The Monday Morning Wash
by John Berkowitz on Oct 24, 2011 6:51 AM PDT
Email
PrintI've seen a lot of terrible Husky football games since November 24th of 2001. That was the day Miami put a 65-7 shellacking on Washington in the Orange Bowl. It was also the day that a proud tradition of defense dating back to 1957 under coaches Owens, James, and Lambright officially died.
One can fairly say that after a 65-21 loss to Stanford that nothing much has changed over the years other than head coaches and defensive coordinators. Despite all the changes Washington's defense is still among the worst statistically in the BCS.
Allowing 446 yards on the ground, 615 yards overall, and 65 points is just mind numbingly bad. The defense simply stinks right now and there is enough talent and depth on the roster for it to be better than that.
After the game, Coach Holt said: "We’re not there yet physically in our program, with our guys, with just staying toe-to-toe consistently. " (Which is a nice way of saying that they were bigger and better than us and just kicked our asses all over the field.)
I am not buying into that completely. Something isn't clicking and it seems to be more than simply talent, strength, and experience. The defense isn't playing as cohesively as it can and there should be a way to improve that as the season continues.
The team needs to bounce back strong this week against Arizona. Despite the tough loss the team can accomplish things this year that haven't been done in a decade which is a pretty remarkable feat in itself.
Note to the Board Members
Over the last couple of weeks a number of our members have been out of line in some of their comments and the way they treat other posters and our writers. We actually had one of our writers quit/take time off/reevaluate this past week because of the negative personal comments that were directed toward him and his articles.
I think what was really disappointing to he and I was the fact that a number of our readers actually rec'd the nasty exchange. So I guess that sent the solid signal that his contributions were not wanted and appreciated so now he is gone.
It is OK to disagree/debate but it is not OK to treat people with a lack of respect! The Cassino and I sent out a number of warnings to the folks involved over the weekend. If you received one of those warnings you need to understand that you are on thin ice and if there is a single recurrence I will ban you from the blog.
Pac 12 Power Rankings
1. Stanford...The Cardinal dominated Washington in every phase of the game including coaching. Up next is a big game with USC who is coming off a solid win on the road against Notre Dame.
2. Oregon...The Ducks coasted and showed some mercy in a win over Colorado. This week they get the Cougars at home in what should be another laugher.
3. Arizona State...Sparky had the week off and they get Colorado at home this week which is kind of like taking the week off.
4. Southern California...Impressive win over Notre Dame in South Bend extends their record to 6-1. This week they get the Tree at home in a game that will tell us what the Trojans are made of.
5. Washington...Huskies need to bounce back after a devastating loss to Stanford. Up next is Arizona who blew us all away with a 48-12 win over UCLA the week after firing Mike Stoops. If UW wins they are bowl eligible for the second straight season.
6. California...Good win for the Bears over Utah. This week they get UCLA and they shouldn't have a problem throttling the sliding Bruins and improving to 5-3.
7. Arizona...Great win over UCLA in a fight marred football game. Arizona had three DB's suspended for their participation in the fight and that will hurt against Washington this week.
8. Utah...The Utes are 0-4 in conference play after falling to California. They get Oregon State at home this week that could end up being their first conference win.
9. Oregon State...Dominating 44-21win over Washington State in Seattle. This week it is scrappy Utah on the road in Salt Lake.
10. UCLA...No matter what AD Dan Guerrero says the Rick Neuheisel era at UCLA is coming to an end. A loss to Cal at home this weekend will cement that.
11. Washington State...The Cougars were dominated by Oregon State in Seattle. This week they travel to Eugene to be sacrificed on the floor of Autzen Stadium.
12. Colorado...The schedule doesn't get any easier. Arizona State isn't going to have trouble with the Buffs.
144 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Oh boo.
You’re on a fan board on a charged and competitive topic. So what if some faceless internet guy gets mad at you? Your feelings hurt? This is a football blog. Man up!
I got a good sardonic chuckle out of this. That the topic was Holt on the chopping block with his job and reputation on the line, but it’s some blogger guy that quits under the criticism? Jeez talk about lame. Glad our coaching staff, Holt included is made of much, much sterner stuff than that!
by Skeptical Dawg on Oct 24, 2011 7:09 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Man up?
Interesting…man up was actually my first reaction…then I took the time to read the thread and I could understand where he was coming from…Linky
I’ve been doing this for six years so I have a pretty thick skin. When someone makes a comment that hacks me off (that seldom ever happens) I do two things:
1. I step away and don’t reply immediately.
2. I take the time to fairly examine the criticism and use it as a learning tool if there is indeed anything valid in the argument.
The thing that makes our blog different than other places where you can discuss Husky Football is that we have an enforced honor code as far as behavior goes.
