Predictions or Regurgitations???

by Lear Pilot on Sep 1, 2009 6:49 PM PDT Comment 30 comments

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm getting really tired of preseason predictions and preseason rankings. I must have some disease caused by a winless season that causes delusions of grandeur, I can't seem to find ANY media predictions that are actual predictions, they seem more like regurgitations of last season. Doesn't anybody have a backbone anymore? Is it impossible for anybody to go out on a limb and predict something different than what happened at the end of last year???

Sorry for the rant, but I saw Ted Miller just ranked the UW linebackers as 9th in the PAC10. Way to step up and regurgitate the past Ted. I know we sucked last year, but do you really think we will have the second worst linebacker unit in the conference??? Mason Foster - 2nd leading tackler in the conference, Donald Butler - experienced, high caliber veteran, EJ Savannah - Stud, and former leading tackler. I know we are lacking in depth, but am I missing something?

I've been a fan of Ted's material, so I guess I'm just really disappointed that media writers are too concerned with their reputations to risk an actual evaluation and stop regurgitating old information.

Here's the link - http://espn.go.com/blog/pac10

0 recs | Comment 30 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I herd...

…sheep! Just joking!…I pick our LBs to be the BEST unit in the Pac-10! Am I looking at it with Purple tinted glasses? Der

Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!

by dawgfan22 on Sep 1, 2009 7:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

cont...

yep I am but some have picked them in the top 3 in conference, so I’m not too off base.

Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!

by dawgfan22 on Sep 1, 2009 7:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I thought it was an odd pick. I’ve generally agreed with how he’s ranked the UW position groups previous to this one, but this seems rather low, even if the Pac-10 is loaded with great LB’s this year. At worst, I can’t see how he has Stanford ranked ahead of us…

by kirkd on Sep 1, 2009 7:32 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

My Alma Mater...

…is producing some serious talent!

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/highschoolsports/2009788012_prepstate02.html

We have got to keep Sione Patoae home! That kid is a beast!

Washington Husky Football-Undefeated 1991 National Champions 12-0!

by dawgfan22 on Sep 1, 2009 7:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Lakes has been for a few years now

and UW has an offer out to a Lakes kid who’s a sophomore now. I hope they keep it up.

by B Money on Sep 3, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ted seems to be mailing it in

I’m sorry but Miller seems to look at who did well last year and adds a dash of hype and delivers results that don’t appear well thought out. It’s his opinion though and they don’t have to be backed by incontrovertible fact but by years end I think you’ll find that Millers prognostications are about as accurate as flipping a coin.

by murchy on Sep 1, 2009 8:41 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Miller's a hack

that caters to the whOregon and SC internet mongers that flock to espn. Every year’s the same, he picks the Trojans first, Ducks second and Bears third. Miller jocks the Ducks hard, and for no good reason.

Speaking of espn, do a little test, go on there and see anytime there’s a story on UW the comments section gets blown up by Duck posters. Biggest losers on the face of the planet

by ChazzReinhold on Sep 1, 2009 9:35 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I think Miller is far from a hack. He was a good beat writer when he was here, and he was one of the few traditional media members that called B.S. on the Seattle Times hack job series on the 2000 team. I just disagree with this particular ranking, and I’m a little disappointed he didn’t have the guts to pick the UW higher than 9th in the conference overall this year – I find it hard to believe UCLA is going to be very good, great defense or not, given their OL and QB situation – he could’ve picked us ahead of them.

by kirkd on Sep 1, 2009 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

My Opinion on Miller

Ted Miller is one of the very best college football writers in the country. I have yet to see him worng in any of his predictions.

I think this year could be a little different. I don’t think any journalist should be predicting great things for a team on a 14 game losing streak who has a new coach.

Add to the mix the lack of speed, talent, and depth and it does not paint a pretty picture.

With purple tinted glasses I pick the Huskies to finish 7th in the conference this season and flirt with .500. Miller has a similar scenario if everything goes right along the way.

by John Berkowitz on Sep 2, 2009 9:39 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you John

Normally I am a fan of Miller’s work. But isn’t ranking UW’s linebackers 9th a crock of crap? Your post have said you’d put them near the top of the conference, are we all looking at this through purple shades, or did Miller screw the pooch ranking our LB’s that low?

"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"

by Lear Pilot on Sep 2, 2009 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Unless any of us follow the rest of the Pac-10 as closely as Miller and have seen the other groups play as much as we’ve seen the UW LB’s play, how could any of us objectively rate them in comparison to the rest of the conference?

Is it really so hard to believe that the conference is stacked with very good LB’s?

Was anyone complaining so much when Miller ranked the UW OL #7 in the conference, saying he was crazy for ranking them that high?

by kirkd on Sep 2, 2009 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You bring up a good point

If the UW offensive line is #7 in the conference, being as bad as it was last year, it makes it even harder to believe that our LB’s should be ranked #9. I have a very had time believe that their our 8 other schools in the Pac10 with better linebackers than the UW.

"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"

by Lear Pilot on Sep 2, 2009 5:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It’s all relative strength. If you read Ted’s write up, I can see why he has UW lower in the rankings. I really question why Stanford is ranked ahead of us, and I’m not entirely sure why Arizona and Oregon are ranked ahead of us either. But it’s clearly a stacked group in the conference this year.

And as I said, while we are all wringing our hands about our OL, there are equally dire situations (if not worse) elsewhere around the league. Have you looked at what’s happening with UCLA’s OL?

by kirkd on Sep 2, 2009 5:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep, fully aware of UCLA's line

and absolutely loving it!

