clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Mailbag - "Anything Interesting Happening?" Edition

Did anybody else used to get Pee-Chees with the people playing various sports on them about this time each summer? They used to go on sale for something like six for a dollar right about now. Those, and erasable ink pens, and a zippered plastic pouch in which to store them.

Stephen Brashear/Getty Images

Many things conspired to make this mailbag late. Most end with "ife." Life, wife, general strife, the search for nightlife (well, not really), being held captive by the blade of a knife....

Since I'm hungry, here are a few food-related useless facts to whet your appetites:

  • If an egg is placed in water and floats, it is "off" and should not be eaten.
  • Watermelons are 92% water by weight.
  • Humans consume approximately 12 pubic hairs per year, on average.
  • Lettuce is a member of the sunflower family.
  • Humans consume approximately 30 pounds of lettuce a year, which is approximately five times the amount consumed in the 1900s.
  • No one really knows when donuts were invented, or who invented them.
  • There are more than 7,000 varieties of apples grown worldwide.
  • Butter tea, made up of Yak butter, salt, and tea leaves, is a common Tibetan drink.
  • Apples, potatoes, and onions all taste the same if eaten with your nose plugged.
  • Grapes explode when microwaved.
  • There are more than 500 varieties of banana.
  • Banana "trees" are actually giant herbs, not trees.
  • A-1 Steak Sauce contains both orange peels and raisins.
  • Coffee-flavored Pez are a real thing.
  • The average ear of corn has 800 kernels arranged in 16 rows.
  • Jelly Belly brand jelly beans were the first jelly beans ever sent to outer space, aboard the June 21, 1983 voyage of the Challenger.
  • It takes about 1/2 a gallon of water to cook a pot of macaroni, and another 1/2 gallon to clean the pot.
  • Hersheys supplies M&Ms free to the White House, but only the peanut ones.
  • Pecans are the only food that doesn't have to be dehydrated or otherwise treated to be sent into space.
  • The eggplant is part of the thistle family.
  • Most of the vitamin C of a plant is contained in the pith.
  • The bat on the Bacardi label is there because the sugar cane used in the drinks is grown in soil made fertile by excessive bat guano.
  • Bubbles in Guinness beer sink to the bottom instead of floating to the top, as they do in other beers.

To your questions, yo.


How long until Psalm Wooching is replaced at buck? I have never been impressed with him, and with the young talent of Tevis Bartlett and the incoming true freshman, it seems like only a matter of time until we are seeing a lot of them and a lot less throat slashing.

UWDP: As it stands today, Psalm Wooching isn't playing the Buck, he's slated as the other outside linebacker, on the strong side (SLB). Jojo Mathis is playing the Buck (weak side outside linebacker, or WLB).

In the first two seasons of the Chris Petersen/Pete Kwiatkowski regime, Husky fans have seen two very different people play the Buck. Based on prototypes, Hau'oli Kikaha "fit" the position more than did Travis Feeney. In the base 3-4 defense, the outside linebackers are most like stand-up defensive ends; they are pass rushers responsible for setting a firm edge against the running attack. Kikaha was a demon of a pass rusher, but not necessarily a force in pass coverage. Feeney was a superior athlete, incredible as a pursuit player, but not particularly stout on the edge against the run. My belief is that Kikaha is Kwiatkowski's prototype for the position moving forward. Jojo Mathis certainly fits this.

Feeney and Cory Littleton were near clones of each other in 2015, and that fact made the defense very versatile. However, neither were really edge setters, and the Huskies suffered some because of that. In 2016, the defense may not be as versatile with Mathis and Wooching/other at the outside linebackers, but it may very well be stouter against the run, and in containing mobile QBs.

A lot of Husky fans are really down on Wooching's potential in 2016. While I think his hold on a starting job is probably the most tenuous of any member of the defense (which is at least as much a statement about the rest of the unit as it is Wooching), I also think he's a good enough athlete that he could and should improve substantially with the increased number of repetitions he's going to get. It's the mental part of playing "fast" that's holding him back, to my eye; he's thinking too much about what he's doing instead of just reacting as the play unfolds. If he can get past that - by no means a given, with any player - he can be a good player.

