Grading the Game - USC
by John Berkowitz on Nov 13, 2011 12:31 PM PST
Email
Print
One of our readers mentioned that I should bag grading the game on a position by position basis and just give the entire team an F with the exception of an individual here and there.
After sleeping on it I tend to agree. This was by far the worst performance of the season and a disparity in talent had little or nothing to do with yesterdays loss.
The Huskies were not mentally or physically prepared for this encounter with USC. The entire team sleep walked through this one and acted like they didn't want to be there. If your Steve Sarkisian you have to be asking yourself why this team is starting to regress each week?
Quarterback
Keith Price was sacked four times and had to leave the game early after being tossed around by the SC defense like a rag doll. Keith is starting to look pretty mortal when the pocket begins to shrink. The coolness that he possessed at the beginning of the season has been eroded over the past few weeks by the conferences elite teams. Nick Montana got plenty of playing time and proved to anyone that was still watching the game that his arm strength and mobility aren't where they need to be to compete in this league.
Running Backs
Chris Polk only carried the ball nine times yesterday. An early deficit and an incompetent offensive line took him completely out of the game. There were a few decent Bishop Sankey moments after the game was decided. He has a pretty bright future.
Receivers
ASJ and Kasen Williams were the lone bright spots yesterday. Obviously when your QB is sacked seven times there aren't going to be a lot of opportunities but what I found really disturbing was the blocking. USC's defensive backs just ate up our receivers all day. It was really a joke and when Aguilar and Kearse look at the film later today they are going to be really embarrassed. Those guys are way better than that but you wouldn't have known it by the way they played yesterday.
Offensive Line
Who are these guys? They certainly aren't the same guys who have led this team to six victories this season. I saw a lot of quit and I saw it really early with these guys. It was good to see Sark yank Kohler and give Micah Hatchie a shot. As I watch the film all I see were missed assignments, a lack of effort, and guys being stood up. I focused a lot on Colin Porter and he looked to me like he didn't want to be out there yesterday. I think the talent and potential is there but for some reason the coaches are not getting the type of performance you would expect this late in the season from this group.
Defensive Line
Ta'amu continues to get good push but his linemates are not taking advantage of it. I watched Potoae and he had good and bad moments...pad level seems to be a big problem with him...he needs to break a bad habit of standing up too much. Lack of size and experience on the edge is really starting to hurt this team.
Linebackers
They were inconsistent at times but like the guys up front we saw a few good things now and then. These guys really need to start tackling better and it opens up a question we will address later concerning contact at practice. Missed tackles are just killing this defense as a whole. I think the only way you get better at it is to practice it.
Secondary
Barkley didn't exactly shred these guys but he didn't have to because after the first quarter the running game started working for the Trojans. The game was basically over at the half and the Trojans coasted from there.
Special Teams
The fake punt and the long kick off return put 14 points on the board for the Trojans. The team as a whole was tight and tentative and those traits were reflected on special teams play. This was a huge step back for some units who had been playing pretty well this season.
Coaching
Washington had no business losing this badly to a USC team which frankly isn't very good. They should have been able to generate some offense against a Trojan defense which has leaked like a sieve for the past two seasons.
Sark didn't have his guys prepared to play football this week. It was pretty obvious from the onset that the kids didn't have their heads in the game. You can criticize him from an X's and O's perspective because nothing he called really worked yesterday but when your offensive line is incapable of blocking your play calling is never going to look good.
We need to face facts...it is week ten and this team isn't getting better. Ever since Stanford smashed them in the mouth they have been playing an un-enthused and sloppy brand of football. The coaches need to meet this challenge the same way they did last season and find a way to correct the mistakes and power through it in a positive way.
The defense had its moments yesterday. I am not saying they played well enough to win but they performed better than the offense. They were out on the field the entire day and it was pretty obvious they were winded at times. Big plays happen under that type of scenario.
Why so many missed and sloppy tackles? Sark runs an NFL style practice to prevent injuries but there has to be a time allotted when these guys need to go with full contact at practice to get this part of the game buttoned up.
211 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
just sad to see
We were smaller, slower, and out coached. I would have expected better after Sark’s 3rd year, but other than some freshman studs we just didn’t have good enough talent.
by sdhuskyfan on Nov 13, 2011 1:11 PM PST via iPhone app reply actions
It was more than talent yesterday…one team showed up and the other one did not.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 13, 2011 1:37 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I believe that is coaching
Having your team show up is a coaches job. We had smaller slower teams the past 2 years and won, but this year we lacked the will to win and folded too easily. I would just hope we would start getting the top tear talent. We have ASJ, Kasen and Sankey but nothing I see on either line makes me feel we can compete at the top of the PAC.
by sdhuskyfan on Nov 13, 2011 1:52 PM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
Coaching wears thin as the season progresses.
As a coach, you only have so many motivational arrows in the quiver, before kids are just physically and mentally exhausted. When they run out of gas, you’re out of gas. You crank them up sky high for Stanford, then higher still for Oregon, only to lose both games ugly? No wonder they were flat.
by Hawnk on Nov 13, 2011 4:04 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
During the game..
When the O was on the field the D was on the bench sitting in units (line, then linebackers, the db’s). Holt and his assistants were talking to them, drawing things on whiteboards and even physically showing them footwork on shedding blocks.
When the D was on the field however the offense was watching them. KP and Montana would grab the phone occasionally, but I didn’t see ANY coaching. No O line coaches showing them adjustments, nothing. Occasionally Sark would say a couple words to guys coming off the field, but nothing major Unless our offense was learning from the USC offense (not a bad idea) there wasn’t much our coaches were showing them.
As badly as our O line was playing I would have expected some in game adjustments (other than at the half in the locker room).
by sdhuskyfan on Nov 13, 2011 6:23 PM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
Yes I think the combination
OF these 3 games almost back to back to back, just became too much. They got up for the Oregon, just couldnt do again. Not that this should be an excuse somthing to consider.
Are we really regressing each week?
Or have we just gone through a murderers’ row of three teams that are way better than us?
Everyone panicking needs to take a step back. We’re probably not as good as we looked through the first six weeks, but we’re probably not as back as the last three.
by huskies2010 on Nov 13, 2011 1:15 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
this is true...
… but we can’t ignore the emergence of bad habits on the LOS and at the QB position.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
I'm not saying that's not worrying.
But there needs to be some accounting for opponent quality, and I don’t see that here.
It's definitely the opponents but
I think USC is the exception to that argument. This was the worse loss of the Sarkisian era, besides the Arizona loss last season. There is no way, no way, we should lose to USC like that.
by datboyeddiep on Nov 14, 2011 7:06 AM PST up reply actions
Murderers Row
All three squads were good but we should be competitive with everyone we play at this point.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 13, 2011 1:46 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Why?
Stanford and Oregon are both top-10 teams, and USC’s playing brilliantly the last few weeks. I’d honestly be more surprised if at least one of them hadn’t blown us out.
Yeah, I definitely disagree with John when he says USC isn't very good.
But for sure, we should’ve been far more competitive with them. UO and Stanford are just more talented than we are, and it’s not close. Yet.
Teams (for foreign blogs): Seahawks, Mariners, Huskies and Broncos. Yes, I recognize the contradiction; I was born in Denver.
by THolt on Nov 13, 2011 3:57 PM PST via iPhone app up reply actions 1 recs
Consider this; it's common perception that UW is a lot further ahead of WSU in rebuilding,
Particularly with Tuel sidelined all season. And the Cougs played much better against both Stanford and Oregon than UW. Honestly from an as an objective perspective as I can being a Coug, you guys just laid an egg yesterday. Probably just a letdown after an emotional rivalry game last week. I wouldn’t press the panic button unless you guys go down in Corvallis next week.