"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"

by Lear Pilot on Sep 2, 2009 8:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

actually, I'm of the opinion that our collective impression of the o-line is too dour...

… the single greatest statistical predictor across all of college football for o-line productivity is number of total career starts. While this clearly didn’t work to our favor last year, the numbers don’t lie. If you are in the prediction business, placing UW in the middle of the Pac based on career starts alone is justifiable (even if the talent/conditioning/coaching are unknowns).

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.

by Gekko Mojo on Sep 5, 2009 8:10 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Even so, if you can look at all aspects and rank our line #7, which is a fair ranking, how on God’s green earth do you look at our starting LB’s and them 9th???

"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"

by Lear Pilot on Sep 5, 2009 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah - he's inconsistent. I think he's probably more optimistic about UW, but has had to defend himself to other posters as a Seattle homer

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.

by Gekko Mojo on Sep 5, 2009 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's a good writer ..

…. but an honest assessment of his body of work would seem to support the general theme of this post. He tends to buy in to hype and he doesn’t apply criteria equally in doing his analysis. He ranks UW linebackers ninth because they lack depth, but he ranked our QB 2nd despite the same problem. He loves Jeremiah Masoli because of a few strong games last year, but discounts a whole host of other players who also had “only a few strong games” last year. He thinks Jahvid Best is the second coming, but refuses to acknowledge the obvious in that Best is injury prone and that he has never once produced in a game against a ranked opponent.

His inconsistencies aside, he does produce the best “how good is the SEC really” analyses in the business.

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.

by Gekko Mojo on Sep 5, 2009 8:07 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Chazz

Miller caters to Oregon and SC internet mongers that flock to espn. Every year’s the same, he picks the Trojans first, Ducks second and Bears third.

Who does finish 1st, 2nd, and 3rd almost every single year?

by John Berkowitz on Sep 2, 2009 9:41 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Oregon State is always up there

Yet he rarely gives the Beavs any love.

My main beef with Miller is that he can’t write one sentence on UW without bringing up 0-12. If he can bring up our recent history every time he talks about our team, shouldn’t it be fair that he do the same with every other team? My point here is that he unfairly picks on certain teams in the conference (mainly ours) and hypes a team like Oregon every single year, when Oregon hasn’t proven ANYTHING, at least not at the level that guys like Miller are hyping them.

Go back and look at his blog entries. He mentions 0-12 literally every single time he says anything about UW. Do you think he mentions the loss at home to Stanford every time he mentions USC?

by ChazzReinhold on Sep 2, 2009 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He's a tool

Saw his award came from that defunct of a paper the PI. He bores me.

by murchy on Sep 2, 2009 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Eye of the beholder. I thought Ted did a good job with the UW beat and does a really good job tracking the conference now for ESPN.

Of course he’s going to mention 0-12. Until we win a game, that’s the biggest story with this team.

by kirkd on Sep 2, 2009 3:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

no - you are thinking of Condotta

he can’t stop using last year’s 0-12 as a basis for all of his anlaysis. Its pathetic, actually.

Damn, my eyeball tastes good.

by Gekko Mojo on Sep 5, 2009 8:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That’s fine I guess…if he were to mention the biggest story for each team every time he does a shpiel on that team, but he doesn’t. He singles out UW and hardly ever makes mention of other team’s follies.

by ChazzReinhold on Sep 2, 2009 3:25 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think that’s accurate at all. He frequently brings up Oregon State’s face plant vs. Oregon and their slow starts; he frequently brings up the annual upset loss that USC has to keep them out of the BCS game and the QB race there; he frequently brings up the bad OL play at ASU that hurt them last year and questions about Sullivan; he frequently brings up the bad QB play at UCLA last year and their shaky OL; he frequently brings up Oregon’s defense not measuring up to their offense, and talks all the time about Kelly taking over; he frequently brings up how Arizona feels they don’t get any respect out of finally getting to a bowl game last year; he frequently mentions the emergence of Luck at Stanford and whether they can take the next step to a bowl game; he frequently talks about how Cal needs more consistent QB play to meet high expectations this year; he frequently mentions what a mess WSU is.

The fact is, not every team in the conference has major follies that are big stories, unlike the UW. That 0-12 frames everything for this team – it’s why we have an entirely new coaching staff, and it’s the reason why expectations for the UW this year aren’t very high (most winless teams don’t improve a vast amount in one year).

Ted’s been pretty objective if you take off your purple-colored glasses…

by kirkd on Sep 2, 2009 4:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I won’t argue this anymore. I feel like I have to defend my opinion here. I don’t like Miller’s writing, so what? I don’t think he’s as objective as you say he is. If that bothers you, fine, but please respect my opinion, which last time I checked I was entitled to.

by ChazzReinhold on Sep 2, 2009 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, you can have whatever opinion you want. I was challenging your contention that Miller doesn’t bring up major story lines for each Pac-10 team like he does the 0-12 with UW. If you can’t handle criticism of your opinions, you probably shouldn’t post them.

by kirkd on Sep 2, 2009 5:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you for telling me what to do. Again.

by ChazzReinhold on Sep 2, 2009 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You have an opinion – that’s great, we all do. You made an assertion. I challenged the veracity of your assertion. You got upset about it. I suggested if you’re going to get upset when others challenge statements you make, you might want to reconsider posting them.

I respect people’s rights to their own opinion. But if you’re going to post an assertion in a public forum, be prepared to defend that assertion.

by kirkd on Sep 2, 2009 6:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs