One loss does not define a season
by John Berkowitz on Sep 7, 2010 6:48 AM PDT
Email
PrintI wrote the Monday Morning Wash column yesterday morning, but when I clicked to publish it, well...it just disappeared. I suspect a lot of folks out there wish the posts they wrote during and after the game on Saturday did the same.
After a few days of reflection on Washington's loss to BYU, I came to the conclusion that I agree with Steve Sarkisian...this loss will not define the season.
Washington lost this game because of special teams mistakes keeping the offense bottled-up for most of the first half. The field position took Washington out of its game plan, but the Huskies still led the game at halftime and could they have scored at least once in the second half, they would have won the game.
I saw far more good than bad; this team will win more than they lose and compete for an upper division finish in the Pac 10. Husky fans must remember BYU isn't New Mexico, Hawaii, nor Kansas State. The Cougars are a top 25 caliber squad who will compete with anyone. Though losing the opener in Provo is nothing to be ashamed of, it was a missed opportunity.
Washington would have won this game had they executed better. We can debate the play-calling, but the real issue was simple execution. The players need to resist the urge to freelance, running the plays exactly the way the coaches are calling them.
Up next is Syracuse and most of us have circled this game as a win. Washington is a completely different team at home and the greatest improvement you see as a team is between week one and two of the season. I am betting that this team will begin to settle down after the loss and come out firing on all cylinders this Saturday.
One loss does not define a season. Just ask the Oregon Ducks who looked terrible in last years opener against Boise State. The Ducks didn't look much better over the next few games but when conference play began they were a true steamroller.
Give this young Husky squad a chance over the next few weeks and I think you will like the results.
Pac 10 Power Ratings
1. Oregon (1-0)...New Mexico is probably the worst squad in the FBS but the whooping the Ducks put on them is still impressive.
2. Arizona (1-0)...Toledo isn't a bad squad so this one sided win on the road really impressed me.
3. Oregon State (0-1)...There is no shame in losing to TCU on the road.
4. Stanford (1-0)...Tough to say what we have here since Sac State was basically an exhibition game.
5. USC (1-0)...The Trojans came that close to losing to Hawaii.
6. Washington (0-1)...How many Pac 10 squads would have beaten BYU in Provo last weekend? Think long and hard about that one.
7. California (1-0)...I am reserving judgment on this squad until they play Colorado.
8. Arizona State (1-0)...Another exhibition win for the Pac 10.
9. UCLA (0-1)...This team looks pretty similar to last years squad. Too many holes on this team.
10. WSU (0-1)...The Cougars aren't showing any improvement. They look just as disorganized on the field as they did last season which means that Paul Wulff isn't going to make it through the season.
111 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Like your upbeat approach
And all of us vented a lot of frustration on the last thread. I have to keep reminding myself that this team is young and to some extent they are attempting to travel in uncharted waters. We made a lot of first game mistakes, but like you said their were some glimpses of greatness too. Jesse Callier looked good and although we didn’t get much of a pass rush, I thought our D line held up pretty good against the run. Not to mention but we were on the field again for long stretches and I thought we were conditioned enough to hang in there.
I think the special teams units will settle down. If they can just settle down it will keep our No.1s and No.2 off special teams. I’m over BYU … moving onward and upward.
All I saw was purple
Greatness no...
Respectability perhaps
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Sep 7, 2010 7:06 AM PDT up reply actions
It took it's toll...
…mentally and physically.
Washington lost this game because of special teams mistakes which kept the offense bottled up for most of the first half.
Washington Husky Football-"Hear the bark, feel the bite!"
Special Teams
It’s not like they didn’t know how to play. It’s not like they didn’t play with passion. It’s not like they were over matched. We made silly bonehead mistakes on special teams. That stuff can be corrected from one week to the next. I’d be more apprehensive about our special teams units if they didn’t know how to play, didn’t bring the heat, or if they were over matched. I think we have a legit shot at having great special teams this season. Just get some stuff corrected and it will clean itself up.