"If you want your dreams to come true, don't sleep in."
by kelly20210 on Nov 13, 2011 5:47 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I completely agree
We laid a serious egg.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 13, 2011 6:11 PM PST up reply actions
Side note:
Damn do I wish you guys we’re 0-12 with Ty last year. We got all the best guys in the state in ‘09 as a result. I’d let you have Simone, Long and Washington so we could have Sankey, Kasen, and ASJ those three are scary good.
"If you want your dreams to come true, don't sleep in."
I'd make that trade too
That would mean our team would be older and more experienced
What's up Bill Bavasi? Didn't know you were a dawg fan.
"If you want your dreams to come true, don't sleep in."
by kelly20210 on Nov 13, 2011 6:27 PM PST up reply actions 4 recs
Dammit!
I’m getting the rec/flag confusion thing other people have been mentioning.
Soooo….consider this a rec.
Blowout was expected
Yes yes huskies2010, I didn’t expect to be competitive with these powerhouse teams either. Vegas had the line at USC by 11, but I thought it should’ve been more like 21 or 24.
Coming into the season I was expecting to get boat raced by these teams (USC, Oregon, Stanford, Nebraska) so it’s not really a surprise.
Sark needs to fix
Sark needs to fix both the O and D lines. Its time for Cozzetto to retire bring in Pat Ruel to fix the O line. Ruel did a very good job with the O line at sc. Nansen has done very little with the D line and special teams. Until these problems are fixed we can expect the same results.
Coaching changes
I am never a big fan of doing that.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 13, 2011 1:49 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
sometimes it's necessary
See Don James and Dan Dorazio. If you’re not holding up your end of the bargain, time to find employment elsewhere.
I was about to bring up Gilby
What about Vic Fangio at Stanford?
by PurpleHaze11 on Nov 13, 2011 2:28 PM PST up reply actions
yep
Gilby replacing Dorazio was a master-stroke by DJ. And it’s hard to argue with Harbaugh bringing in Fangio.
It's tough to say how much of it was Fangio...
…and how much of it was Harbaugh’s program maturing. Their D was a lot older and more experienced in 2010 than it was in 2009. And the youth that played was some of the best that Stanford has ever had on that side of the ball as a group.
that is true
But if I recall correctly, the switch to the 3-4 was Fangio’s idea, or at least something he was considered an expert in. And Harbaugh had wanted Fangio from the start, but was only able to get a couple years later.
I agree though, some of the credit simply goes to those players maturing.
Kind of funny how the DL for Stanford has looked great the last couple of years – coached by a guy some Husky fans couldn’t wait to see leave (Randy Hart).
Randy Hart 3-0 since not being retained by Sark
Don’t forget the one year at ND under that fat guy, also a win.
I like Randy, but understood why Sark had to let him go after 0-12, a fresh slate
sure
I’m more trying to make the point that it can be hard to evaluate assistants as a fan. Our DL play the last several years under his watch wasn’t that great. Was that him, or was it the quality of kids he had to work with?
I’m trying to keep that in mind when I criticize a guy like Johnny Nansen.
There are fundamentals issues under Nansen that weren’t a problem under Hart. At least not to the same, chronic level. The talent level is/was low for both. Probably fairly comparable.
And the last four years of Hart’s career, the head man was Willingham. That’s a factor that can’t be ignored. Nansen has a huge advantage in that area.
Or . . .
was it a lack of motivation by the players thanks to that stellar head coach we use to have?
Makes you wonder how good Ta’amu could be under a coach like Hart.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
agreed
As much as anything, I think motivation is the issue with Ta’amu. When his motor is going, he’s really tough to block. But he doesn’t always have his motor going 100% from what I’ve seen.
I think he’s got a world of potential, and I think he’s been hurt by lack of production alongside him as well as his hand injuries this year, but I’ve also seen him give up on plays in progress, and that’s not something I’m very willing to forgive.
well, when Stanford hired Harbaugh, it was kind of out of left field, now, obviously, that was a great hire by them. He brought their program to prominence in 2 years. From NOTHING. I’d say, lets see how these remaining games play out, but Sark, you’re here to win, not talk about why you’re not doing just that.
I knew Dan personally at the time…he was a good coach…good guy…still is. DJ made a tough call on that one…things aren’t always as they appear on the surface.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 13, 2011 2:33 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Tough call
but the proper call for the program, correct?
by PurpleHaze11 on Nov 13, 2011 2:47 PM PST up reply actions
It was a brilliant call by DJ
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 13, 2011 4:08 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Yeah not time yet
I agree. But time is a tickin. Let’s go dawgs!
by datboyeddiep on Nov 14, 2011 7:09 AM PST up reply actions
In my opinion
it’s pretty clear the defense hasn’t proved considerably in three years
by PurpleHaze11 on Nov 14, 2011 11:26 AM PST up reply actions
As much as it pains me to say...
…he needs to figure out what oregon does at practice because that team simply doesn’t miss tackles, almost always executes at a high level on O and is far more explosive off the line at every position.
We should not be ones to crack on other teams players. Our history is pretty spotty in that department.
It's just that, though: history.
We have every indication that Sark is bringing in guys with talent and character. But, damn, look at PSU. I don’t mind players getting busted for partying, but domestic abuse? Theft? Those indicate more than just youthful exuberance/indiscretion (which at that age may as well be the same thing. I’m 24 and I still find myself routinely making dumbass decisions).
Teams (for foreign blogs): Seahawks, Mariners, Huskies and Broncos. Yes, I recognize the contradiction; I was born in Denver.
by THolt on Nov 14, 2011 2:07 AM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
And if they don't (Pulu, Middleton)
they get tossed. Kiko Alonso has now had two incidents, both involving alcohol. Cliff Harris has shown that he’s likely taken to many hits to the head with repeated wanton disregard of traffic and team laws/rules. It was mostly a softball for me to hit out of the park. Can you blame me for taking swings at Oregon?
Not really
At the same time, it’s not like UW is particularly good at this either. UW’s had what, 2 years where nothing ridiculously bad has happened to the football team (the basketball team is another story…again, easy softball there).
I’m still not going to forgive UW for Jerramy Stevens any time soon. Not saying the Ducks are doing well on the crime stuff, but that was a pretty bit spot of negligence.
Also: Sark isn’t doing this with his kids yet. He’s doing it with Ty’s kids, and we all know that for better or worse Ty was good at recruiting and recruiting with honor. Let’s see how well Sark’s kids do in his first full team.
Pulu was Sark's recruit
And who knows exactly what went down with Victor Burnett (also a Sark recruit), but the word it was as much about off-the-field issues as it was his lack of progress on the field.
Oregon's team speed is from
lots of practice running from crime scenes.
Good one. Add hopping fences to the list.
Strength training from stealing lap tops. Plus we all know, Phil Knight puts rockets on their shoes.
by datboyeddiep on Nov 14, 2011 7:11 AM PST up reply actions
If you're actually serious
There’s no real mystique.
The Ducks don’t have a complicated scheme on offense or defense. The offense has basically 5 formations and only a couple personnel groupings. There are only a few plays from each formation. And what they do every single practice is run these things as many times as they can possibly do so. They don’t bother with huddling, setting, or anything. They get lined up in 10 seconds and run the play again. And again, and again. And they do this for 2 hours straight.
Eventually plays stop becoming something you think about and they become muscle memory with that many repetitions. Now, two hours of practice at this level doesn’t sound like much, but in college where you’re limited in how much the kids can practice the more reps of something you get, the better you’ll be.
And naturally the defense is playing at that pace too, both against Oregon and in their reps.
