clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Stuff and Shenanigans: Humble Fumble

Contrary to popular tough guy belief, there’s no extra points for playing “pure” football.

COLLEGE FOOTBALL: SEP 25 Cal at Washington Photo by Jacob Snow/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images

No, I don’t want no intros.

An intro is a wall of text that can’t get no love from me.

Hanging out the intro side of their best friend’s ride

Trying to, uh, exist? From me? (Turns out trying to parody song lyrics is way more difficult than we give Weird Al credit for...)

A 100% Accurate and 42% Sober Rundown of Absolutely Everything

Three-ish thoughts-ish incoming, my children:

Scoring points is good, actually

Upon scoring points

Do not stop doing that, please

Oh... Or not... Okay...

Hokay, so... I had a feeling this was gonna happen, but gall dang it was really hoping to be proven wrong. “This” being that the Dawgs’ offense would come out actually looking pretty competent, proving once and for all that JohnDon and Jimmy Lake had recognized the error of their original ways against Montana and Michigan, and that the offense would be permanently changed and perfect — lol kidding, obviously. “This” was actually that the Dawgs’ offense would come out looking pretty competent, putting Washington ahead early-ish by A) scoring actual, real-life points and B) further putting the defense in a good position to mostly not suck, only for JohnDon to then get complacent with that lead and revert back to his malarkey conservatism and let Cal back in the game.

I guess I don’t actually have any “take” or whatever the heck you want to call it on this topic, unless you consider “being depressed as crap about it” to be a take. Actually, can “sad” be a take? That’s my take. Especially considering this statement:

Not to freak out or anything, but that sure sounds like an answer implying I and Andrew and Coach B and Max and a whole bunch of the UWDP writers (salary: slightly more than $0/month) do more analysis than the actual Washington offensive coordinator (salary: a buttload of money). Surely that couldn’t be true... right...? Riiiiight? And don’t call me “Shirley.”

Speaking of not doing things on offense that were easily-identifiable ways to be better (or at least suck less)...


Why didn’t Washington run at the edge goddammit

Ice cold free yards here!

Free yards! Get ‘em while they’re fresh!

Oh... Or not... Okay...

Washington’s running backs rushed 23 times. Per SIS Data Pro, of those twenty-three times, they ran off tackle or outside a total of—

*The sound of dry heaving reverberates in the distance*

Aw, excuse me, just had to hold back some—

*More retching echoes in the canyon. Is it all in your head? We may never know...*

Oof, wow, sincerest apologies. I keep getting distracted. Anyways, per SIS Data Pro, UW’s running backs ran off tackle or outside...


Four times. Four.

Now. I’m not arrogant enough to think things are simple enough that a no-good amateur like myself knows that much, really. And yet. I do know something. And that something is that until this Saturday, teams had repeatedly decimated Cal with off tackle and outside runs. I’m talking some real “Belgium circa 1940” shit. Or even “Belgium circa 1914” shit... Like I’m not sure if the Geneva Convention applies to on-field happenings, but if it does, hoo boy should Cal’s opponents be prosecuted for violating it.

And then.

Washington did that Easily-Identifiable Way To Beat Cal’s Defense.




Not that the general public needed more evidence football coaches seem to almost universally think they’re smarter than Everyone Else, even when Everyone Else is like “Hey have you considered opening up your brain hole to recognize this thing that Everyone Else recognizes, including other Real Life Football Coaches who are smarter than us, the Everyone Elses?,” but here’s more evidence for that anyway. I mean... come on man, it was right there.

What irritates me the most about this particular instance is that Jimmy and JohnDon have gone on about wanting an aggressive running game and then, when g i f t e d a perfect opportunity to attack an opponents’ blatant run defense weakness — a tactic most would describe as “aggressive” — they go “Nah we’re good.” In the words of Kelly Kapoor: What kind of game is that?

Maybe it’s just because I’m a big fan of working smarter not harder, or at least working smarter and harder... Because everyone else you play is “working harder” too — what are you doing to be better than them*? Certainly not running at the edge like all the other smartypantses that came before you.

*Answer: You can recruit, scheme, and execute. Ideally all three, unless you want to create unnecessary obstacles that get in the way of your team achieving the best possible outcome.

Hail ZTF, full of moves, blessed art thou among pass rushers. Pray for us now and at the hour of our death, which is probably soon, amen.

Chase Garbers stop it

Why must you have so much time

Aaaaand he’s off again

Yeah not much here, just that I for one would be a big fan of a more lively pass rush. At least in this case, though, it’s primarily just a matter of mediocre execution as opposed to staring a schematic advantage in the face and declining to use it (although the lack of stunts or disguising pressures under this defense does feel like another example of Jimmy wanting to solely “out-tough” his opponents as though playing tough and smart is somehow a lesser brand of football). Um, actually is that a good consolation? I don’t know... All I know is that I want ZTF back.

Lines of the Week

We are actually capable of deducing JohnDon and Jimmy’s halftime pep talk to the squad based on what happened in the second half:

Me every time Chase Garbers would scramble for first down:

Much of Washington’s population once the Dawgs revealed they had actually taken an oath to not put the game away once during the roughly dozen opportunities they had to do so:

All of us once it became clear this was going to overtime:

ZTF to Chase Garbers, translation:

Do good things, don’t do bad things, and bow down to Washington.