It's interesting to note that on, the "linebackers" and "outside linebackers" are listed as two different positions (so presumably "linebackers" are the inside guys), and Tevis Bartlett is listed as a "linebacker." It may be that the coaching staff likes him better on the inside, and he's not a candidate to replace Wooching regardless of how the season plays out. I wouldn't read that much into it, but still...

No matter who starts, at least two guys are going to play that SLB position regularly. If Wooching plays the best, he'll hold on to the starting job. If someone else shows that he can play faster and more physically, the job will be his. While I'm no fan of the throat-slashing nonsense from Wooching or any other player, as fans we tend to dismiss it more easily when a guy is making meaningful plays.


Excellent article on UW using brand new safer helmets for the future. What are some  other safety equipment being explored to use? Like the change to Soccer/Rugby style tackling. What are some of the other techniques being implemented into football?


How much do you think the work on rugby style safe tackling will affect Death Row?

UWDP: "Safer" is a relative term, and to be perfectly honest, I'm a little surprised that a helmet manufacturer would actually tout its product as being safer, as this seemingly opens it up to liability claims.

Football isn't a safe game, and never really will be, no matter how equipment evolves. The human body simply isn't meant for repetitive high-speed collisions.

As for the rugby-style tackling, it isn't as new as it sounds. Chris Petersen began to use it while still at Boise State, and Pete Carroll produced a video about it a few years ago as well (he calls it the "Hawk Tackle" and mentions he's been utilizing it for a few years). The current members of the defense have been doing it the entire time Petersen has been at the UW, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was emphasized under Justin Wilcox as well.

My question centers around play calling on both sides of the ball.  I don't pretend to be an expert in Coach P's offense, but is it safe to assume they will open the playbook up a bit and if so, what might we expect to see there?  Defensively I'm curious to know if we will see more exotic blitz and cover packages given how stacked that unit is.  I'd be curious to hear your take.

UWDP: I think the game plan was fairly conservative against Boise State in 2015, but other than that game, I think the Huskies pretty much saw the full complement of Chris Petersen's offense last year. As a general statement, I think fans too often equate an ineffective offense with "being conservative" or "bad play calling." When the opposing defense simply shuts down the Husky offense, or the Husky offense can't execute, it's usually not a matter of the playbook being the issue. Or at least the issue.

For all the razzle-dazzle Chris Petersen was known for at Boise State, he's actually a very conservative coach. That shouldn't be confused with not attacking a defense; it's about managing risk. And reward. Jake Browning showed the ability to manage a complex offense in 2015, and I really don't think there was much of anything held back last season that's going to be available in 2016. Better execution of the existing offense is the formula for bigger numbers on that side of the ball, not new concepts hidden in the playbook.

Defensively, Pete Kwiatkowski is very similar. He wants the D to play aggressively (and it does), schematically it's not aggressive. It's very much a bend-but-don't-break defense; it just so happens that it's talented enough and executes well enough to not bend very much, and hardly ever break. It's a defense that is very good at everything, but not necessarily exceptional at any one thing by advanced stats (for the uninitiated, defensive FEI is a measure of a defensive efficiency on a per-drive basis, and S&P is a measure on a per-play basis).  Take the Apple Cup in 2015 as an example. The Huskies played almost exclusively nickel and dime defenses, with three and sometimes as few as two down linemen. From the second quarter on, when the defense regularly started getting pressure on WSU's Peyton Bender, it was by bringing a fourth pass rusher, not a fifth or sixth as in a typical blitz package. Kwiatkowski blitzes, but judiciously. The playmaking ability of the defense is mostly about guys winning one-on-one battles and making the proper play than overwhelming an offense with sheer numbers of bodies.

If I had to give a single-word goal for a Chris Petersen football team in every phase of the game, it would be "efficiency." Do your job on every single play, and the results and big plays will follow.


Is there a term for the confluence of contradicting emotions when the birth of football season is nears as summer's death approaches?

UWDP: I call it "Die, summer, die!"

Every time I go to buy new cosmetics, my coloring tells the lady behind the counter that I'm a "football" as opposed to a "spring" or "winter" or whatever.