That being said we aren’t heavy handed when someone doesn’t immediately get that. We give folks a stern warning, explain where we are coming from, and they either get it or they don’t. I guess that is the approach I am taking with you this morning.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Oct 24, 2011 7:39 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Thank You John
I very rarely read comments anymore, and I’m glad I missed the ones in question.
Before you switched to SBNation (a move that I wish you had never made) the conversation was much more civil. Unfortunately, opening up your blog to a much larger audience by joining SBNation, also means that the civility has taken a nosedive. I’m sorry to see Bugs leave, he will be missed.
by NeuroDawg on Oct 24, 2011 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Thank you
I think in comparison to anywhere else this place is still extremely civil. When it isn’t I take time to address it which keeps it civil going forward. That is what I am trying to do right now. I have to do it around once a year and even had to do it in the late pre SBN days.
There are places out there where you can bash other folks to a certain extent and a lot of people are into it…this just isn’t one of those places.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Oct 24, 2011 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions
Sad
That we even need to address this on the blog. I have gotten very heated in political discussions in other venues and hope I never get heated on the blog. These group of guys have become friends even though I dont know any of them.
Your first point is a key one. My son plays highly competitive travel baseball, where parents often get upset with their kids lack of playing time. The coaches have one rule. No contact for 24 hours. Its a very good rule. I think most parents/people calm down after stepping away for a period of time.
by CODawg on Oct 24, 2011 8:59 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Wait a minute...
are you referring to our little exchange with Mr. Bugs Dodger? Or is there something more to the story?
by PurpleHaze11 on Oct 24, 2011 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes. That one.
You and UWBOWDOWN got a little crazy over pretty much nothing.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
I wasn't trying to dis' you...
… but you guys got pretty worked up pretty fast and were definitely the first ones to start calling names.
I get that this happens (and, yes, it is true that JB once famously banned me for doing the exact same thing) behind the anonymity of the Internet. Still, I was surprised by the tenacity of your exchange. Bugs, like many of us, has his own biases and points of view that are expressed passionately and intelligently, not condescendingly and offensively.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
haha, I don't want to get in to this again. Suffice to say I see things differently.
The stuff that I said was not said because of some veil of anonymity, if me and Bugs were having that conversation face to face I would have said the exact same things.
Not sure
Can the dawgs win another game or two this season not sure. Although the UW maybe favored against AZ – OSU – and WSU there are no home games against EWU – Hawaii or CO on our remaining schedule. AZ and OSU both improving – pass oriented our greatest weakness. OR and USC will be big favorites. WSU is WSU plus they can pass the ball toss up game.
Well..
I think this weekend brought us all back down to earth…that being said I would be pretty surprised if we win less than three games going forward.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Oct 24, 2011 7:57 AM PDT up reply actions
But then....
I would be just as surprised if we win more than three games the rest of the regular season, and none of those three will be gimmees as OSU and U of A are improving and the Cougs are always primed for the Dawgs.
Know this: Every team we face will be licking its chops to face our soft, on-its-heels, defense. Keith Price better get his arm warmed up and likewise Chris Polk his legs, as we are going to need every point they can produce.
Nonsense
It’s possible for us to win out the rest of our games on shoot-outs. We’ve already faced the best defenses in the Pac and only Oregon’s offense can compare to our own. Last season the Stanford game was a wake-up call and it will be again this season. Our D may not shut anybody down, but they’ll do enough for our offense to win.
Arizona may be a closer game than I’d hope for, but it’s at home and their passing attack is short yardage, so I don’t think our D will give up big plays while our offense will make big plays and that’ll be the difference. WSU and OSU don’t scare me at all. As long as Price and Polk stay healthy, we’ll win at least 3 of 5 and Sark has outcoached USC two straight years and I don’t see that changing.
UW takes 4 of the last 5 games and goes to the Alamo Bowl.
by Skeptical Dawg on Oct 24, 2011 8:52 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
100% in Agreement!
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Oct 24, 2011 8:54 AM PDT up reply actions
Hold the phone....and the farm...
I hope you’re right but I wouldn’t bet the farm on 4 of 5, not without some improvement from the defense.
Hope
I certainly hope so. I have been a big supporter of our defense, it always lets me down. Now I’m sitting here thinking we may not ever win a game again, that’s how badly that game impacted me as a fan. It’s gonna take a lot for my self esteem to come back to pick the Dawgs to win another game.