All I saw was purple
Punt returner
Sark needs to find a Jarzinca (SP) type guy back there and I’m not cutting Sark any slack on the repetitive, predictable play calling.
The play calling is what it was…but if you look at every play you are going to find a guy or two who was free lancing…when that happens the play breaks down.
i think you would have seen a much different game if we had started every drive at the 30 yard line.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Sep 7, 2010 7:08 AM PDT up reply actions
Kevin Smith
I realize he’s a true freshman but that kid is explosive!
Washington Husky Football-"Hear the bark, feel the bite!"
The play-calling was fine.
The plays by and large were there, just not the execution. I disagreed with only one decision that Sarkisian made.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 7, 2010 9:19 PM PDT up reply actions
New week, new day, still recovering from BYU disappointment
Time (actually overdue ) to focus on Cuse and give them a whipping.
Can someone tell me how long Oregon kept their starters in?
72-0 is a little too big of a blow out if you ask me. Now I know college football is not preschool. I’m just curious how long Kelly kept the first unit on the field.
All I saw was purple
All eligible walk-ons played almost the entire fourth quarter
Kelly was having a hard time figuring out who to play because of people red shirting.
Hell you guys probably would’ve upped your “strength of schedule” if you’d played the flag football team from the frat house :)
All I saw was purple
Maybe. They wouldn’t have been able to research the team though… someone took their laptops.
it’s spelled "S-H-U-F-E-L-T-A-L-L-W-A-R-M-A-N-D-F-U-Z-Z-Y"
by JShufelt on Sep 7, 2010 11:47 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
He had the third string QB in the entire second half after going with Thomas and then Costa.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
Oregon rotates their players pretty much everywhere throughout offense and defense
But most of their #1’s were pulled by midway through the second quarter.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 7, 2010 9:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Playing freshmen
All across the country programs are playing a lot of freshmen these days. Put on any radom game and you hear about freshman playing. They look good immediately right off the bat. I guess the question I am asking is- why can’t we get our freshmen to play like them?
I heard Oklahoma State had numerous freshmen starting, and they still pounded WSU into the ground. Now that is a poor example because WSU is scary awful- but I think you get a feel for where I am going with this.
All I saw was purple
You are not giving much respect to the opponent.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Sep 7, 2010 9:45 AM PDT up reply actions
Oklahoma State's freshmen played against a crap team.
Washington’s freshmen played against, at worst, a very respectable team.
That's why I said it was a bad example
Everybody is playing freshmen these days. Va. Tech played a true freshman last night. Jake Heaps is a true freshman and he looked fairly polished. Oregon plays freshmen (LaMichael James), and Alabama play true freshmen.
Why aren’t we or better yet, why haven’t we gotten that same production? I guess the answer to the question is really simple. The core of the teams who play freshmen are upper classmen, who have developed really well.
All I saw was purple
BYU At Home...
…an emotional game (obviously they played with more of it than we did) and they’ve done a pretty good job under Bronco M over the last few years. They are ahead of us, period.
Washington Husky Football-"Hear the bark, feel the bite!"
yes - first time starters at QB (including a true freshman) and RB
… as well as a completely revamped defense. They really ought to be way ahead of us (yes, that is me being snarky).
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
what you are snarkily ignoring...
…is that Mendenhall and his staff have been in place for 6 seasons now. Their system has been ingrained into their players for nearly their entire careers. Compare and contrast that with us, where no player has been in this system longer than 2 years. Consistency of coaching matters, especially when it’s from a coaching staff with a proven track record of success. If you remember the DJ era, there were years where a number of starters had to be replaced, but it wasn’t “rebuilding”, it was “reloading” – both because the new guys typically had game experience and because they were usually upper classmen and thus were more physically mature and had multiple years of experience within the coaching system.
As well, look at the age and experience on their offensive line. Sure, the QB’s and RB were new, but not the OL. Every single starter on their OL has served a mission; their youngest starter is at least 21 despite being a “Sophomore”; 3 of the 5 were starters last year, 1 had starting experience and the 5th had seen action in 13 games. The game is won up front, and this was a physically mature, experienced offensive line featuring an All-American candidate at LT.