Final input.... Well, not really: Hype is validated by season outcome? Or we crash and burn?

Jon May:

Will my winter, spring and summer enthusiasm get crushed this year or will I be happier than a pig in a shit pile by the end of the season?

UWDP: I'm a tremendous believer in setting my own expectations. What the media says - either good or bad - makes for interesting reading in the offseason, but that's about it. Last year, I expected 6-6, and it's what I got. I've held fast to 9-3 for the 2016 version of the Huskies, and nothing that's been written means a damn thing to me, outside of the general opinion that the Huskies are trending up, and have the pieces in place to be upwardly mobile in the conference and nationally.

I would love to win the Pac-12 this year, but I don't expect it unless the rest of the conference falls back more than I think it will. The "playoff darkhorse" stuff is simply nonsense, and I'd wager that anyone who's written it has also written five or so similar articles about 12 other teams. That way, they're sure to be right if something unexpected happens this year.

Public Enemy said it best - "Don't Believe the Hype".  Set your own expectations.


Are you as excited as I am at the many new position changes and how players might respond? I mean, can you even imagine the many new possibilities for explosive Lind-quakes!? "Bam!"
UWDP: If Jeff Lindquist can contribute as a tight end, I hope he sees the field. If he can contribute to add value on special teams, I hope he's still out there. Other than that, I wish him nothing but success in life, I thank him for his loyalty and contributions to the University of Washington football team and community, and I hope he stays on the bench.


Which is the most important position battle that needs to be answered during camp?

UWDP: Here's two for each side of the ball:

On offense, I want to see the starting five solidified on the offensive line. Trey Adams and Kaleb McGary seem set at tackles, Coleman Shelton at center, and Jake Eldrenkamp at one guard. The battle is for the other guard spot, likely between Shane Brostek and all comers (Jesse Sosebee, Henry Robers, Jared Hilbers, et al). It sounds like Brostek has the inside track, but we'll see.

The other obvious one is at receiver. I've gone on record as hoping that the staff uses John Ross on the outside primarily, and Chico McClatcher fills the slot role vacated by Jaydon Mickens. To me, that's the most valuable use of resources, especially since most of the receivers will end up playing flanker/split/slot roles at different times.

Defensively, the battles are at strong safety and outside linebacker. Jojo Mathis appears to have the WLB/Buck spot, and Psalm Wooching got the most run with the starters in spring at the SLB spot. But we'll see if that holds true in early September. Jojo McIntosh has a pretty good edge at strong safety. He's likely to start at one of the two safety spots for a while here at the UW. But hopefully he's pushed by guys like Ezekiel Turner, Taylor Rapp, and Trevor Walker, and that one or all of those guys shows a proclivity to play free safety as well.

Tristan Vizcaino has the leg up (har har) as punter. He wasn't especially special against Utah in his three attempts of 2015, so hopefully there's some competition from freshman Van Soderberg or some Kiel Rasp-like late addition to the team.


What O line commits will we get?

Chris Denton:

I'd like to hear more about recruiting particularly lineman. I heard nothing last time.


Update on recruiting.  Who is really looking good for our last few spots.  Any sleepers

UWDP: Someone who knows more about recruiting will hopefully step in to add to this one. It was certainly disappointing to hear about Alijah Vera-Tucker picking USC. There aren't too many offers out to linemen right now, according to


I might make a fanpost about this: My recent trip to Alaska left me wondering if Duck fans are "better fans" than us... thoughts? What about the Cougs? Does wearing the logo or pasting it to our cars reflect good fan-ship?
Mike Pitzler:

Rusty Ryan from AtQ was on Conquest Chronicles on July 27 accusing us of "trying to push Oregon out of the Pacific Coast League multiple times, and lobbying with other schools to keep Oregon out of bowls so that Washington could go." I think the main offense was about the Rose Bowl in 1948. Do we have an answer to these accusations? They seem to think they have a special cause for their hate. If we can't, can we apologize for the sins of our forebears, and get on with a normal good-natured rivalry?

UWDP: No offense intended to either of you, but my first response to all of these questions is, "Do I actually care about what opposing fans think? Especially fans of rival schools?" Try as I might, I can't possibly force myself to care even one iota.