I think OSU and WSU are wins. I just don’t know if we can beat USC and Arizona, let alone Oregon. We’ll see!
by datboyeddiep on Oct 24, 2011 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Maybe 3 out of 5
I have a very hard time seeing 4 out of 5. Arizona’s & WSU have enough offense to scare me, and USC in LA is never an easy game.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
One game
We got manhandled by Stanford and I have also used the word embarrased. But I still see victories over AZ, OSU and WSU. And I still think we have a great chance to beat USC. I know longer feel good about Oregon but…
Extremely embarrassed
That one made me want to call in to work Monday!
by datboyeddiep on Oct 24, 2011 11:00 AM PDT up reply actions
Agree With Your Assessment
Nick Holt’s excuses are invalid. There is plenty of talent and experience on this Husky defense. The problem is poor coaching, ineffective scheming and inability to make in-game adjustments to counter the opponent’s offense. Opposing offensive coordinators seem to know exactly how Holt’s defense will react to certain formations, shifts and decoys, and use that advantage to run and pass at will.
Well....
I would use the phrase “almost adequate” rather than plenty when describing the talent and experience on the Husky defense.
I think Holt’s excuses are very valid but they are also incomplete because he is verbally leaving himself out of the equation. It’s not all on the players…the coaches need to step it up too.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Oct 24, 2011 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions
Then again.....
Using terms such as "Invalid" or "almost adequate" does require some form of qualification in order to be relevant and I failed to do this in my comment. To clarify, I believe there is sufficient talent/experience on the present Husky defense’s roster to compete, but probably not go toe-to-toe with Stanford. I might contend the Husky offense is no more talented or experienced than the defense, but has been coached and schemed to take advantage of its varied talents, while masking its inexperience in other areas.
There is no excuse for the beating this Husky defense took at the hands of Stanford, not with the talent and opportunity Nick Holt had at his disposal. Holt is in over his head and should be replaced at the end of the season.
He's said he's part of the problem on a number of occasions.
Those instances never get as much pub, likely because the “blaming the players” thing is such a hot-button issue after the Willingham Error.
by Sundodger on Oct 24, 2011 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
That was point
on the other threads. It starts with him. Leaders always believe that. Did you hear Hue Jackson’s comments after the raiders debacle?
Agreed on most parts
I don’t think the scheme is necessarily the primary flaw. I believe the execution has been poor in both the Stanford and Nebraska games due to a lack of physical talent and experience (i.e. OLBs). That being said, an inability to execute scheme also validates exploration of different options, which I don’t recall seeing on Saturday. I definitely felt like we were trying to fight against Einstein’s definition of stupidity by rolling out the same thing and expecting different results.
Very good argument
I was pretty sure we were going to come out with something different for this Stanford game. We just keep putting ourselves in the same positions to fail.
by datboyeddiep on Oct 24, 2011 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions
Sark's comments today
Sark made it clear today that he thought our schemes did not work. Indicating that the schemes were a problem.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
where did he say that?
Are you referring to his Monday press conference? I see nothing of the sort in his comments from this afternoon.
Comment:
Unfortunately part of the plan was to wait ‘em out a little bit in the run game, to see if we could put pressure on them with our offense to get them out of their comfort zone, and we just weren’t able to do that. The game plan we went in with, hoping to be successful, didn’t work.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
65 points indicates pretty clearly that they didn’t work. That doesn’t necessarily mean they were the wrong schemes if that’s what your implying. With our personnel I don’t think there is a scheme that would have worked. Sometimes the other team is just that much better. Hopefully Sark & Co. canclose that gap soon.
yep
And what I’ve seen today are multiple comments by Sark about how the players didn’t execute the scheme, and strong inferences that this team isn’t there yet physically to compete with Stanford. A sampling:
On not executing:
It’s one thing to be in your gap, but at some point you’ve got to beat the man across from you, you’ve got to get off the block.
And there’s a fine line with trying too hard, being overaggressive, trying to make the play and then ultimately getting beat the other way too. There’s a fine line there. For a time there we found that right balance, and obviously we lost it there at Stanford.
And the same on defense-if you can’t cover in man coverage or you don’t get off a block, those plays don’t look as good. I think they go hand-in-hand both ways.
How can we get to the point where we don’t let things snowball on us, where we can stop the bleeding, re-focus and get back going in a positive direction quicker than we have.
Adjustments are constant. We tried. It wasn’t for lack of trying-we moved guys into different gaps, different alignments, and ultimately we got blocked and stayed blocked. … I want to give Stanford their credit but we are better than that. … if it’s a one-on-one with a tight end and you are a defensive end, sooner or later you get off those blocks and we were unable to do that Saturday night.
He said he thought the defense usually was able to adjust to get in the right spot but that “now (we) have to win that one-on-one battle and we obviously didn’t win nearly enough of those one-on-one matchups to put us in those situations that would have benefitted us, those third-and-longs, which obviously didn’t happen.”