More than anything – the schemes, the spread offense, the uniforms, the fast pace of playing – I think that Chip Kelly will revolutionize college football by how the Ducks practice. Teams are already saying how they feel improved after playing the Ducks because they have to practice at such an up-tempo. You’ll see more and more teams start moving to it.
I have to give Kelly props
What he’s doing is indeed a brilliant way of overcoming the limitations of practice time at the college level. To me, it’s not just the way he’s evolved the zone read option, it’s the frenetic pace he uses. As well, he’s part of a bleeding-edge of coaching thinking that eschews old conservativeness in favor of aggressiveness that is also backed-up by results. Kelly is as aggressive about going for it on 4th downs as any coach I’ve seen, and I also give him props for making the extra point play something other than a routine one. He constantly keeps pressure on the other team.
I know some here like to think Oregon’s offense is a “fad” that will be figured out – I’m not so sure. First, Kelly keeps evolving it, second, he’s starting to get premium talent to run it (meaning we’re just now beginning to see the full extent of what it can do) and third, who’s to say that this style won’t become the new norm? Rules in football have changed over the years, and what Kelly is doing is a brilliant way of making the most of these changes in the rules.
Best thing Husky fans can hope for is that the Willie Lyles mess is bad enough that Kelly will have to fall on his sword and resign.
I'm 100% serious
I know the scheme is pretty simple. I don’t want UW to copy the offense but just look at the overall principals of what they do at practice. Every time Softy and Petros talk about UO on KJR Petros says that he can see why they are so successful based on the way they practice. He has said numerous times that it’s like nothing he’s ever seen. Chip is obviously on to something as it transfers to his team executing at a VERY high level on the field. Sometimes if you want to have success you need to emulate those that are having it.
Yep
When Jon Gruden seriously considers becoming a coordinator at Oregon because of Chip Kelly, you’ve got to consider that it’s something special.
Note that this doesn’t necessarily help at the pro level other than conditioning – or wouldn’t have for a while. Now that there are limits on how much pad practice they can do this sort of system might actually be a big deal.
IT’s that stupid adage of ‘work smarter, not harder’ but it really applies here. Oregon gets more snaps in in 2 hours than most other teams get in 4 (it’s something like 400 snaps per 2 hour session) and that level of repetition is great for learning this.
And it doesn’t require some special scheme or system. It does require really good conditioning and a certain kind of tempo in practices that most teams don’t do (the hardest physical practices are early in the week peaking at Wednesday, for instance; most teams get harder and harder as the week goes on), but as far as type of offense or defense you play? Anyone could do this.
F Indeed
Yep, the team played an F game – big time! And what the F is it going to take for this team to play well against a top-tier team? Even in the past 2 years, we won some big, under-Dawg games. But this year, not even close. Nothin’ but give-up/blow-up games against top level teams, of which Nebraska and USC are just barely.
One thing that is truly missing this year, is leadership on the field when the O is out there. Cort does a decent job of provioded leadership in the D side of the flled. But on O? No one is standing up to lead.
One heck if a F’ing game that was. Sure hope someone on the team can figure out what the F is going on, F’ing fix it, and bring us back from being F’ing losers.
by The Dude 4 Real on Nov 13, 2011 1:26 PM PST reply actions
First of all
We aren’t f-ing losers and I am pretty confident that our coaching staff will figure it out.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 13, 2011 1:54 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
We Sure Were Yesterday
….. and against Stanford too.
by The Dude 4 Real on Nov 13, 2011 1:57 PM PST up reply actions
Short memory.
We played both Nebraska and USC tough until big plays (or bad calls) swung the momentum pendulum. I’m not saying we were executing in all phases and got flat out screwed or totally unlucky, just that the final score doesn’t always indicate the precise nature of a game’s progression.
Teams (for foreign blogs): Seahawks, Mariners, Huskies and Broncos. Yes, I recognize the contradiction; I was born in Denver.
by THolt on Nov 14, 2011 2:10 AM PST via iPhone app up reply actions
Kinda true
It felt just like the Nebraska game, but at least in that game we showed life. This one we just laid down and took the slaughter, hoping it would end soon.
by datboyeddiep on Nov 14, 2011 7:12 AM PST up reply actions
yep
Nebraska was the best of the 4 losses we’ve had in terms of being competitive. Dawgs just looked deflated most of the game Saturday, and that’s a disturbing sign. Sark needs to figure out how to get better effort from his guys, because OSU and WSU are not going to roll over for us.
Sarkisian looked pretty deflated himself.
And he sounded that way in the portion of his press conference that I got to hear.
Wonder if it’s the team taking on the tone of its leader?
Hope not
That’s not a good sign. I Bark for Sark!
by datboyeddiep on Nov 15, 2011 5:30 AM PST up reply actions
My Momma Told Me "if you can't say something nice about someone"....
So……. I’m really excited to watch Coach Romar’s team play!
by gliderdawg on Nov 13, 2011 1:56 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Me too!
Monday night, 7pm pacific time, 9 pm my time. Root sports. Finally a game on TV for the Dawgs. Let’s go Huskies!
by datboyeddiep on Nov 14, 2011 7:12 AM PST up reply actions
I take issue with the idea that USC isn't very good.
by thecassino on Nov 13, 2011 2:04 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
This is true
USC isn’t the juggernaut it was in Pete Carroll’s season’s but the talent hasn’t gone anywhere, the coaches are quite good, and the team’s record speaks for itself.
The narrative says that USC isn’t good, but the numbers don’t support that. UW just got through with a brutal stretch against 3 top 25 teams, 2 of them on the road.
The team has improved by leaps and bounds during Sark’s tenure. There will be bumps in the road.
Fight On! Beat everybody but us!
This is a pretty big bump in the road
But I, too, take exception to the idea in the write-up that USC “frankly isn’t very good.”
by PurpleHaze11 on Nov 13, 2011 2:21 PM PST up reply actions
Well it's nice you survived that ordeal
Now you can relax with a gimmee at Autzen.
If ya can't get your Dick Enright, get your Dick Harter!
how about "they are not always that good"?
… their showing against Minnesota is proof that they can be as bad as good at any time.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
Is UW three points better than Eastern Washington, today?
Is USC three points better than Minnesota, today?
"Ain't no tuition for having no ambition." -Brandon Carswell
by RabbitSC on Nov 13, 2011 3:38 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
True, USC has had some stinkers
but they were all early in the season. The Minnesota, Utah, and ASU games all meet that description, and were all in the first 6 games of the season with a very young team and a completely rebuilt O-Line.
From ND on, USC has played good football, winning big at CU, by 14 at ND, and losing to Stanford in 3 OT.
Fight On! Beat everybody but us!
by USCLink on Nov 13, 2011 3:38 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Progress
We’re a much better team now than we were early this season. We are a more disciplined team under Kiff than we were under Pete. Carrol could always overcome penalties with the raw talent we fielded.
_________________________________________________________________________
"You can't sanction heart, and you can't sanction the will to win" - USC QB, Matt Barkley
Those two coaches couldn't look more different on the sidelines
Carrol always looked like he was watching a horse race where he bet his life savings, and Kif looked like he was playing Bingo at the local Senior Center. Not saying either one is better, just a striking difference.
agreed
John, you’re off-base on thinking USC isn’t a really good, really talented team. The top-level talent is there like it always has been. What’s been good for USC is that they’ve mostly avoided significant injuries which would expose their weakness – lack of proven depth. That will be the case for the next several years as they attempt to weather significant scholarship reductions. Their starting 22 will be as talented as any team in the conference – the question will be if they haven enough depth behind those guys.
There is always plenty of top drawer talent at SC. I just don’t buy into them being an elite squad over the past three years despite the talent.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 13, 2011 2:41 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Not being an "elite squad"
is a lot different than being “not very good.”
by PurpleHaze11 on Nov 13, 2011 2:46 PM PST up reply actions
Key
The biggest key to yesterday’s game was that UW simply stunk up the joint. We made SC look a lot better than they really are.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 13, 2011 2:45 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I didn’t say that.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 13, 2011 3:32 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
What I am trying to express and obviously am doing a poor of doing is saying…
1. We shouldn’t have been blown out by halftime.
2. I think yesterdays result was more UW playing poorly than SC being dominant or elite in comparison to UW.
3. I think it is a down year in general for the entire conference. Perhaps the phrasing SC isn’t very good is an exaggeration…but I have seen them play quite a few games… Minnesota is a great example…ASU another…of course I would rank them 3rd in the conference at the moment.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 13, 2011 4:00 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
By the way John
I agree with all three of your points above. But USC is a top 3 team in the PAC 10 right now and playing as good as they have all year which is great becaus they’ve got the yucks coming up next.
They certainly proved it
They really have turned it up a notch over the last couple of weeks. It will be interesting to see how they do in Eugene.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 13, 2011 6:15 PM PST up reply actions
Stanford vs USC
I think we all agree that Stanford is very good and that game was very close. Was it close because A) USC is also very good or B) Because Stanford made USC look good.
I happen to agree with most here. USC hasn’t played well in a couple games this year but in the last 4+ games they’ve played very well.
USC is good
But not that good. That is a fact. We could have beat USC if we came to play. This year we matched up better than the last two when we actually beat SC. This year we just stunk it up, layed an egg, wet the bed.
It just goes to show, despite his poor stat line, how huge having Jake Locker is. We played with a lot more backbone when Jake was the QB. Time for KP to take control of this team and stop playing up tight.
by datboyeddiep on Nov 14, 2011 7:16 AM PST up reply actions
Not sure if serious
This year UW has a much better passing game than in prior years, and maybe a slightly better running game. But the defense is at least as bad if not worse. Special teams is definitely as bad as in prior years. And the difference is also that USC is simply a better team than it was last year. Barkley’s gotten better, they have a better offense and their defense is significantly better than in prior years.
I think UW went in and thought that because they had beaten USC the last two years that Sark would have an answer. Well, it’s not Pete Carroll’s team any more, and just thinking you’re gonna win isn’t going to cut it.
Can tell you are a Duck
Special teams has significantly improved. I mean like big time. That is due to our growth and depth. They have made mistakes but they have indeed improved, ask any Udub fan.
Our defense is missing Mason Foster but in my opinion is just as bad as it has been. It actually came to play against SC. The final score doesn’t show how the defense played. When the O can’t do anything, can’t run the ball, can’t control the clock, defense is going to start struggling. Barkley didn’t do anything to us, our offense and special teams lost that game.
by datboyeddiep on Nov 15, 2011 5:29 AM PST up reply actions
How have the special teams improved?
Okay, the Ducks didn’t get huge returns like they did last year, but they’re still giving up plenty of field position. They’re better at doing returns themselves, barely, but UW isn’t any better at defending than they were last year. I’ve watched basically all the games this year and last year as well and am a fan too – don’t discount my opinion solely because of my avatar.
SC definitely saw the special teams as a weakness and came after it.
But really the big hit that I see, the one that I think is a big condemnation, is the defense. The defense continues to be stagnant despite having talent. The defense continues to not have a relevant pass rush, to be undisciplined in lane defense and to miss assignments with regularity. I absolutely commend what Sark has done with the offense – especially now that Locker is gone and they can actually have an offense built around accuracy – but the defense and special teams have been basically horrible. It’s year 3 in the Sark age – these should have improved by now.
special teams and defense
Special teams are generally a good indicator of depth. Due to poor recruiting by Ty, our quality of upperclass depth has sucked, and it’s going to take another couple of recruiting classes to really balance out the talent depth. There is better talent on this team now, but most of it is concentrated in the 1st & 2nd year players, which is obviously not ideal.
That said, I’m not sold that Nansen is anything better than average (if that) in coaching special teams. I see little creativity and little improvement (outside of Kevin Smith emerging as a real kickoff return threat).
Defense has been argued ad nauseum on this blog. Suffice it to say, while some believe the blame mostly falls on Holt and the coaching staff, some believe that the same lack of quality upperclass depth is also an issue for the defense.
What has saved the offense is the presence of upperclass studs like Polk & Kearse (and to a lesser extent Aguilar). Despite the drops, Kearse & Aguilar have provided a pretty talented crew of receivers to build around, and we all know about Polk being a top-shelf RB.
It's more about Price
While Aguilar and Kearse (and really, ASJ) have been great and Polk has been a stud for a long time, I think that what makes things go is Price. I know Price hasn’t had a great couple of last games but most of that is on him being new and seeing all sorts of fun exotic defenses while running for his life. And even then he’s still more accurate than Locker.
I do think that depth at defense hurts the Huskies – but I would also expect some significant improvement from year to year.
I do think that depth at defense hurts the Huskies – but I would also expect some significant improvement from year to year.
The problem is the lack of bodies in the oldest three classes on the roster. Around a dozen total play defense. And not all of those guys are contributors.
The D has gotten younger each year since 2009. Virtually every starter lost to graduation has been replaced by a guy from the past two classes. And those same classes make up the bulk of the depth.
exactly
It’s easy to assume that 3 years in, Sark would have more quality depth built up. That’s kind of true, but as we’re both noting, most of that quality is housed in 1st & 2nd year guys. The upperclass cupboards left behind by Ty are damn-near empty.
Price
Price has definitely been revelation in terms of how quickly he’s proven to be a high level Pac-12 QB, but I would expect that, given another year in the system, Locker would have looked better too. And it should not be downplayed what a significant addition ASJ and a healthy Hartvigson have been to this offense. Not to mention a return to form by James Johnson (when healthy). Price is playing with a better supporting cast than Locker ever had.
EH
Locker had two years and regressed in his second year statistically. It got to the point where if they wanted to move the ball they’d purposely avoid letting Locker do anything with it; in the first half of the Holiday bowl Polk had more completions (1) than Locker did.
ASJ is good but it wasn’t weapons that doomed Locker. He was never a particularly accurate guy and his throws sailed, sailed, sailed away many times. Price is simply more accurate. He’s not as good of a runner but he makes decisions better and gets the ball to where it needs to be better.
And really, weapons? Come on. Aguilar is doing great. Kearse is doing great. Polk is doing great. These are players that Locker had every year. Not having a tight end doesn’t make your completion rating drop by 10 points.
Not having a tight end doesn’t make your completion rating drop by 10 points.
You’re understating the value of a tight end, especially in the offense the Dawgs want to run. Teams didn’t even have to cover the middle of the field last year.
But you’re right, that wasn’t the reason his completion percentage dipped by a grand total of 2.8 percentage points. The broken rib had much more to do with that.
James Johnson was a valuable weapon in 2009 for Locker, but missed almost all of last season. His abscence the last few weeks has hurt Price as well.
There’s no doubt that Price has more weapons than Locker did. He’s also more accurate, as you state.
Comparing price to Locker
Was the 10-point drop. That was my point. Just because Price has ASJ doesn’t mean he should be able to throw 65% vs 55% of Locker. sorry if I wasn’t clearer.
Yes, Price has more weapons. But Locker didn’t have none, and that doesn’t account for why Locker, frankly, sucked at throwing from time to time or why he didn’t appear to learn more.
I thought in 2007 when I saw him play against Oregon that he was going to be a beast and a half, but he had to learn accuracy. He never did.
Got it.
I don’t disagree, really. The difference in completion percentage is even more damning when you take into account that Price is averaging more than 1 yard more per attempt than Locker did.
Locker not only had to learn how to be a QB out of high school, he also had to unlearn all the bad habits he picked up his first three seasons under Willingham once Sarkisian was hired. Really, he was no where near a fifth year senior when he graduated. More like a true sophomore. That’s not to excuse his issues, but it does mitigate them some.
I hate to bash on the guy, but when his Wonderlic score came out, I thought it was a little telling in terms of his development.
They’re better at doing returns themselves, barely, but UW isn’t any better at defending than they were last year.
Actually, UW is giving up about 6 yards less per punt return this season versus last. From over 10 yards/return in 2010 to 4 this season. Kick return D is about the same, but it was pretty much “average” overall last season.
The defense does have some talent, but there isn’t near as much as on offense, and it’s generally in the past two classes. Not a ton of experience, and not much depth.
Kalon, you're not getting it
The Dawgs special teams has vastly improved. You said USC attacked our special teams? That doesn’t even make sense. They returned a kick on us, that’s all. We didn’t tackle. We have a top 10 returned in the nation and Jesse Callier was at the top for returning also. Not sure how that doesn’t shown we’ve improved. 4 yds per return as Sundodger stated above is also a vast improvement.
Tight ends are extremely improtant to the pro style offense. Kavario Middleton being kicked of the team was a huge blow to Locker. Also, Locker was just learning how to throw in the pocket. Locker is extremely accurate rolling out, it is when he sits in the pocket he looks uncomfortable. The guy was an option QB his whole life until his Junior and Senior year.
by datboyeddiep on Nov 16, 2011 7:15 AM PST up reply actions
I meant top 10 returner
Kevin Smith and Callier have both been good returning kicks and our kick coverage has also improved.
by datboyeddiep on Nov 16, 2011 7:15 AM PST up reply actions
Vastly?
The biggest knock on UW special teams wasn’t on their returns, but on the returns allowed. And…USC returned a kickoff against them. In addition they’ve had issues with punt blocks. Which…USC did as well. That 14 points made the game go from a competitive one to a rout by the start of the third quarter.
If you don’t thing USC saw something you’re crazy.
I agree that TEs are important. But they’re not 10 percentage points of completions and a 1 ypc average important. Locker might have been an option QB his whole life, but so what? Typically option QBs are fairly accurate because they throw so many short passes (as an example: Kellen Clemens, Dennis Dixon and Darron Thomas were all 60-65% completion% QBs). Why wouldn’t he be accurate at the shorter stuff?
Defend Locker all you want, but the fact of the matter is this: Price – with fewer years of experience, with less athletic ability and with a worse OLine is significantly better at being a college QB than Locker ever was.
Price is more accurate, no question
But I’ll quibble with a few things – Price is in his 3rd year under this staff and has only had this staff as a collegian; Locker only had 2 years with these guys and had to unlearn the previous 3 years of coaching (?) from the previous staff.
And question all you want the impact of a quality TE, but in Sark’s offense it’s a big deal.
I don’t think Locker will ever be a highly accurate passer, but then again neither was John Elway. Locker can make throws that Price can only dream of. Price has to anticipate better than Locker ever did because Price doesn’t have the arm strength to fit balls into tight spaces the way Locker could.
It may well be that Price is a better, more adept film student than Locker. Jake’s Wonderlic score wasn’t exactly off the charts…
I think issues with punt blocks..
Is an over statement. That was the first one we have had all year. We have given up less yards per punt return this season and kickoffs are the same. A six yard difference in punt returns is huge!
USC didn’t see anything. Every team returns kicks, USC just returned one that was covered perfectly, but due to poor tackling turned into a TD. I’m still not sure how you think USC attacked us when all they did was return a kickoff? They didn’t run a trick kickoff or surprise us with a kickoff return? They returned a kick for a TD. It happens. It still doesn’t back up you saying our special teams hasn’t improved when the stats don’t lie.
by datboyeddiep on Nov 17, 2011 4:51 AM PST up reply actions
Also
For you to say our special teams has gotten worse but to discount the fact that we have one of the best return units in the Pac-12 is wrong. You can’t say our special teams hasn’t improved while not acknowledging that. It doesn’t make any sense.
by datboyeddiep on Nov 17, 2011 4:53 AM PST up reply actions
I expected a better game
I’m not sure what happened; I figure a combination of your guys having an off day, and after getting beat by your guys two years our guys were up for the game. Sark’s a great coach (we’re still pretty high on him down here) he’ll get your team back on track. I agree we’re better than a lot of people think, but as Link says maybe not as good as the Carrol teams. I look forward to seeing you in a couple of years; not so much seeing what the scholarship restrictions will do to us.
_________________________________________________________________________
"You can't sanction heart, and you can't sanction the will to win" - USC QB, Matt Barkley
Good luck with Oregon. I wouldn't mind seeing you guys stomp those buggers.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 13, 2011 4:05 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I would feel better if the game were in LA
We are faster at LB this year; still not sure we can keep up, especially late in the game
_________________________________________________________________________
"You can't sanction heart, and you can't sanction the will to win" - USC QB, Matt Barkley
I would love to see SC beat Oregon
Or anyone else for that matter.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 13, 2011 4:10 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Anyone have a passing chart for UW?
I came in expecting UW to test some of our looser zone coverages, but I swear UW couldn’t have passed it downfield more then ten times. I am sure the pass rush had something to do with this, but still. Any ideas?
We didn't attack the middle enough
When we did we seemed to have some success.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 13, 2011 4:58 PM PST up reply actions
Sark is learning
He’s never been a head coach before and this is only his third year so there are going to be some bumps in the road- learning experiences.
Like I said....
When your team isn’t blocking it doesn’t matter what play you are calling.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 13, 2011 6:19 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The O-Line
is young. And obviously very tired through this long season. They just need more experience
Agree
tired and stale – why do we never substitute on the O Line? The back ups are will rested and eager to play (I would assume) – how are they ever going to get some experience?
by lorenzothedog on Nov 13, 2011 7:03 PM PST up reply actions
+1
The back-ups must be eager to play and it would be a great way to get that unit more experience
Rome wasn't built overnight
Great question
Hatchie played quite a bit on Saturday…would love to see what Atoe play a bit.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 13, 2011 7:33 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Atoe
The great mystery of “top 5 draft pick” Atoe is indeed intriguing.
When people are talking about the team being tired after a long season…I think they mean beat up?
Is the O Line so poorly conditioned that while other teams are peaking they are going to just phone it in the rest of the year?
No
Tired is an excuse. I don’t make excuses for the Oline. They are not tired, that is BS. They played like crap, they know they did. When we play inferior opponents the line shows up and looks good. When we play better opponents they look bad. Reason? They are not a top tier offensive line. Not that they are tired.
by datboyeddiep on Nov 14, 2011 7:20 AM PST up reply actions
It is what it is
We have to accept that we were just 0-12 and the lines are the hardest parts of a team to rebuild. That will take more time then skill positions and even more time then the defense. We are not elite. Lines get better as the season goes on.
by datboyeddiep on Nov 14, 2011 7:22 AM PST up reply actions
My soul is taking a beating
Last PAC-12 Rose Bowl winner not named USC....Washington
by DAWGFATHER91 on Nov 13, 2011 7:56 PM PST up reply actions
So did my face
After banging my head against the table watching penalty after penalty.
by datboyeddiep on Nov 14, 2011 7:26 AM PST up reply actions
Yes and No
It could date back to Stanford…we aren’t handling adversity well.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 13, 2011 8:54 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
We played a complete game against Arizona between those two games
I think letdown theory has a lot to do with it in this case. Top 10 rival comes to town to close down your iconic stadium, hard to get back up after an adrenaline dump like that.