Part of this is largely due to a general truth: people in large groups are collective idiots. I think it's especially true for groups of people in passionate support of an entity like a sports team, but also true in politics, religion, etc. Let's say you were able to get the IQ of every single Cougar fan in existence, and the number is 100. Some would be higher, some would be lower. But as a group, that number is going to be down around 80 or so. Same is true with Duck fans, except the average number would start somewhere in the low 80s. Some would be much higher, even approaching 90, and many would be lower. But the collective number would be lower than the individual average, likely in the low 70s.

When it comes to engaging individuals as opposed to groups, it's an entirely different story. Fandom means far less to me than the ability to intelligently create an argument. In fact, discussions are more entertaining with opposing viewpoints than sitting around and agreeing with someone who holds the same views I do.

Cougar fans like to paint the Space Needle and buy license plates, and claim to be more loyal because of it. Okay. Duck fans like stickers on their car windows and to use inappropriate sign language. Whatever. Stanford fans like to donate money and feel superior while sitting really, really quietly at football games. All I really want is a full stadium and the money to buy things that recruits want to see. And at least one manufacturer to create at least one t-shirt per season that a middle-aged fan would want to wear.

You know who has the best fans? Teams in the SEC. As for the opinions of Cougars and Ducks in small or large groups, I just can't make myself even be bothered.


Should we be concerned that one of UWs most successful coaches just quit to go to ASU.. I am speaking of Matt Thurmond the UW Men's golf coach.  I noticed it didn't get much play when it happened but I am concerned that our new AD was not able to hold onto such a quality coach.  Have you heard anything as to why he left?

UWDP: I have to plead complete and total ignorance about golf at the UW or any other school outside of occasionally hearing results.

Matt Thurmond made about $250,000 at the UW, one of the highest-paid coaches in the conference. ASU recently lost its coach Tim Mickelson in part due to money concerns, so unless the Sun Devils have made an about-face in order to hire Thurmond, it's not likely he left for a pay raise. But maybe.

Thurmond took over the program at a very young age (26), and has been here for 15 years as you point out, so maybe it's a matter of trying something new, as he suggested.

From the research I've done, it sounds like Thurmond did a tremendous job here as a coach and ambassador for the program. Arizona State has a fairly successful program historically. It's very possible that this was a move made with respect to the ability to win - I've heard of a lot of people heading from Washington to Arizona in order to golf, but not the opposite.

You'd hope Jen Cohen would be able to retain the top-flight coaches at the UW. I'm not sure I'm going to look at this as a trend quite yet, though.


Let's argue about Pac12 expansion again. Will Colorado/Arizona teams/UCLA leave? Will we acquire anyone?

UWDP: The notion that UCLA would leave the Pac-12 is positively laughable. Just an absolute joke. It. Will. Never. Happen. If a different conference wanted the Los Angeles market, does anybody actually think they'd take UCLA over USC? Or UCLA without also getting USC? No. And would UCLA leave, if it meant going to a conference spread out to the eastern time zone and still being in USC's shadow? Zero chance.

Colorado might leave, but I don't think they're particularly desirable to anyone but the Big 12, and I don't think they're looking to head back there right away. The Arizona schools might hold some appeal to the Big 12, but I don't think they'd be better off going there. With Texas and Oklahoma calling the shots, there isn't a real incentive (financial or otherwise) to move.

The Big 12 is going to be the catalyst for the timing of the next round of expansion. It'll either grab a few mid-level schools and try to grow them up to be competitive and create some new equilibrium that'll last for a few years - maybe a decade - or things will fall apart really quickly, and the next round of expansion will be at hand sooner than we can imagine. It's unstable, and the moves it's talking about making aren't any type of long-term fix. The conference is going to detonate. It's just a matter of when, and whether the damage is enough to blow the whole thing up in one fell swoop.

The Pac-12 needs to be proactive here, or it's going to be stuck with west of the Mississippi leftovers that will devalue the conference in the long term. Just Say No to BYU, San Diego State, Boise State, UNLV, etc. Those schools do less than nothing to the future of the conference. They are a net loss for the Pac-12 except for some sort of misplaced regional conception of the conference.

My opinion of what to do here is exactly the same as it was in 2010. Be aggressive and proactive. I think the mistake that was made the last time around was going directly after Texas. Negotiating with Texas, and Texans, and the Longhorns, is a mistake. Instead, go after Oklahoma, who will also bring Oklahoma State. Pick one of the other Texas schools (Tech, Baylor, TCU...yes, yes, religion, I know), and get them to commit to joining the conference. That will end the Big 12, and place Texas in the position of having no choice but to move someplace new; there won't be any way to salvage things. Texas, Texans, and Texas leadership are such unique entities in their own minds that I don't think there's any way they'd join the SEC, since it would mean being a big fish in a huge pond, and more importantly, following Texas A&M and firmly entrenching themselves as Aggies' little brother. I don't think the ACC has any real draw for the Longhorns; call it a gut feel. That leaves the math-challenged Big Ten and the Pac-12. The Big Ten presents some semi-geographical advantages. It's a collection of mostly good academic schools. The Pac-12 offers a similar academic alliance, and it maintains connection with Oklahoma.

If the Big Ten wins out, tip of the cap to them. But at least the Pac-12 has secured the second biggest prize available in the Sooners, and a couple of other schools that are superior athletically to any available on the west coast (yes, yes, BSU football, San Diego State basketball, I know; they just aren't as valuable, though).

Go get Oklahoma today. Minimize Texas' leverage. If the Pac-12 sits and waits, it's going to be stuck with money leeches and will fall even further behind in the New World of College Sports.


What happened to the huge Husky helmet that used to  go around the old stadium track when we scored ?

UWDP: It's at the Museum of History and Industry, located on the south side of the Montlake Cut.


Percent chances: Losing streak to ASU ends. Losing streak to Oregon ends.

UWDP: ASU: 70.25%
Oregon: 42.67%


Any ideas on how much longer CP is going to coach? My feeling based on how he didn't leave Boise for so long is that UW may be his last job. Do you think UW has plans for the future?

UWDP: If I had to bet money, I'd wager the UW will be his last job in college football. I don't think he's going to move to the NFL, but if he did leave for his own reasons (as opposed to being fired for non-performance), that'd be it.

I can't see him ever coaching an SEC team. I could see him at a place like Wisconsin or Michigan State, but I'd set the odds pretty low. I think the only way he'd take another college job is if he felt like he did everything he could possibly do at Washington, and I bet he thinks he can do some pretty good things at Washington. To accomplish them is going to take some time.

He strikes me very much as the type of guy that's going to walk away from coaching earlier than people would expect, and then simply disappear from the public eye, like Don James did. I can't see him as a broadcaster, or working as an AD. He's just going to be done, and then someone will write an article about him seven years later, after he's been a volunteer high school position coach in Wyoming for five seasons with no one knowing about it.


There is some speculation going on as to what Jeff Tedford inputs will be and the significance of his contributions to the overall success of the team. Tell us what they are paying him to help us to understand the value of his inputs. And since he cannot actually coach, or have direct interaction with the players, in what format will his inputs be in - written, oral, video, or some etheral or subliminal combination of the three?

UWDP: My guess is that he's going to be akin to an internal scout for both sides of the ball. It's certainly possible that he'll be utilized for game-planning specific opponents.

As much as a coach can get done on the actual field of practice, I think to a man they'd tell you that there's a greater depth that comes from watching tape. Many of them make reference to that in the interviews the Times has after practice: "I won't be able to answer that until I can watch the film." Tedford can be involved with all of that. He can be at every meeting that doesn't involve the players; many more hours are spent per day without them than with them. The vast majority of the coaches' jobs don't involve working with players.

Tedford is basically 75% of an additional coach. He'll contribute in all of the ways the others do, except in the few hours each day actually on the field. He's a good football mind, and a good addition.


Ranking after starting 3-0? Stanford's ranking coming into our Friday matchup? Final ranking of the season?

UWDP: Using the Coaches' Poll of #18...

The Huskies' schedule certainly isn't going to catapult them over anybody, so it'll be a matter of teams in front of them losing. There will also be teams behind them that pull out upsets that will (at least temporarily) leapfrog them over the UW. Realistically, the Huskies probably won't climb much higher than 14th or so heading into that game.

The final season ranking will depend on what sort of "bowl boost" they get. Unfortunately, due to the weak bowl tie-ins the conference has, it likely won't be as much as we'd like to see. At 10-3, with a win over someone like a 9-4 or 8-5 Kansas State team, the Huskies will probably finish in the 17th or 18th range.


What is the Story with Will Dissly?  Showed some potential as a true Fr - then gets switched to TE but it appears we have pleanty of depth with Daniels, Sample, Ajamu,  ETC -- is the Depth on the DL really that good or is there something more to this story?

UWDP: Here's my guess on what happened to the proverbial Will Dissly, and it happens to one or more players every single year:

1.  He got mentioned by the coaches early on as a guy that was playing well, even though "well" is an undefined, relative term.
2.  Reporters continued to ask about him among the young/new guys, and the coaches continued to praise him (as they would just about every player).
3.  Fans paid particularly close attention to how much he was on the field in games, and how he did. Hype was born.
4.  He continues to develop at a normal rate, which isn't equal to the hype.
5.  Meanwhile, reporters fail to ask interesting or poignant questions about him, which the coaches wouldn't actually answer even if they did.
6.  He quits/transfers/changes positions/exhausts eligibility without becoming all-conference, and fans unfairly label him a bust.

Sometimes this hype builds due to injuries to other players (and hence, increased opportunity for our proverbial Will Dissly) in spring or fall, sometimes it's due to a position group that isn't as talented as others, sometimes it's a single practice, or maybe two in a row, sometimes it's a combination of all of the above. But a guy gets built up mostly by the media for some reason or another, becomes more in fans' minds than his realistic ceiling would ever suggest he could be, and then stars in his own "Where is He Now?" TV segment.

My candidate for 2016 is Andre Baccellia.


If/When UW makes it to the Rose Bowl (or CFP) this year, what excuse do I give my new wife to let me get tickets and fly cross country to attend? Early Valentines Day trip?

UWDP: If you try to use Valentine's Day as the catalyst, my guess is that instead of "excuses" you'll give her half your house, half your car, half your retirement...

Jon May:

Over/under on freshman that get redshirts this year?

UWDP: Over/under 11.5 redshirt.


How excited should I be feeling about the recent Bball commitments of Blake Harris and M. Diarra? Arguably both were nice pickups for different reasons. Two more out of state prospects who have either been highly touted (Harris) or with a lofty ceiling (Diarra). Yet with Porter Jr. and Nowell securely on board, and it still being quite early in the 2017 recruiting cycle, I have to admit my enthusiasm was merely lukewarm upon seeing 2/3 stars commit to us, considering the big sharks we've already landed and who should likely be attracting some other big names. Romar calculus or not, schollys are finite. So are these guys 3 stars like IT was a 3 star, i.e. WAY under the radar? Or just your run of the mill program-fillers?

UWDP: It's hard to know what to think about either of these two guys. I'm not the one to ask too much about recruiting, but both of them were much more highly regarded when they were a part of the 2016 recruiting class (Harris was top 10 at his position, and had some lofty offers, Diarra was a Top 100 player when he signed with UConn), and then have fallen for some reason. Maybe they were lost in the shuffle some when they delayed to the class of 2017. I don't really know. But I really don't think this means the Huskies are done recruiting the higher-profile players for 2017 in the slightest.

Maybe this means Romar is expecting some more transfers, or possibly an early NBA defection. I'm not really sure what to think. Hopefully others will add in down below.


A while back there was a ton of reports out there that said Budda Baker was going to get some plays on offense. Haven't heard anything about that in quite some time. Is Budda on offense still a thing or is that scenario gone for good?

UWDP: I don't really know how much of "a thing" it really was, how much of it was due to the lack of bodies at the position in the spring, or how much might've been due to letting Budda Baker have a little fun.