On their DL, 2 of the 3 starters have served missions and the 3rd was a Senior; 2 of the 3 were prior starters and the 3rd had significant game action. I could go on, but it’s the same deal with their LB’s and defensive backfield too.
IT'S THE SCHEDULE s......
If we played a patsy schedule like SUC or the entire SEC we wouldn’t be talking about this. Play four patsys and go bowling get ranked in the top ten. That is what it has come down to.
You can be da big man and play tough pre season and then enter tough conference and at BOWLing time stay home and lick your wounds.
Which do you prefer I wish JB would do a vote on this?
PS: ESPN GAME TIME will be visiting Boise soon.
We really need to see what the rest of the sport is doing and copy some of the trends
Years back everybody piled on Kanas State when Snyder had them at or near the top of the BCS. Why were they piling on? Because their non conference schedule was a bunch of cupcakes. Is it just me or is the majority of all the teams putting two or more cupcakes on their schedule annually?
We pride ourselves on playing the toughest competition, but damnit! If the entire country is playing cupcakes and going to bowls and BCS bowls then it’s time we follow those trends. How many of us believe that if we’d had a Nevada or a Louisiana Tech on our schedule we’d gone bowling last season? We won 5 games last season and the only two givens on the schedule were Idaho and WSU. Put a Nevada and a Louisiana Tech on the schedule and we have not so daunting of a path to paradise. Moreover it would allow us to do what Oregon does and rest the starters for a half in order to keep them healthy. Winning solves everything. I think it’s time to lighten the schedule (like everyone else), the winning begins and the best recruits begin to show up at our door step. Once we are on top again- if you want, make the schedule more difficult in the future. Our strength of schedule does nothing for us if we aren’t vying for position to play in January.
All I saw was purple
Six Pac-10 teams would have had a very good chance to beat BYU
Oregon
Arizona
Stanford
USC
Oregon State
Cal
And BYU would have a very good chance against Cal, Arizona, Stanford, and OSU.
BYU, especially at home, is a much better team than most here are giving them credit for.
They lost a lot of talent off the ’09 team. They replaced it with talent, not a bunch of shmucks.
BYU is a program under Mendenhall. They aren’t ever going to fall into the abyss while he’s there.
Really? I am not saying would all blow BYU out, but I would deinitely say each of those teams has a better than 60% to beat
The fact that you include Arizona and Oregon State in your list is pretty funny considering each team’s respective performances. Stanford is a damn good team with an excellent coach so I would put them in the above grouping
Cal is the only team I would somewhat agree with you just because their history of being mentally weak despite having top tier talent.
I don't agree at all on 60%
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Sep 7, 2010 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
You don't think Arizona with their defensive backfield and DE's would have forced Heap into Mistakes?
Oregon State’s defense is a step above UW’s at this point and their offense even with a new QB is better overall than UW’s.
Cal has top tier talent all over place but wouldn’t put them that high just due to their history of mental schizophrenia.
I would put Stanford a step above Cal just because of Luck at this point but I really have nothing else to base it off of because I am waiting to see how they do against teams in the post Gerheart era.
Arizona returns four starters on D, and has a new coordinator.
The ends are good, but Reed is neutralized by one of the better left tackles in the game for BYU.
The new coordinator was promoted from within
It’s not like they are bringing a whole new philosophy. Also AZ has two great DE’s.
It's not just the system, it's also the coaching.
I do agree that it’s probably not a huge issue, but the lack of returning players most definitely is.
I know that both Reed and Elmore are good, but BYU’s tackles are also both very good. The LT is an All-American type. It’s certainly not a given that Arizona’s pass rush would be able to get pressure on QB’s playing in a shotgun offense that is designed to get rid of the ball very quickly.
I think this is a stupid argument
Most of the Pac-10 would have a better than 50/50 shot at beating BYU. John just threw it out there for some perspective. I think alot of people still get hung up on conference strength and assuming that because BYU isn’t a major conference team that they aren’t a major program.
UW did have a greater than 50/50 chance and would again in a rematch. We didn’t execute and BYU did. We controlled that game for the most part but we lost it with critical ST errors which caused poor field position all game. BYU played mistake free football, and we did not. Let’s look forward.
I stayed away from the blog most of the weekend because most every comment I read was about dead Heisman hopes and more melodramatic BS. Hope is all we have as fans and I’m tired of letting my mood be effected by a bunch of college kids mistakes on a Saturday. I heard more positives coming out of Cougcenter this weekend than I did here.
the silver lining
I stayed away from the blog most of the weekend because most every comment I read was about dead Heisman hopes and more melodramatic BS.
This board was far better than Dawgman.com (even the Premium boards) this weekend, but yeah – it was/has been tough to see so much angst and wailing about this game. Folks, it was one game, on the road in a tough environment against what will probably prove to be a fairly good team, certainly a much more experienced program and generally an older and more mature roster, and despite all of our mistakes we lost by less than a TD.
The positive about all the wailing is this – it means higher expectations have returned to this program, and I think that’s mostly a positive. I was stunned at how low expectations got during Ty’s tenure, and it’s good to see that fans have loftier expectations.
All that said, let’s not go overboard with unrealistic expectations. We all knew this team had some issues coming into this season, and those have mostly proven true. Jake winning the Heisman was always going to be a major longshot, and winning the conference is also a longshot (especially after seeing how good Oregon looked). The minimum goal is still a bowl game, and I’d like to see a little more than that minimum, i.e. 7-8 wins, but this probably isn’t a 9+ win team – too many issues.
Let’s keep in mind all the roster churn that has happened since Sark took over and the fact that 13 freshmen were good enough and/or needed to play this weekend. Yes, we have Jake and Chris Polk and Jermaine Kearse, and it’s easy to get excited about the potential of players on this team and advances that have been made physically by many on the roster. But outside of Kelemete and possibly Tolar, none of the guys starting on the OL right now are guys that would be starting in year 5 under Sark – the fact that Kohler and Porter as true freshmen are getting reps with the 1’s and Sark is making a point of getting them more involved speaks to the difference between where we are now and where Sark wants us to be.
Further, let’s not over react to one game. It sucked, it was a blown opportunity and there’s a lot of blame to go around over why the team didn’t win. But this wasn’t some lousy team we lost to in a cupcake environment. This team can still go bowling and make things interesting in the conference race. Before we draw too many definitive conclusions, let’s see a little more evidence.
I am pretty sure they were giving out costco sized containers of prozac on dawgman
That place is batshit crazy.
There seemed to be in particular a few posters going off the deep end. And to be fair, a number of others were lamenting the over the top venting that was taking place.
I typically don’t visit their boards the day of a game, especially after a loss – too much venting, not enough reasoned analysis. What was unusual was how it continued through Sunday – that’s usually when cooler heads prevail.
There were some insanely high expectations on that board going into the season
A large number of people there were predicting a top 3-4 finish so a lot of dreams came crashing down.
Top 3-4 is not insanely high expectations
I still expect us to place in the top 5, top 3-4 is still a good chance.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
Regardless expectations like that cause this destructive cycle
.500 record and a bowl game would be a victory for you guys.
it's a delicate balance
Expectations too high and you churn through coaches without giving them enough time; expectations too low and you allow bad coaches to persist for too long, which drags the program further down (see Willingham, Ty).
Don't Agree...
…with the blow out part either. Could happen or not.
Washington Husky Football-"Hear the bark, feel the bite!"
What is your point?
If you’d watched the Washington/BYU game we had a very good chance to beat BYU. Let’s keep it in perspective ppilot- we were in scoring position on our last drive, if we get in the endzone we win. With that said what is your point?
All I saw was purple
I guess my thinking was that this was a game bowl bound teams have to win.
Going into pac-10 play with a 2-1 record would help immensely with bowl qualification due to the fact that your road schedule with the exception of WSU is murderous. Out of your home games UCLA and ASU are the only ones I would consider UW favorites. Granted all of this conjecture is based on only one week but I didn’t see a lot in the BYU game to make me think UW will finish with an above .500 record in league play which is what you’re probably going to need in order to make a bowl.
I didn't see much from any team
since UW is the only one to play a legitimate opponent. Next week will be pretty telling for most schools.
Well said B
I do think ppilot could be accurate based on recent history and our annual lack of an easy schedule. However Washington is the only Pac 10 program that actually played a challenging opener, what’s worse on the road. Let’s not forget that BYU had it out for the Pac 10 for obvious reasons. The bottom line is that it is too early to see how anything will play out. Furthermore I am not convinced that Boise State wins out.
All I saw was purple
I am...they looked legit last night
even if the zebras did gift them a couple of calls. I barely heard the whistles on that late hit penalty, and by rights the kid was dashing down the sideline in bounds when he got hit.
They’ll get a test vs. Oregon State, but since that’s on the smurf turf I think Boise wins it. They’ll win out and they’ll have a good chance to crash the BCS title game. What will be interesting is if TCU also wins out…
TCU has an abosolutely joke of a schedule this year
The only meaningful game left is Utah……that’s right that only play one other decent team the entire year
And Boise State only has one more meaningful game too. I’d rate TCU’s schedule as tougher than Boise State’s…
SMARTER
than we are. If you don’t go with it press to leave the PAC_10 and move to the MC or the WAC.
I don't think so ...
… not with Boise St playing both Ore St and Virginia Tech. So, if you take the best of each schedule:
Or St = Or St
Vir Tech > Utah
Fresno St = BYU
Hawaii > Air Force
Idaho = SMU
The teams on the left are Boise’s opponents – those on right are TCU’s. Even if you think BYU is better than Fresno St (they aren’t), the disparity between VT and everyone else on TCU’s schedule trumps.
This, of course, is opinion.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
seriously disagree
Fresno State equals BYU? Really? A WAC program that has had 4, 9, 7 & 8 wins over the last four years compared to a MWC program that has had 11, 11, 10 & 11 over the same span? Sorry, but BYU > Fresno St. It’s not even close really, and I’m shocked you think otherwise.
Hawaii is better than Air Force? Again, not buying it. Air Force is a consistently winning program in the MWC; Hawaii a WAC team that has been mediocre since Jones left. At best, they’re equal, but I’d give Air Force the edge.
We’ll see on VT vs. Utah. VT is a very good program under Beamer, but so is Utah under Whittingham.
I knew you'd disagree. LOL
… but you think BYU is much better than what I saw from them. Fresno St produces NFL talent on regular basis (relatively speaking) and I don’t really see that much difference between the talent in the MWC vs that of the WAC.
Hawaii racked up almost 600 yds of offense against USC, so, yeah, that is better than Air Force.
Utah really isn’t in the same category as VT at this point, at least from what I saw in week 1 … and I watched both of their games in entirety.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
I don’t care how much talent Fresno puts in the NFL – they haven’t been winning nearly as much as BYU. And it’s really not a debate on which conference is better – the MWC has been, and by a pretty clear margin.
Hawaii is better than Air Force based off of one game this season? Umm, OK. I’m going to wait for a little more evidence before I make that claim. Hawaii was clearly behind Air Force heading into this season too.
Same thing with comparing Utah and VT – it’s just one game. VT has been better overall over the last 4 years, but not by much.
Remember, if you’d gone by the first game only last season, you would have concluded Oregon was mediocre and Cal was a National Championship contender.
I can't support a MWC is better than WAC argument
… to me, we are talking about a bunch of mediocre teams with most accomplished teams in the last decade being split evenly amongst the two conferences (Boise St, BYU, Fresno St, TCU, Hawaii and Utah).
I don’t see any reason for you to dismiss the fact that there is debate on which is the more accomplished conference. I don’t really see any substantial difference. Some decent teams getting over on relatively easy schedules.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
You like to argue facts right?
