration level. Our defense has looked better with Elisara back and Jones is a force. Cal is a much needed victory so that we can go into the offseason on an upswing. Then if Jake decides to return for his senior season under Sark and Nuss’ guidence, then we’ll really have something solid for next season.
Go Dawgs! beat Cal … WOOF!!!
All I saw was purple
I think the Huskies have three factors going for them next weekend:
- The weather: If it’s nasty, that could work to the Huskies’ advantage as those Cal boys aren’t much accustomed to playing in rainy, 40 degree weather;
- Motivation: Cal doesn’t have a whole lot to play for at this point other than bowl jockeying; they’re not going to the Rose or Holiday Bowls, so there’s not a huge amount of motivation left for them; meanwhile, the Dawgs want to end the season on a high note and keep the good vibes from the Apple Cup win going.
- Husky Stadium: If the Stadium has 65K+ on hand and is fired up, that should give a nice boost to the home team;
The Huskies will need to play an outstanding game to win, but I think they’ll have the above factors working in their favor which will make the task a bit easier.
We’ve got to get back to the Apple Cup is the last game of the season. I think it is a HUGE strategy to play it on Thanksgiving weekend. Ther is no such thing as “Rivalry Week” anymore. Oregon and Oregon State pushed their Civil War back a week a few years ago. Arizona and Arizona State pushed their back too, along with USC and Ucla.
Is it just about the cold weather that frightens Washington and Washington State away from extending the season? Both schools must consider playing the game on or after Thanksgiving weekend. Everybody else is pushing the envelope on extending the season, we need to also. And a snow-packed field will make it on all the ESPN highlight shows, which equals exposure. Nothing wrong with playing in the snow- the NFL does it all the time.
All I saw was purple
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on UW Dawg Pound
Related FanShots on UW Dawg Pound
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