That's probably part of it.
Another thing to me is that it seems like this team can get way, way, up for an opponent, but crashes quickly and completely when things don’t go well. That sort of makes it seem like the enthusiasm that they can generate to start a game is bravado and not as the result of any real belief they can beat good teams if things don’t go as planned from the get-go.
We don't handle adversity well
things get out of hand quickly, but it seems like they got out of hand earlier this time. Even down 7-3, you could kind of feel how things were going to shake out.
Hey!
We resemble that!
All joking aside we’ve handled adversity better than you guys have this year, after a melt down against Oregon St. the Cougs were a couple of special teams errors away from upsetting Oregon. Then we upset ASU after getting demolished by Cal
Attractive, Intelligent, Smart A**
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Nov 15, 2011 12:50 PM PST up reply actions
All joking aside we’ve handled adversity better than you guys have this year,
After losing to Nebraska, the Huskies came back with a win.
After losing to Stanford, the Huskies came back with a win.
The Dawgs lost to Oregon, then laid an egg at USC. First two game losing streak of the season. The Cougs just ended a 6-game streak.
Real responses to adversity are better than moral responses. And the Cougs have yet to put back-to-back good games together.
Maybe you should just stick to the joking…
I actually think that the UA game was sloppy both in terms of how their O-Line handled our ends and how poorly we handled pass rushes
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
no. I'm not a believer in "emotional hangovers"
and, in fact, some of the players actually responded well to the Stanford massacre and have upped their games the last three weeks. I’m thinking of guys like Kasen, ASJ, Fuiamaono, Parker, Shamburger and Ta’amu.
The O-Line is an obvious area of heightened concern. The QB play has regressed as the league has picked up on Keith’s limitations. I can’t ever remember a four game stretch where we have been blitzed as relentlessly as we have in this past month. Keith’s mobility is shot and he doesn’t have the arm to stand in there and make a team pay for their sell-outs. Without better blitz pickups and better recognition at the line, we are almost powerless to stop it.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
by Gekko Mojo on Nov 13, 2011 9:06 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I have to seriously rec that
The same thing happened to a certain extent mid season last year. How do you counter that outside of double tight ends or a full house backfield.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 13, 2011 10:30 PM PST up reply actions
Screen passes might work.
It wouldn’t be very noticeable to the defenders when we just let them run by, that’s what half the line is already doing.
They didn't work at all
in the game vs. USC
by PurpleHaze11 on Nov 14, 2011 11:30 AM PST up reply actions
WR screens didn't work.
When was the last time we saw a HB screen?
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
They haven't worked all year
We have only had a few successful ones. Kearse scored on one but for the most part they have been blowed up before they got going. I agree we need to stop throwing balls on the line of scrimmage and either attack the middle with our huge tight ends, like Sark promised he would. We have gotten away from them and our running game.
Polk has only had I think 28 carries the last two games! I don’t care what the score is, give him the damn ball! Last time I checked, he is our best player correct? Give him the ball Sark! Stop trying to make KP become a hero and hand the damn ball off. I think we won 4 straight using this strategy! Why are we not doing it!
by datboyeddiep on Nov 15, 2011 5:36 AM PST up reply actions
I'm quickly getting sick of Kohler.
He’s been pulled from what… 3 games now? Price was injured earlier in the year because Kohler couldn’t hold his own and he’s certainly not doing much better now. What we’re seeing right now is that against teams who have comparable lines to ours, we do pretty well. But if we go up against a team that has better lines we completely crumble. I can’t wait to see this team 2 years from now and the improvement is definitely there but we’re still a big work in progress.
Side note: That game at LSU next year is looking like a very brutal trip. Defending National Champs at their house anyone? At least we’ll get a chance to do what O****n couldn’t.
Problem is...
The kid is a guard not a tackle ….we really don’t have a true tackle.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 13, 2011 11:42 PM PST up reply actions
Agree
I think we are finding out why Shirely and our D line looked so good in the spring – they were playing against our O line. We really need to get Banner – Garnett and the other targeted O Linemen – this is a critical year for the O line of the future. Hope Sark can work his recruiting magic.
by lorenzothedog on Nov 14, 2011 4:36 AM PST up reply actions
Riva and Hatchie could both play tackle
although I’m afraid that Ben is going to be Kolher 2.0. Hatchie might be our best stop gap this year, he’s fast enough to keep up with rush ends. It seems like every time Kolher gets beat, it’s on his right by a guy who’s faster than him.
Kohler - let's gain a little perspective...
… he’s a true sophomore who is still learning the game. It is a little early to be “getting sick” of him.
Damn, my eyeball tastes good.
@chrislandon
I agree
The line is going to struggle against good teams. Plus Keith isn’t helping them out much. It’s more than just the offensive line. Chris only ran the ball 9 times, that’s play calling. Lines love to run block and we are too pass happy the past two games. Time to get back to bruising opponents. Sark is pissing me off.
by datboyeddiep on Nov 14, 2011 7:23 AM PST up reply actions
We got behind to quickly
To establish the run. And when we did run it wasnt working. The OL got worked all day in all facets.
I know
But I think Chris had 9 rushes for 36 yards, that’s not bad. We have got to run the ball and stick with it. There were way too many passes that were under 5 yds for my taste. To many swing passes and screens where the wideouts were whiffing on blocks. We could have easily just ran with Chris. I think it would have been more successful. There was one play where if he wasn’t shoestring tackled he was gone. The line wasn’t doing bad with run blocking to begin the game. Sark was just being cute with his play calling, trick plays on the first play of the game.
by datboyeddiep on Nov 14, 2011 7:35 AM PST up reply actions
The line wasn’t doing bad with run blocking to begin the game. Sark was just being cute with his play calling, trick plays on the first play of the game.
Agree on both counts. 16 of the first 22 plays the Dawgs ran were passes. At that point it was 23-3 and the game was over.
As bad as the o-line has looked the last few games, they weren’t really all that much better earlier in the season. Part of what masked their play was Price’s smoothness and elusiveness in the pocket, even when playing injured. Instead of feeling pressure the same way he did at the beginning of the season, his eyes have moved from being downfield to watching the rush.
The blocking by the receivers was every bit as bad as the blocking by the line. That was disappointing.
Oregon State has allowed 821 yards rushing in their last three games. If the Dawgs throw on their first play next Saturday, I’m sure you’ll be able to pick up a TV really cheap on Craigslist. The only issue with it might be a foot-shaped hole in the middle….
If we don't run the ball against OSU or Wazzou......
I’m going to put my foot up someone’s ass!
by datboyeddiep on Nov 14, 2011 10:32 AM PST up reply actions
bingo
Oregon State has allowed 821 yards rushing in their last three games. If the Dawgs throw on their first play next Saturday, I’m sure you’ll be able to pick up a TV really cheap on Craigslist. The only issue with it might be a foot-shaped hole in the middle….
Agree 100%. Sark needs to remember a couple important points:
1. Chris Polk is the best weapon the offense has;
2. Our O-line is significantly better at run-blocking than pass-blocking
Sark has talked a good game about being a physical team that runs the ball, but too often his play-calling doesn’t reflect that. Price is going to be at his best when the defense is eye-balling Polk, making the play-action a real weapon.
I know I often come across as a Stanford fan-boy, but it’s because I really love what Harbaugh did with the mentality and personality of that program. He said “we’re going to be tougher than you and we’re going to run the ball right down your throat”, and he devised his offense around that power-I concept and practiced what he preached.
I think the UW can attract a slightly higher caliber of athlete than Stanford and can be a bit more diverse in their offensive identity, but I think history shows that as a program, Washington is at their best when they are tougher than their opponents and thrive on running the ball right down your throat.