On scheme:
So you need to understand where your strengths are and play to your strengths and then ultimately you’ve got to have the psyche and the mentality that you are going to make those plays and to go do it. So both of them are challenging to fix when things aren’t going well and it takes time and it takes some success to build upon and it’s not just going to happen overnight. You need to lay a foundation, you need to continue to build and there are going to be bumps in the road but you’ve got to continue to build and not panic and go off in some direction that are uncharted waters for you. If you are a shotgun spread team and you are not throwing the ball well I don’t think it’s real advantageous for you the next week to say we are going to line up in the Power-I 38 snaps and just think you are going to run power-if you weren’t built that way it’s going to be hard to do. It goes both ways.
On the physical development/talent of the defense:
But also we have to continue to recruit. They are a big, physical team. You look at them in pre-game and you forget how big they are. I try not to remember how big they are until we have to remember how big they are when we play them. But the tight ends, the tackles, the defensive ends on defense, the defensive tackles – they are a big, strong, physical team that play very well straight-ahead, coming at you – and they take their toll on your. It’s one of their unique traits.
I think it’s a work in progress. In a perfect world I wish Danny Shelton could really redshirt for us. I wish Alameda Ta’amu was a redshirt junior. I wish Semisi (Tokolahi) was a redshirt freshman. I wish … Johnny Timu was redshirting right now. But we’re in a situation where we’re playing a lot of young guys. Not only mentally but physically those games can take a tole on you so I think we’ll only get better, especially in that type of a ball game. They physically and mentally Stanford to their credit really impose their will on you…Obviously we need to continue to mature and grow.
though to be fair...
…on the coaches show tonight he did say he thinks the defense needs to get more aggressive since the base defense isn’t getting enough penetration into gaps and pressuring the QB.
I was just about to copy and paste that
I think he was talking about offensive AND defensive schemes. Their defensive plan was to play vanilla, “bend and don’t break”, with simple (or basic) schemes, and try to straight up out play Stanford. Then, hope the offense would get a lead and take Stanford out of their comfort zone.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
in that particular comment...
…he was talking about the offensive gameplan. His hope was to engage in a shootout and try to get Stanford into more passing downs. Instead, the offense didn’t hold up their end and Stanford was able to stay almost entirely in their power running attack.
He did mention in the coach’s show that he thinks the defense needs to get more aggressive. Hopefully they can execute that, because the downside to an aggressive scheme is you will allow more big, explosive plays.
would one infer that the 'shootout' gameplan is the one we use every week?
I haven’t seen an aggressive D yet…In 3 years!! (that I can recall – I reserve the right to change my mind should I be corrected)
I think folks need to wake up to the reality that we are NOT elite yet...
…then chill the hell out … because we are all arm chair qb’s
I wish more folks subscribed to Dawgman so they could listen to what recruits are ACTUALLY saying about the coaches (they love them)!).
These are great coaches we got here. Sarkisian has earned the benefit of the doubt and to his credit I am willing to trust his judgement on Holt because frankly, I don’t know enough about what the hell is going on X’s and O’s wise to have an opinion one way or another and reading through these threads, the only take away I got is neither does anyone else.
by supercanuck on Oct 24, 2011 9:09 AM PDT reply actions 6 recs
I have to rec this post!
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Oct 24, 2011 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions
In Sark We Trust, But.....
Just because coaches are “loved” doesn’t make them capable or effective. Fortunately we have all the above in Coach Sark.
And many times those prospects who “love” our coaches commit elsewhere. Sad but true. And yes, yes, there are many reasons players “love” coaches and commit elsewhere. One of those is to play in and win the big games.
I love our coaches
I love our coaching staff. I think they’ve done a magnificent job at bringing our program from a 0-12 hole. That being said, me as a fan got caught up in the moment and way ahead of myself. I think a lot of us did. I got slapped back to reality this time! We have something special going in Seattle, it just needs more time to become elite. Oh and one more thing…….
Go Huskies!
by datboyeddiep on Oct 24, 2011 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions
I don't care whether a recruit "loves" Sark
What I care about is his signature on an LOI. Until that happens, the things recruits say can’t be trusted. Now, it’s entirely normal for recruits to switch commitments 2-3 times. And honestly, if you take a look at the class Sark has been putting together for 2012, it doesn’t impress me much. I really wish our recruiting list looked slightly closer to the level of SC, but that’s not historically how it has gone. But look at the guy we beat out USC for—Polk. We need to win a battle or two against them to get the best of the best.
And yes, we are all arm chair QBs, but when you see a Stanford team putting up 20 more points against the Dawgs than it did against Colorado and UCLA, red flags go flying everywhere. That is simply not acceptable. And no, we are not elite, but EVERY Husky fan I talked to expected this game to be closer than it was last year, and it wasn’t. So take that for what it’s worth.
by PurpleHaze11 on Oct 24, 2011 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions
I dont think
you can try and compare what they did against UCLA or Colorado. It was embarrassing dont get me wrong I just dont like that argument.
How about comparing it
to last years’ 41-0 drubbing?
That’s a fair comparison, no?