I expect we'll hear at least something about it once the team takes the field. I don't think it's going to be even as much a part of the offense as Shaq Thompson was at running back. And I don't think Baker is a guy that needs to be on the field even more than he already is (after leading the team in total snaps the last two years). But he's also one of the best athletes on the team, and a guy that could probably contribute or even start at four or five positions for the Huskies.


With the 1991 national Championship team being recognized this Fall,
Why doesn't UDub  recognize the team (National Championship) of 1960 Helms Athletic Foundation?
While at it...Why not the 1984 team (11-1) recognized by the Berryman Football News (11-1) It;s the year BYU  "won" the title while playing no teams with a winning record ! (how's that possible?

UWDP: I really think the Huskies have done a poor job in this regard. Lots of other teams do a much better job of it than Washington does. If you add up all of the national titles claimed by the various schools playing football, it's a lot greater than the number of "major" titles given. Other schools have simply claimed them when they happened, and they've simply become part of the narrative surrounding those schools.

The Huskies did finally claim the 1960 title. The team wore navy throwback uniforms against USC in a game in 2007 when that title team was honored. There's a plaque displayed in the stadium, on the west end, by the scoreboard.

But it's tougher to claim 1984 now, because there are too many people alive today that only recognize BYU. If Washington had done it back then, the debate surrounding it might still rage, but the title would have become an accepted part of the lore surrounding the Huskies.

Justin Yim:

Only gold helmets this year? Is that for real?

UWDP: It's true the team will only have one helmet this year for practice and games, yes. It's gold right now. It'll probably stay that way, but I wouldn't be surprised if it got a paint job at some point during the season.


Ever since I moved to Seattle in 2013, I've been a huge football fan, specifically watching the Huskies, of course. However, I don't quite have the knowledge of the offensive/defensive concepts that many of the other commenters on this site have. Are there any good resources you'd recommend I could visit to increase my X's and O's knowledge before the upcoming season?

UWDP: I'd start right here, with this most excellent collection of links compiled by our own Redmond Longhorn. You'll learn a lot of terminology that should spur subsequent Internet research.


Please predict the UW men's BB team starters and the reserves who will be in the rotation for conference play.  It would be great to predict their PPG and either their RPG or the APG, depending on position.

UWDP: There's been a different starting lineup each game of the Australia - New Zealand tour, so it's tough to get any sort of read. But if I had to guess, it'd look like this:

G Markelle Fultz - 16.2 PPG, 3.4 RPG, 4.7 APG
G Dominic Green - 7.8 PPG, 3.3 RPG, 2.9 APG
G Matisse Thybulle - 10.8 PPG, 4.8 RPG, 3.1 APG
F Noah Dickerson - 12.1 PPG, 6.7 RPG, 1.1 APG
F Malik Dime - 6.4 PPG, 6.2 RPG, 2.6 BBG

Key Reserves

G David Crisp - 10.1 PPG, 2.4 RPG, 4.0 APG
C Sam Timmons - 7.4 PPG, 5.8 RPG, 1.6 BPG
F Mathew Attewe - 2.1 PPG, 4.4 RPG, 1.3 BPG
G Carlos Johnson - 4.1 PPG, 2.2 RPG, 2.1 APG


Please list the 4-5 most difficult games for the FB Dawgs, in order of difficulty.  Give a forecast if you think it will be a W or a L.  Then give us a season record forecast.

UWDP: I've said 9-3 since the end of 2015, so I'm sticking with that.

In order for the entire schedule, I'd put it like this:

1.  Stanford
2.  Oregon
3.  USC
4.  Utah
5.  WSU
6.  Arizona
7.  Arizona State
8.  Cal
9.  Rutgers
10.  Oregon State
11.  Portland State
12.  Idaho

I'm really not ready to predict each game yet, but of those top four games on the list, I think the Huskies go 2-2.


Are you having a good summer? I hope you have a great summer! (but, not too good...we need you to keep your saltiness fresh for an edge!)

UWDP: Sure, but I'm ready to be done mowing the lawn, as we've had just enough rain to keep it from turning brown this year. PITA.

Hard to believe it's almost over. BUT THAT MEANS FOOTBALL!

If you've made it this far, then you've made it through the longest mailbag in the history of me writing mailbags. Over 6,000 words of my pedantic ramblings.