Time for Sark to take a step back and re-evaluate himself and what he’s trying to do with this program. I’ll be hugely disappointed if Polk doesn’t go off for 150+ against both the Beavers and Cougars.
I hate the bubble screen
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 14, 2011 11:32 AM PST up reply actions
well...
…what’s disappointing is seeing other teams run it so well and us run it so poorly. We’ve actually been pretty good with the WR/bubble screens this year, but our execution vs. USC was horrible – just terrible blocking by the WR’s.
well...
…we missed blocks…it was 3 on 1 and we still missed blocks.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 14, 2011 11:49 AM PST up reply actions
yep
Horrible blocking by our WR’s on those plays. They’ve made those blocks earlier in the year. Not sure if it was superior athletes for USC, or better play recognition from studying our film, or some combination of both.
Sark needs to find some screen plays he feels good about, because we’ve largely lost that scope to our offense, and it’s really hurting us against the increased blitzing we’re facing.
Not sure if it was superior athletes for USC, or better play recognition from studying our film, or some combination of both.
It looked to me like it was more what the Dawgs’ receivers didn’t do than anything USC did do.
I can think of a couple in particular that USC’s corner stood there ready to take on a block, only to have Aguilar run right past him as if he didn’t even see him. It certainly didn’t appear that USC did anything out of the ordinary, or made a physically spectacular play. The Huskies just failed to make any sort of block whatseover. Very disappointing.
Yep
Once Aguillar and Kearse both whiffed on blocks. Kearse looked like he was waiting on Aguillar to make a block and Ag ran right past the CB. Kearse then tried to block but it was too late.
by datboyeddiep on Nov 15, 2011 5:25 AM PST up reply actions
Plus, plenty of sacks have come from our abysmal blitz pickup
Whenever the D sends a Safety to the line, I see it in slow motion and start screaming for someone to change the protection.
Make teams pay for blitzing
Keith needs to learn to get the ball out quick. He is not a guy who is going to break a lot of tackles so he needs to learn how to neutralize the blitz by making quick strikes. Kurt Warner is a great example of how you beat a blitzing team.
Sark needs to develop a better plan to handle the blizing. Jake could neutralize a blitzing team with his legs but Keith is not that guy. Quick strikes, or pick your single covered receiver and get the ball out quick.
Refs!
I can’t blame the refs for this one but they would not allow us to run a play without being penalized. We could not start a drive without a penalty. Then the ASJ catch. When Michael Hartvigson caugh the ball, ran 11 yards with the ball, dove for the end zone, and the refs called it incomplete, we could not get a replay. We had to challenge and lose a timeout. When ASJ makes a catch in the air, comes down with both hands, gets hit, hits the ground, the refs call it complete. Then they replay that immediately. How is it that they replay that play but not the Hartvigson catch? Then they get both wrong anyway through instant replay.
I know these Pac-12 joke refs so well I knew they were going to replay it. I was yelling for KP to hurry up and snap the damn ball. That was the turn around in the game right there.
My question is, what is wrong with the officials? Why does it seem like they have it out for us?
Why so many missed and sloppy tackles? Sark runs an NFL style practice to prevent injuries but there has to be a time allotted when these guys need to go with full contact at practice to get this part of the game buttoned up.
It’s been really interesting hearing from all of the guys from the ‘91 team the last few weeks. Virtually all of them have made the same two comments: 1. Practices were tougher and more physical than games. That might be partly due to design, and partly due to the talent level that was out there on both sides of the ball. (and it could be due to the passage of 20 years of time and the mythology that that can create) 2. You cannot coach the intensity and swagger that that team (and other good teams) had, and you can’t even really build it by winning tough games. It’s something that a guy either has or doesn’t. Some of the former players say they think the young guys Sarkisian has recruited have that mentality, and some aren’t sure. Probably none of them interviewed are close enough to the program to know for sure.
There’s definitely a fine line between going hard in practice and going too hard. But when you think about the guys that are going to be counted on this year, and next year, and down the road, how much development are they getting if their only real action comes in practices that don’t come close to simulating a game?
I don't mind the loss
but I was really hoping to be competitive in this one. It’s like our team is playing with the mentality of “we’re bowl eligible, mission accomplished.” I don’t see the desire to continually improve and make it to the best bowl possible. We should be thinking about winning a respectable bowl, not limping through the season.
A sense of the team
I’m not as down on the team as it seems many are, but am really disappointed that we are not further along than we are showing. Here are some points:
• We are winning the games we should be winning. A sign of a good program is that we are not losing the games that leave us scratching our heads. BUT, we are not competitive in games that are a challenge. That shows that teams are better prepared for this team. No more sneaking up on teams.
• The team fights when it has some momentum. See the Nebraska, Arizona, Cal games. But it sinks like a rock when a couple of plays/series goes against them.
• Montana looked better than people are giving him credit for. Up until the 4th quarter I was thinking he was a noodle armed QB, but I did see some passes with good zip in them as he played more. That being said, there is no way he is better than KP. He may still never see the field as a starter, but this offence is going to require a QB with experience.
• Who replaces Polk next year? From what I have seen this year, Sankey has played much better than Callier. Good burst, runs North/South more often, even looks a bit bigger.
• The D has played better the past couple of games, but man, does it give up plays. This is one area where I can’t understand what the problem is. Is it players or schemes? We have a 220lb DE (Shirley) and 210lb former safeties playing LB. Tackling sucks, and teams seem to be able to get either running lanes or open receivers. And we lose our best players once again this year.
While I’m cautiously optimistic about the next two games , they are not sure things. Hopefully OSU will be the feel good game this team needs.
Benno
Sankey
I’ve been very impressed by Bishop. The kid has more speed than I was led to believe when he was a recruit. He hits the hole fast, and if he gets daylight he’s tough to catch. He obviously doesn’t have the physicality of Polk yet – he’s just a 1st year kid who needs time in the weight room, and he’s probably not going to be able to shoulder the same workload Polk does right off the bat.
Callier will have an important role. He’s not your feature back, but I do see glimpses of him starting to really come on as a between-the-tackles kid.
Really hoping Cooper can recover enough of his form to be another backfield candidate, because right now we’re looking kind of thin back there. We’ll probably get Johri back, but it’s hard to count on him given his injury history.
Cooper
At this point, I’m not expecting much from Cooper next year. Its been 2 years since he has had any real snaps in a football game, and practice has been limited as well. I could see 2-3 touches per game, but Sankey and Callier will be the ball carriers next year.
I was really excited to see Callier this year, but he just hasn’t had an impact. Sophomore slump, recognition by the opposing D, injuries, you name it. He has to really step up next year or Sankey will be the man.
Benno
sure
Anything we get from Cooper is gravy, because you can’t count on a guy that’s had two knee surgeries to return to form. I’m just saying it would be great if he could buck the norm, both because he had so much potential and also because we’re a bit thin at the position next year.
Don't like it.
After a little while at WR, Sampson ended up at CB, then ended up quitting the team. Watching Cooper in practice, he was the complete package, better than Callier. I’m hoping and praying he can make a full recovery and stay healthy, a backfield of Cooper, Callier and Sankey could be pretty lethal.
"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing."
"Legends are made on the shores of Lake Washington"
also...
…not sure that WR would be any easier on his knees than RB – with all the hard cuts you have to make to run crisp routes, I think he’d be just as prone to another ligament blow-out at WR.
If he blew out both knees
he’s not any more likely to re-injure it. From what I’ve been told by my friends who’ve had ACL replacements, the odds of you blowing out your opposite knee are 10x higher than the repaired one. The work they do, combined with rehab puts your knee in a better position than it was pre-injury. It’s why you don’t often see guys tear up the same knee twice. It’s typically a complication of the surgery or a rush though rehab.