About the same result.
by PurpleHaze11 on Oct 24, 2011 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah same result
Two dfiferent teams though at least on our end. And again the was terrible. I just dont like the argument of well they only beat so and so by 30 so we must be worse than them argument.
Maybe, but PurpleHaze has a point ... At some point, these blowouts against us that aren't repeated against others matter
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
Why didn't I get a thumbs up?
I said all this yesterday, when everybody was going nuts. Our ranking was a gift ladys and gentlemen. We haven’t beaten a worthy opponent this season. I think we’re good, but not anywhere near a top 15. I do think we can play our way back in the top 25 and I think by the time the season ends we’ll be ranked in there somewhere. But if you think we are top 15 material at this point, you’re drinking too much of the kool aid.
We got handed our heads by a team that could play for the national championship. Is 60+ points too much to give up? Hell yeah it is, but a loss is a loss no matter ife its by 60 or by a feidl goal.
All I saw was purple
Chill out everyone.
I think Stanford is a really really good team. I think they could put up with LSU or Alabama. I feel like everybody forgets how far the UW program has come in a couple years- when was the last time the Huskies would walk into an opposing Pac-10 team’s stadium and blow them out two weeks in a row?
Rome was not built overnight.
Sure, but I think a lot of people are disappointed that the offensive success hasn't been mirrored on defense.
Washington is a program with a history and its fanbase expects big things from the program. I personally don’t think enough credit is being given to just how good Stanford was, and the dawgs will look better next week against Arizona. Stanford is by all impressions really good, but 65 points to anyone is unacceptable, as is 400+ rushing yards when all they’re doing in the second half is running power on every down. That’s a clock cleaning.
Before Sark and Holt arrived...
The coach that shall not be named had a very good class come in to play along with Locker. Most of those great recruits were offensive players. So from the get go of the Sark era, the offense was already ahead of the defense in terms of talent. Holt arrived and we didn’t have much. We had DTN and a couple good LBs. We look at both the offense and defense and we continue to think why isn’t Holt not getting it done? Talent wise Sark had a head start. He had Price, Polk, Kearse, Augilar, and a couple O Linemen who are starting this season. Holt didn’t have virtually anything to build around. Does this offer some explanation why the offense is way ahead of the defense in execution? I think so…
All I saw was purple
Wow.
Wow. I’m shocked that the departure of Bugs is a topic that is considered proper to discuss in this manner, but if we are doing it, let’s get the facts straight.
Bugs is not afraid of a little critique of his writing. He has three degrees in "having people critique his writing," the coursework of which was magnitudes more brutal and insightful than anything anyone here has said. And yet, he continues to write for public consumption. There is no need to question his professionalism or masculinity.
Bugs stepped back from the most recent exchange he was involved in because he knew that once one’s opponents have proven that they cannot follow one’s logic, there is no use in continuing to repeat one’s points. He did not wish to escalate, and so he stopped. This is a sign of adulthood, not cowardice.
In addition, Bugs was a moderator. He was not going to violate Dawg Pound rules by insulting fellow community members. Although commenters insulted Bugs directly, he was not able to attack them back due to his respect for Dawg Pound practices and his role here.
Bugs did not quit. He wrote an essay about Stanford last Saturday, as he promised John that he would, after John wrote to him on Friday asking if he was still planning on doing so. He posted it offsite because it turned out to be more explicit than he planned and perhaps too over-the-top for the Dawg Pound. He was aware that some of his earlier essays were considered too offensive by some commenters, so he thought it would be best to host this particular essay, with its slightly sexual content and its violence, elsewhere. He posted a blurb about it (with a warning) and a link to it as a Fanpost. In this Fanpost, he explained that he was planning to return to weekly stories next week, and that he would be posting them as he normally did, on the Dawg Pound.
On Sunday morning, Bugs’s editorial privileges were revoked. Bugs never received any kind of explanation from John as to why. He only learned of his firing when his name disappeared from the footer of the page. He was hurt and disappointed. He had been enjoying the community here, and he is sorry it has come to this.
Your editorial privledges have not been revoked...
…you certainly weren’t fired…but I admit you are missing from the masthead at the bottom of the page…strange.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Oct 24, 2011 11:05 AM PDT up reply actions
Nick turned him off in retaliation...!
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Oct 24, 2011 11:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Well
I don’t know who this Nick Holt character is, but it sounds like you shouldn’t let him near your technology.
When we were little, my sister and I used to say, for example, “Mommy, it wasn’t my fault the vase fell and broke! It was gravity!” Is Nick Holt kind of like gravity around here?
by Hettie Dodger on Oct 24, 2011 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions
Nick Holt is gravity.