Every computer ranking system I find shows the MWC to be superior to the WAC:
Billingsley rates the MWC ahead of the WAC in every season they’ve ranked, going back to 2006
Massey had the MWC clearly ahead of the WAC last year (they don’t appear to have archived their rankings for prior years)
http://www.masseyratings.com/team.php?t=11604&s=94988
Sagarin has the MWC ahead of the WAC every year in the 2000’s (I didn’t bother checking any further back than that)
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc09.htm?loc=interstitialskip (you’ll manually have to change the URL to access previous seasons – change the “09” after the “fbc” to the desired year)
Conventional wisdom also says the MWC is superior – I’ve never read or heard anyone suggest differently. And the computer rankings I find back up that conventional wisdom 100%.
What’s more, why would Boise State bolt from the WAC to the MWC unless they though the MWC carried more prestige and would give them greater likelihood of busting the BCS?
Again, I’m stunned that you would think otherwise, as you’re the first college football fan I’ve come across that doesn’t think the MWC is clearly superior.
I said that I think we are talking about a bunch of mediocre football teams ...
… and that there is no substantial difference between the conferences. Maybe you would argue that the SEC is better than the Pac 10? Your Billingsley link shows that the gap is greater between those two conf’s than the gap between the MWC and the WAC. Indeed, if the MWC is “clearly superior” to the WAC, then the SEC is even more dominant over the Pac 10. And, in fact, the Big East, the Big 10, and the Big 12 are also all dominant over the Pac 10. Since you are citing this source, you must believe it.
At the end of the day, there isn’t really a difference between these two conferences and I think we all would agree that the best team among the two resides in the WAC.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
And yet the MWC is ALWAYS ranked higher
Does that not tell you something? Yes, currently the best team among the two conferences is in the WAC (Boise State), but not by much – TCU is right on their heels. And beyond Boise, the WAC drops waaaaaaay off. Fresno St. is OK, but BYU and Utah are quite a bit better programs over the last 5 years than the Bulldogs.
Neither conference is a powerhouse (which is why neither is a BCS conference). The bottom half of both conferences stink. But the difference is that the MWC consistently has 3 teams that are top-25 worthy, while the WAC has 1.
Agree With...
…Kirk. Gekko I don’t think you’re argument holds any water. BYU has been the dominant program overall in the MWC. What has Fresno State done? They’ve been Boise State’s whipping boy.
Washington Husky Football-"Hear the bark, feel the bite!"
ha ha
BYU has been the dominant program overall in the MWC
that is just too funny. Dominant in the MWC is now the gold standard?
I conceded that in the last year, BYU has had a bit more success than Fresno St – but Fresno St has had much stiffer competition taking on the likes of Wisconsin twice, Boise St each year and Cincinnatti this year and last. That is a lot of teams in the top 10 when they’ve played them … and they’ve held their ground. They just beat Cincy – you can’t simultaneously say that BYU is fantastic and then not acknowledge that Fresno St has performed at the same level … at least on paper. Given the fact that they are producing more NFL talent, I’m going to say that Fresno St is, at worst, equal to BYU.
As far as Kirk’s points on “one game” – we’ll see. I have to believe my eyes. VT was excellent on Monday night after getting over the first quarter jitters. Anyone who saw it could not possibly disagree.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
and, yes, I know that BYU beat Oklahoma (with a true frosh playing at QB)
… and Or St last year. Cincy also beat Or St. last year.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
Let's look at them against BCS teams
First off, the number of NFL players produced only tells you a part of the story. Fresno St. has a slim edge over BYU currently in that regard, yes. But while NFL players produced is a rough indicator of talent, it’s not perfect. And talent alone is not indicative of how strong or successful a program is.