Bob Condotta posted on his blog yesterday a link to this article that quotes USC players as saying they noticed a change in the Huskies’ body language after the fake punt and then attacked.
It certainly seems that this team just isn’t quite ready mentally to handle the in-game setbacks and come back from them (i.e the tough calls at Nebraska, and this week’s fake punt).
I don’t know what to think of our offensive line. They simply look tired to me. On pass plays it appears that they are taking 2-4 steps backward before they’ve even engaged with the player they’re to be blocking. In comparison, the Stanford, Oregon, and USC lines all seem to stand straight up, with only one step back to start blocking for the pass. On running plays they’re just not getting any push.
Maybe Ivan Lewis has been to occupied with improving strength that condition has suffered?
Having said all that, if you had told me before the season began that we’d be 6-4 at this point in the year, I’d have happily taken it. I honestly thought we’d be 5-5, and possibly 4-6 at this point. The only way this season isn’t a success is if we lose our next two.
fake punt
Yeah, it’s easy to imagine the kids really deflated after the fake punt. That’s a huge momentum turner – defense had gotten a big stop on 3rd down and were feeling good about themselves, only to see it given right back because they got complacent on the punt (and can I say how much I hate that passive, set up a return style punt defense). I also think the kids deflated a bit when the trick play didn’t work out on our first play.
Aguilar was sacked while trying a trick pass
Kind of a dumb call.
UW Dawg Pound - SBN Seattle
by John Berkowitz on Nov 14, 2011 11:48 AM PST up reply actions
it's not a dumb call if it works
Just so happens USC stayed disciplined on the play and the downfield receiver didn’t get enough separation for Aguilar to feel comfortable throwing the ball.
Now, maybe Sark had a rep for that at USC and Kiffin had his guys extra ready for it, I dunno. I’m with B Money in thinking it was a low risk/high reward kind of play. And we did follow it up with a strong running play (only to see it called back due to penalty).
Especially because the punter was so soft
As a fat man myself, I was impressed, he was pretty agile for a fat guy.
I like the idea
but the call was bad. A first play trick play is a low risk, huge reward gamble. Worst case it’s second and 2nd and 15ish with 59:30 to play and a tie game. Best case you burn them for a TD. I don’t think that a play like that is deflating because there was no build up. The defense just forced a punt with the chance to take the lead and ST craps the bed.
Eh, if you throw out more than one
and left field a trick play sometime during the third quarter in a close game, I’d say yes. I’d rather come out and keep a D on their toes than rush 3 times for 7 yards and punt. I hate pressing the run really hard right away, because it’s so predictable.
predictable
I get what you’re saying, but I think there’s value to developing a mentality in your team. To become a top team, we have to be a team that can execute a play regardless of whether the defense knows it’s coming or not.
I don’t think Stanford or Oregon care much if you know they’re going to run the ball – they do it so well that it just doesn’t matter if it’s expected or not. And there are many ways to run the ball – you can be committed to the run without being 100% predictable in how you do it.
Speaking of many ways to run the ball...
Where has the fly sweep been this year? And what about the little power toss sweep that they’ve used effectively at times? I get that USC has great lateral speed, but at some point, you have to attack the defense in different ways just to keep them honest.
yep
The way we kept putting Callier in motion, I expected the handoff to him would happen eventually. If you don’t actually ever give it to him, then putting him in motion begins to lose effectiveness.
I wondered
The same thing during the game. It was a great play last year and i cant recall it being used at all.
I don't like the fly sweep as a play
but it is necessary to run it once a game if you’re going to send Callier in motion on it.
The fly sweep is great
especially if you have fast guys and you can attack the outside. You can’t run it all the time but it forces teams to respect the ends and keep contain, which opens up running lanes inside. With Cason or Callier you should be able to get good yards on it here and there, especially when UW is running uptempo.
it's a good change-up
When you can hand off the ball to a player already moving at full-speed laterally, that gives you a nice leg up on getting to the edge. It also forces the defense to keep from focusing on a certain guy in the backfield if they have to respect the motion man as a possible ball carrier.
I’m a bit surprised we haven’t seen Sankey used in that role given his speed. I suppose because the timing of the play is so critical and Callier has a lot more experience in that role that’s why.
I suppose because the timing of the play is so critical and Callier has a lot more experience in that role that’s why.
Maybe, but Callier was a true freshman last season when he really “learned” the play. It seems to me that Sankey should be able to do it as well.
It’s interesting to look at Callier’s production this year. He doesn’t have near the number of carries as last season (77 vs 38 so far), or receptions (18 vs 5 so far). He’s definitely not getting the backup’s carries, even in the blowouts. Those have mostly gone to Sankey. Part of me wonders if the the fly sweep is simply Callier’s niche, and without it he’d hardly see the field…Maybe that sort of dovetails with your point.
I definitely agree.
Especially about running it if the offense is moving at a quicker pace.
Kasen isn’t the guy to run it though; about the only thing he lacks is great speed. Kevin Smith is the guy I’d like to see used there, if it’s going to be a receiver.
The reason I'd suggest Kasen
Is simply that he’s a receiver. It’s much better to run a fly sweep with your 11 or 22 set if that’s what you use all the time ,and the Huskies in general use a 11 set (3WR-1TE-1RB). If that’s the case you have one of the receivers doing it. It’s much harder to defend when you can run it in a way that isn’t clearly seen. Especially if you bring the receiver in motion.
Formations don't determine personnel, though.
The Dawgs will run 11 with two tight ends on the field, or two backs, or no backs with a receiver in the backfield. They’ll run zero with a back and two tight ends, or two backs and a tight end, etc.
Williams and Smith see fairly close to the same number of snaps (and Smith is a receiver as well). He’s faster.
That's true
But personnel does dictate defensive subs.
The Dawgs won’t run an 11 with two TEs because an 11 isn’t a formation – it’s a personnel package. It refers to 1 TE and 1 RB. Similarly a 22 is two RB, two TE. I’m saying that if the base package is a 11 (which for many it is) then you should run fly sweeps from it – and that means to a WR. If your base is a 21 or 22 (both two RB packages) then sure, do fly sweeps out of that.
it’s a personnel package. It refers to 1 TE and 1 RB. Similarly a 22 is two RB, two TE.
Yeah, I know. I thought it was clear that I meant the look.
I’m saying that if the base package is a 11 (which for many it is) then you should run fly sweeps from it – and that means to a WR.
We aren’t disagreeing even remotely. We sort of got off on a tangent, but I’ve never said not to run it with a receiver. The only minor quibble I had was that since it’s a play that calls for more speed from the fly back, it makes more sense to use Smith (a receiver) instead of Williams.
Ah, sorry
Didn’t get what you meant.
I’ve never heard of a 11 as a look. The formation is really orthogonal to the personnel in that case; it’s simply a quick way for the defense to determine what they want to sub in and out. How they line up is very different; the best example are the Colts, which line up in trips, TE spread out, TE bunched in, receiver bunched in, etc.
But yeah, it probably makes sense to take your fastest receiver in motion regardless.
I agree with what you're saying.
But a trick play on the first play of the game is fairly predictable.
I’d have much rather seen that play closer to midfield, and maybe in the second or third series. Get the D focused on something else instead of looking for it.
I’ve got no problem taking a shot on the first play of the game, but I would’ve rather seen a play action pass (something like they did against Hawaii with Sefarian-Jenkins, or the first play against Oregon last season) that allows the best passer to make the play and is something the defense will have to guard against for the rest of the game.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on UW Dawg Pound
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