Nick Holt is famine. Nick Holt is disease. Nick Holt is the anger in the hearts of mankind. Nick Holt is America’s broken political system. Nick Holt is acne the night before your prom. Nick Holt is your car not starting on the day of a huge presentation at work. Nick Holt is stubbed toes, the Black Plague, and everything in between.
In short, Nick Holt is the source of all the world’s problems. Remember that. Blame Nick Holt.
by huskies2010 on Oct 24, 2011 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
I may have gotten a bit carried away there.
by huskies2010 on Oct 24, 2011 12:36 PM PDT up reply actions
I'll translate
“Husky nation is (understandably) fed up with lousy defensive performances, and finding a scapegoat is part of the venting process – hence, we’re going to blame Nick Holt for all of the ills of the defense, regardless of whether he’s the sole or primary culprit”
Or maybe . . .
he isn’t getting the job done.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
Rec'd
That was the best post of the day!!!!
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
#FreeBugs
Glad to hear we’ll continue to get your weekly masterpieces. My Saturday morning routine wouldn’t be the same without them.
I wish god blessed me with more intelligence and a longer attention span
to fully appreciate them.
That being said, Bugs Dodger is a valued member of this community.
by supercanuck on Oct 24, 2011 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions
I miss "Bugs"!
Don’t know what happened? I’ve been banished to the netherhood of the Duck State so anything Dawg-like is only possible through this high technology called the interwebs…sad, because I"m such a tech-tard! I can’t even spell “i t”….(or tv) Worse…I came in late in the first quarter only to get pulled deeper into the Kool-aid induced high of Chris Polk runs to the “house” only furthering the height of my fall! Now, my highly developed “gag-reflex” muscles are looking for a healthy outlet …only to learn (via these intersites) that our own “Bugs” (edgy,often over the top of “vanilla”) is lost ?! Someone help me with this please? Bugs (with all his worts) was the first to explain and reveal what always bothered me about J.P.Patches and all “clowns” in general! We must get him back for Arizona week! I don’t know if I can manage my need for a comeback game/win without the “edge” of the Bugsters special glasses….All overly refined urbanites must unite! Bring back Bugs!
Bugs insulted a fellow community member when he called him a troll instead of responding to his arguments.
He was called out on this behavior, as he deserved to be.
by UW11Bowdown on Oct 24, 2011 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
In fairness
We do legitimately have a couple of trolls. And not just the outwardly quacking and waddling kind.
We always have a couple of salvageable trolls
I think everyone (but strangely enough not Bugs at the moment) understands where I am coming from going forward.
Every once in awhile we need to step back and define who we are as a community. This just happens to be one of those moments.
Funny thing…it usually comes after a mind numbing loss…this was no exception.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Oct 24, 2011 11:50 AM PDT up reply actions
If you are referring to our little exchange with Mr. Bugs Dodger
then no, it didn’t come after a loss. It was before the Stanford game. Is there something more to this story that I am not getting?
by PurpleHaze11 on Oct 24, 2011 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions
UW11Bowdown tells the truth
First he tried to insult me by saying “why are you so invested in defending the Ducks and their lack of breeding?” It didn’t make a lot of sense, but as UW11Bowdown pointed out in the thread, it’s a completely troll-like thing to say. When I responded by doing a close analysis of his post and criticizing it, he called me a troll.
by PurpleHaze11 on Oct 24, 2011 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions
You already know that I agree with you on what happened in the other thread.
It may be a good idea to just let it go at this point. I think things have been handled behind the scenes. Lets all just try and make sure a situation like that doesn’t happen again.
by UW11Bowdown on Oct 24, 2011 12:47 PM PDT up reply actions
I let it go when I stopped checking the thread about a week ago
It was brought up again by John in today’s blog post. So if you have a problem with bringing it back up and talking about it in a public forum, maybe you should take that up with John.
by PurpleHaze11 on Oct 24, 2011 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions
except you're not letting it go
John posted a link so readers that didn’t catch the exchange could know what was being referenced. Whether he should have is up for debate.
What is unnecessary is you rehashing your arguments and disagreement.
Duly noted
but you don’t need to jump all over me for it. You weren’t even a party that was involved in the discussion, so I don’t know why it concerns you so much.
But, as I said, duly noted. I’ll take your advice.
by PurpleHaze11 on Oct 24, 2011 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions
That is "jumping all over you"???
Wow. To me it sounded like some friendly advice.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
by Lear Pilot on Oct 24, 2011 4:26 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
take it offline
This kind of post is really best served by being a private message to the moderators. Airing it out in public makes you look bad, regardless of the merit of your argument. It’s like when your kids complain about something after the fact: “But daaaaaaaad, he said that and then I said this, and then he said that, and…”
Those of us that care read the exchange when it happened and already have an opinion on the matter. You’re not helping your cause by rehashing it publicly.