Let’s take a look at how Fresno St. and BYU have fared against BCS teams since 2005:
Fresno St:
2005: Oregon (L 35-37), USC (L 42-50)
2006: Oregon (L 24-31), Washington (L 20-21), LSU (L 6-38)
2007: Texas A&M (L 45-47), Oregon (L 21-52), Kansas State (W 45-29), Georgia Tech (W 40-28)
2008: Rutgers (W 24-7), Wisconsin (L 10-13), UCLA (W 36-31)
2009: Wisconsin (L 31-34), Cincinnati (L 20-28), Illinois (W 53-52)
2010: Cincinnati (W 28-14)
BYU:
2005: Boston College (L 3-20), Notre Dame (L 23-49), Cal (L 28-35)
2006: Arizona (L 13-16), Boston College (L 23-30), Oregon (W 38-8)
2007: Arizona (W 20-7), UCLA (L 17-27), UCLA (W 17-16)
2008: Washington (W 28-27), UCLA (W 59-0), Arizona (L 21-31)
2009: Oklahoma (W 14-13), Florida St. (L 28-54), Oregon St. (W 44-20)
2010: Washington (W 23-17)
So that’s 6-10 for Fresno St. and 8-8 for BYU. And in the only case where they’ve played the same BCS team in the same year, Fresno lost 24-31 and BYU won 38-8.
Not only that, but above you argue that the WAC and MWC are virtually equal. If that’s the case, how do you justify ranking Fresno as ahead or equal to BYU when the records are as follows:
2005: Fresno St. 8-5, BYU 6-6
2006: Fresno St. 4-8, BYU 11-2
2007: Fresno St. 9-4, BYU 11-2
2008: Fresno St. 7-6, BYU 10-3
2009: Fresno St. 8-5, BYU 11-2
2010: Fresno St. 1-0, BYU 1-0
Sorry man, the facts just don’t back up you’re assertion that Fresno St. is “at worst equal” to BYU. In fact, the facts are quite clear that BYU has been superior.
I know we won't agree...
… But there is a two game difference despite the fact that BYU played an easier set of BCS teams including USC, LSU and Wisc. The argument that this is clear domination is not substantiated. Mediocre teams all around.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
no, I guess we won't
Even if you think Fresno played a superior set of BCS teams (which is debatable), how do you explain the significant difference in the rest of their records? You’d have to be of the opinion that the WAC is quite a bit stronger than the MWC to explain away the big difference in overall win/loss records between the two (37-28 for Fresno St., 50-15 for BYU). And there’s simply no evidence to support the idea that the WAC is even equal to the MWC, much less superior.
Fresno St. is willing to take on tough teams. Great, bully for them. They’ve won a few, and had a lot of close losses. Terrific. But they still have had a lot less success overall than BYU, and it’s not like BYU has been playing only patsies.
I think Fresno St has been more up and down ...
… but have, by and large, played with more NFL type of talent than BYU.
Its all semantics, though, because my main point is that we are talking about a bunch of mediocre teams that really aren’t all that different. You have a perception of how “close” the Pac 10 is to the SEC in terms of competitiveness. Even your own citations state that the WAC is closer to the MWC than the Pac 10 is to the SEC in terms of “quality”. In my mind, that perceived difference is negligible.
I think we are all guilty of giving BYU more credit than they deserve because we don’t want to believe how middling our own performance was.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
we'll see on BYU
But I don’t think what they’ve done over the past 4 years fits into the category of “mediocre” – I think they’re actually a good program. Whether or not they have a good season this year is up in the air given their personnel losses from last year, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see them win 10 or more.
Give up Gekko...
…kirk is like a bullDAWG! But at least he’s a DAWG, right?!
Washington Husky Football-"Hear the bark, feel the bite!"
the Gekko never gives up ...
… He just gets banned. JB can tell you all about that.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Sep 8, 2010 6:33 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Yep
A man with this much conviction needs needs to be heard.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Sep 8, 2010 7:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Agree. Oregon State is the only other team that played a quality opponent.
Katz is a gunslinger, but he’s inconsistent. He’s got a ways to go to replace Canfield.
And Wazzu.
They played Oklahoma State.
Golden!
by Carl Shinyama on Sep 7, 2010 9:33 PM PDT up reply actions
We don't know yet how good OK St is. They lost a ton of talent off last year's team.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
Arizona's offense is outrageously good...
…. no way that BYU could shut them out for an entire half. I’m also fairly confident that ASU’s D would have put a few lickings on those QBs.