It was made public the minute it was posted on the site
John even provided a link above
by PurpleHaze11 on Oct 24, 2011 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions
he posted a link
He didn’t attempt to rehash the arguments that had occurred. Again, you are not helping your cause. Let it go, or take up your concerns privately with John and/or Bugs.
John probably shouldn't have linked it.
There was just no real need to rehash it. Doing so doesn’t enhance his point in any meaningful way.
John's point
seems inconsistent. In the thread, he said it was a “pretty interesting debate we had going” and that “things have stayed pretty clean despite the overall intensity.”
I agree with those statements totally. Yet, in today’s post, he called it a “nasty exchange.” That’s where I see the inconsistency.
by PurpleHaze11 on Oct 24, 2011 1:01 PM PDT up reply actions
Over the last couple of weeks a number of our members have been out of line in some of their comments and the way they treat other posters and our writers. We actually had one of our writers quit/take time off/reevaluate this past week because of the negative personal comments that were directed toward him and his articles.
I think what was really disappointing to he and I was the fact that a number of our readers actually rec’d the nasty exchange. So I guess that sent the solid signal that his contributions were not wanted and appreciated so now he is gone.
It is OK to disagree/debate but it is not OK to treat people with a lack of respect! The Cassino and I sent out a number of warnings to the folks involved over the weekend. If you received one of those warnings you need to understand that you are on thin ice and if there is a single recurrence I will ban you from the blog.
This was John’s point. In this thread. Which is the only one that matters.
It seems very clear and consistent to me.
Let John speak for himself
You cannot just say that “this thread” is the only one that matters. If that was true, why would he link the other thread so posters could view it? Obviously, if one does that, they feel like it does matter.
And again, nothing I am saying to you is antagonistic. I am simply pointing out that your logic doesn’t follow any reasonable principles. It is reasonable to expect one’s attitudes and statements toward a particular exchange to remain consistent. If, over time, your attitude and statements toward a particular exchange change, then it is perfectly reasonable to expect an explanation of that change. But without explanation, it seems very inconsistent.
I thought it was a “good donnybrook.” But I guess it was a “nasty exchange.” That deserves explanation. On top of that, John criticized the people who recommended my posts.To me, that’s a pretty democratic way of judging whether the community agrees with or likes what you are saying. It is obvious to me that more than a couple posters on the site agreed with some of the things I was saying. They, too, obviously held similar sentiments.
by PurpleHaze11 on Oct 24, 2011 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions
I can understand your complaints.
I’m sure John would appreciate hearing them from you as well, but they would probably be more effective in a private message. I emailed him earlier today and he got back to me very quickly with answers to my questions. Take a step back and email him your questions and I’m sure he’ll get back to you. His email is listed under his profile page.
Actually....
I thought it was a "good donnybrook." But I guess it was a "nasty exchange." That deserves explanation. On top of that, John criticized the people who recommended my posts.To me, that’s a pretty democratic way of judging whether the community agrees with or likes what you are saying. It is obvious to me that more than a couple posters on the site agreed with some of the things I was saying. They, too, obviously held similar sentiments.
One of the things we can actually do is record who actually rec’s your posts. Upon actual examination it seems that your rec’s came from UWBowdown11 and five known Duck fans from ATQ…I am not making this up and I am laughing as I am writing this…that is way too funny.
Really all I am asking you and others to do is be nice and show others respect…shouldn’t be that big of a deal that we have to debate.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Oct 24, 2011 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions
I wouldn't just dismiss posters from other sites
We should be at least a bit respectful of our fellow Pac-12 schools. The fact that some duck fans appreciated his comments is a good thing, not a bad thing.
I just thought it was really funny
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Oct 24, 2011 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions
That is actually pretty funny
But hey, I never wanted anyone to quit the blog. I was just doing what I like to do—argue points and get into debates. Plus it irks me when Husky fans seem to be propping themselves up over Duck fans and/or the UO. It’s very annoying. I wish we would just start beating them so we can prop ourselves up as a better football team, not as better people or citizens.
by PurpleHaze11 on Oct 24, 2011 2:09 PM PDT up reply actions
Wow!
Steen…I got to tell you…you are just a complete madman.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Oct 24, 2011 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions
bursting into flames
A few weeks ago I made the comparison:
Soddom and Gomorrah = Pullman and Eugene
In other words, LET THEM BURN!!!
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
Almost certainly they did so for the wrong reasons
These are Duck fans.
He did speak.
man up was actually my first reaction…then I took the time to read the thread and I could understand where he was coming from
He didn’t pay attention to it at first. Then, he did. If you need more than that, you should simply email him directly.
As for the rec feature….How do you know it wasn’t a bunch of Cougar or Duck fans that did it? Or some sociopaths that follow Bugs around on the internet, looking for any opportunity to attack him? If there was some sort of clearinghouse for this site, you’d be right. But there isn’t. Virtually anybody can click one box and have full access around here.
Dang man
You should be John’s PR representative
by PurpleHaze11 on Oct 24, 2011 3:50 PM PDT up reply actions
Um, no . . .
that’s pretty damn embarrassing.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
Just looking at that
Seems like Sundodger hit the nail on the head with the whole “cougar or duck fans who did it” bit.
Yes sir
he did hit the nail on the head
by PurpleHaze11 on Oct 24, 2011 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions
Hit the nail on the head with that one specific point
but that fact remains that John’s statements about the exchange are wildly inconsistent. Sundodger said “He didn’t pay attention to it at first. Then, he did.” Well, if that’s not true, then that’s on him and he should retract his original statement and admit he didn’t take the time to read and understand the exchange.
However, I don’t believe that’s true. I think John is smart and I think he read through the entire post with diligence. It is, after all, his blog. So it deserves an explanation.
Then Sundodger says “If you need more than that, you should simply email him directly.” Nah, I don’t think I’ll do that. This is a public forum and John decided to bring it up in one of his public posts. If he can’t address it in public then I really don’t know what to say.
by PurpleHaze11 on Oct 24, 2011 4:08 PM PDT up reply actions
It's a public forum, yes
That doesn’t mean everything should be discussed publicly. John brought up the environment of the site because it became an issue over the weekend. Don’t be so arrogant as to think he was only talking about you. There were a number of instances where posts were deleted or hidden and members were warned.
Now let it go, take it to email, or enjoy a time out. Your choice.
I wasn't trying to be arrogant
If you look above, I asked “are you referring to our little exchange with Mr. Bugs Dodger? Or is there something more to the story?” Since I didn’t receive a response, and I wasn’t involved with the other incident(s), I assumed he was referring to our exchange—my assumption strengthened by the fact John linked our exchange and not any of the others.
I’ll take one of these
by PurpleHaze11 on Oct 24, 2011 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions
Also
you may impose a childish tone upon my post. That’s fine with me. However, I was simply rehashing what happened in the least amount of words possible.
by PurpleHaze11 on Oct 24, 2011 12:54 PM PDT up reply actions
it was a comparison to help you understand how it can come across to others
And rehashing, as I’ve noted multiple times, doesn’t do you any favors. Let it go.
Say wha?
(hi Hettie)
This seems like an egregious misunderstanding. Can we please straighten it out? If we don’t get a Bugs post on the front page for Oregon week, I might flip out
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
He's back
He never actually left.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Oct 24, 2011 5:24 PM PDT up reply actions
I thought that John had fired me.
The “I Hate Stanford” piece that I posted on Saturday was — no question — the most offensive feature that I have written for the Dawg Pound. On Sunday morning, as has been written about above, I was removed from the masthead and all of my editorial privileges were revoked. Although I now understand that this was a mistake, I did not on Sunday morning, when I assumed that John was relieving me of my duties for crossing boundaries in the post that I should not have crossed (urolagnia, cannibalism, the Tyrone Willingham sexdoll, mutilation, arson, murder, et cetera).
A storm of crises in the real world had (and have) demanded my focus there, and everyone’s tempers were running high after the Stanford game. I chose to accept what I thought was John’s judgment and move on rather than making a stink about what I thought was my dismissal. Pappy taught us to take our lumps like Dawgs rather than to whine like Cougs, but there is, I concede, such a thing as being too stoic. It is ironic that my desire to depart quietly in order to avoid drama resulted in so much melodrama.
In any event, I have made many good friends here, and I am happy that this misunderstanding has been cleared up, although I regret that it unfolded in the fashion that it did. I echo the sentiments, above, that were so eloquently expressed by our good friend, Steen.
Sweet, so I wont have to read anymore about this mindnumbing exchange? Wonderful!
Indeed.
Woof.
by Bugs Dodger on Oct 24, 2011 4:09 PM PDT reply actions 5 recs
The Stanford Piece
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Oct 24, 2011 4:45 PM PDT up reply actions
Ahhh, Bugs! Just know that when you get down and things seem bleakest, I'm still gay for ya.
If you write more gonzo pieces like Saturdays, I’d totally let you top, too.
Keep up the good work Bugs!!
By the way, I hope we have all learned a good lesson from this: This whole ordeal is Nick Holt’s fault and he should be fired immediately!!! Only then can we come together as One Husky Nation, Under Sark, Invincible, with Victory and Roasted Duck for all.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
by Lear Pilot on Oct 24, 2011 4:38 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Nice
urolagnia, cannibalism, the Tyrone Willingham sexdoll, mutilation, arson, murder, et cetera
The bar has been set. I expect the bar to be raised come the 5th of November!
by Mind of no mind on Oct 25, 2011 2:39 AM PDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on UW Dawg Pound
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