I have to agree with PPilot. Its easier for us to say that BYU is a “great team” than to acknowledge that we laid an egg. Folks, we laid an egg. We were not good against one of the most winnable road games we’ll see all season. Let’s just hope it is nothing more than an aberration and that we can pick up the slack going forward.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
That may play out
Then again like John said BYU could be a 10 win team this year. With that offensive line, they might be unmovable, which would set up for a great first season for the dual QBs. I thought their defense played very well, not too many defenses can bottle up Locker the way they did.
It’s week 1, too hard to tell at this point. Week 2 will provide a better window to gage many programs.
All I saw was purple
Their Defense
played better than I expected too.
Washington Husky Football-"Hear the bark, feel the bite!"
Arizona’s offense only averaged 27 points per game. Hardly outrageoulsy good. Entirely one-dimensional.
ASU’s defense, as good as it was last year, only generated 23 sacks. At the lower end of the conference.
BYU’s passing offense is predicated on getting the ball out quickly. They gave up 19 sacks last season, and the line is more experienced this year.
I don’t think people are saying BYU is great. But they’re definitely good. As good as the UW. As you mention it was one of the more winnable road games. But it wasn’t laying an egg. It was a missed opportunity. A major one.
I fail to see the difference
Lay an egg, miss an opportunity, whatever. We looked like the softer, less disciplined, less aggressive team out there despite the fact that they were breaking in new starters everywhere including QB. If BYU is better than us, than we are a 4 or 5 win team given our schedule. Let’s all hope that is not the case.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
by Gekko Mojo on Sep 7, 2010 2:07 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Tough Place...
…to play. Combine that with the opening game, the altitude, heat etc and it becomes even tougher. Maybe the team even believed some of the hype but you can’t just show up and get a win.
Washington Husky Football-"Hear the bark, feel the bite!"
Until I see otherwise
Evaluating what I saw on Saturday with a full year under the system and all the hype, this team looked much worse game 1 than they did a year ago. I’m reserving judgement until the Nebraska game unless they look horrible against the Cuse in which case I will abandon all hope of a bowl and never listen to preseason media hype again!
Last PAC-10 Rose Bowl winner not named USC....Washington
by DAWGFATHER91 on Sep 7, 2010 1:18 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
I agree
This team has to show something this season. Anything other the a bowl bid would be completely unacceptable.
All I saw was purple
You're right on
Only a winning season is acceptable.
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
"BOW DOWN TO WASHINGTON"
6-6
best bet. Too young, too tough schedule. We play eight bowl teams. Two years away so sit back and take what comes our way.
At Home
How many people on this board would say that if BYU had come into Husky Stadium that we would have lost? Just curious.
Washington Husky Football-"Hear the bark, feel the bite!"
I think we win that game at home
It’s partly a confidence thing and partly the conditions. BYU is a good team and a strong program, but we should have won that game, and barring a lot of unforced miscues and some bounces that didn’t go our way and we probably do just that. At home I think we win by 10.
The Road
Guys, this thing is a “monkey on our back” until we break through and get that crucial first win.
Washington Husky Football-"Hear the bark, feel the bite!"
WSU on the road will probably the best option barring an upset
Cal, AZ, USC, and Oregon on the road is brutal
We’ll be underdogs in all those games most likely. That said, I don’t think we have much of a read on Cal yet. USC is talented but vulnerable. Arizona looked really good, but I’m still not completely sold on Stoops – check back in a few weeks. Oregon – yeah, that’s a tough, tough matchup. Hard to see the Huskies winning that one.
BYU winning percentage under Mendenhall
At home 25-2
Overall 76%
Sure, not a strong conference although they have done well lately against the Pac.
First game of the year, plenty of time to prepare. They were up for us.
Watched the game again, in the 4th the OL was miscuing on the right side bigtime. RT missing his assignment on the OLB, #4 missing blocks altogether, RG running power left and Jake goes in his hole. It wasn’t physical as much as mental mistakes.
by PandG on Sep 8, 2010 12:07 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
I saw them...
…beat A&M at home when A&M was good. Give them credit for where they are and their system.
Washington Husky Football-"Hear the bark, feel the bite!"
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
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.
