Wise Guys are expecting 41-15'ish final...

[RUich]

First games are always filled with a lot of questions. The point spread does look to be questionable and may well be due to the talking heads predictions for us this year. As they say, this is why you play the games.

 

[hanoverian]

You know what is funny all those superior recruiting classes resulted in a similar record and during that time UW had better coaching. Oh, maybe it was another hype job. You know the one where recruits receive a bump in ranking due to where they commit. Rankings have a way of lying. We have learned it's not what the classes look like coming in, but how they perform when they get to college. Rutgers is known for getting the most out of little recruited kids. Just look at the number of Rutgers players in the league.

Nobody got more out of "coaching up" than Petersen at Boise State. Remember he has been at UW only 2 years. If we compare in-conference records during that time, Washington's mediocre 8-10 is still far better than Rutgers' 4-12. I think you will find that you need to recruit at a higher level to be successful consistently in your current league; Petersen certainly found that when he came to UW.

And as for Rutgers players in the NFL, UW has done quite well in the draft the last 3 years (they were coming out of a dark time for the program) and will be very prominent the next 2 at least. As a long time Patriots fan (from Boston area), we know all too well how many RU alumni are in the NFL; Pats fans cursed Belichick's strange affinity for your DBs, most of whom fell well short of other players who could have been drafted in their spots. Great coach, poor drafter.

 

[Alaska_Dawg]

Considering you have to go all the way back to 2004 to find a PAC-12 national championship winner, I'm wondering the same thing.

I'll tell ya what. Let the PAC go to an 8 game conference schedule seeing how it's been playing a 9 game conference schedule for years now, let ESPN take over the PAC Network and let's see how many PAC teams get chose by the bs BCS who was taking SEC teams over undefeated PAC teams to play in the bs BCS championship game.

You must be new to this game.

 

[Dpgru]

I have no idea how to justify why I feel the way I do about this game but as I look at it I would not be surprised if RU is beaten by a double digit margin and at the same time I would not be surprised if we win. I truly believe we are better than people give us credit for but I just don't know how much better. As a result I just don't know what to expect. I do know that I will be really disappointed if we are blown out. I am excited about this season, more so than I can remember, and would really like it to get off on a good note.

 

[Alaska_Dawg]

I have no idea how to justify why I feel the way I do about this game but as I look at it I would not be surprised if RU is beaten by a double digit margin and at the same time I would not be surprised if we win. I truly believe we are better than people give us credit for but I just don't know how much better. As a result I just don't know what to expect. I do know that I will be really disappointed if we are blown out. I am excited about this season, more so than I can remember, and would really like it to get off on a good note.

This ^^ .. none of us have a clue on what's going to happen this Saturday.

 

[Arizona Knight]

I'll tell ya what. Let the PAC go to an 8 game conference schedule seeing how it's been playing a 9 game conference schedule for years now, let ESPN take over the PAC Network and let's see how many PAC teams get chose by the bs BCS who was taking SEC teams over undefeated PAC teams to play in the bs BCS championship game.

You must be new to this game.

Oregon did so well we given the opportunity recently.

 

[Alaska_Dawg]

Oregon did so well we given the opportunity recently.

You chose one game.... I hope you can pick up your game after that post.

When pvssy conferences were playing 8 game conference schedules .... and I'm talking 14 member conferences, the PAC was eating its own with 9 game conference schedules along with solid OOC games. The PAC never avoided playing its own conference members.

 

[mildone]

I'll tell ya what. Let the PAC go to an 8 game conference schedule seeing how it's been playing a 9 game conference schedule for years now, let ESPN take over the PAC Network and let's see how many PAC teams get chose by the bs BCS who was taking SEC teams over undefeated PAC teams to play in the bs BCS championship game.

You must be new to this game.

The poster whose post I was indirectly responding to had insinuated that the PAC has the best offenses of any power five conference (and therefore, better defenses). I don't think it's unreasonable to question such a statement. Which is what I did.

If a conference has the best offensive and defensive play, then it stands to reason that one of its teams ought to be winning NCAA championships more often. But if you don't like that means of measurement, then chose one that proves that the PAC has the best offenses and defenses. Maybe a head to head comparison of cross conference play between the PAC and teams from the other four conferences would justify his statement.

 

[cubuffsdoug]

Nobody got more out of "coaching up" than Petersen at Boise State. Remember he has been at UW only 2 years. If we compare in-conference records during that time, Washington's mediocre 8-10 is still far better than Rutgers' 4-12. I think you will find that you need to recruit at a higher level to be successful consistently in your current league; Petersen certainly found that when he came to UW.

And as for Rutgers players in the NFL, UW has done quite well in the draft the last 3 years (they were coming out of a dark time for the program) and will be very prominent the next 2 at least. As a long time Patriots fan (from Boston area), we know all too well how many RU alumni are in the NFL; Pats fans cursed Belichick's strange affinity for your DBs, most of whom fell well short of other players who could have been drafted in their spots. Great coach, poor drafter.

I get it. We all use facts to fit our agenda or point of view. It's called shaping one's perspective. You know as well as I do the Pac 12 is not as difficult as the B1G, so the strength of league schedule makes it difficult to compare. I'll play you now, why not compare overall record for the last 15 years. That's a better indicator of success.

UW since 2002:
7-6
6-6
1-10
2-9
5-7
4-9
0-12
5-7
7-6
7-6
7-6
9-4
8-5
7-6

RU since 2002:
1-11
5-7
4-7
7-5
11-2
8-5
8-5
9-4
4-8
9-4
9-4
6-7
8-5
4-8

You know what I like best about this is how HC Peterson is the real start of Washington Huskies return to football royalty. I guess guys like Sarkisian and Willingham don't count. UW has been as best average the last few years. Not much different than Rutgers. You argument is like claim your the tallest midget.

Next, you went after the Rutgers players on New England. Have they really been that bad it's has costed them championships? Belichick's love for Rutgers players has to do with them being well coached and ready to play at the next level. The core players from Rutgers have done well for NE. This does go back to my point about coaching up players when they get to college once you get pass the class rankings. It's easy to spot your dislike for Rutgers. You can go and Alaska Dawg can stay.

 

[Arizona Knight]

You chose one game.... I hope you can pick up your game after that post.

When pvssy conferences were playing 8 game conference schedules .... and I'm talking 14 member conferences, the PAC was eating its own with 9 game conference schedules along with solid OOC games. The PAC never avoided playing its own conference members.

That was the most recent example I could think of where a PAC 14/12 team played in the Championship. Perhaps I missed one or two which you can add to the thread.

 

[Alaska_Dawg]

That was the most recent example I could think of where a PAC 14/12 team played in the Championship. Perhaps I missed one or two which you can add to the thread.

Oregon played Auburn and lost by 3 pts. Fact of the matter is the BCS was ran by ESP1N which happens to own the SEC Network hence the reason there was a Bama vs LSU BCS natty game. It was that kind of bs that got us a four team playoff.

 

[Alaska_Dawg]

I get it. We all use facts to fit our agenda or point of view. It's called shaping one's perspective. You know as well as I do the Pac 12 is not as difficult as the B1G, so the strength of league schedule makes it difficult to compare. I'll play you now, why not compare overall record for the last 15 years. That's a better indicator of success.

UW since 2002:
7-6
6-6
1-10
2-9
5-7
4-9
0-12
5-7
7-6
7-6
7-6
9-4
8-5
7-6

RU since 2002:
1-11
5-7
4-7
7-5
11-2
8-5
8-5
9-4
4-8
9-4
9-4
6-7
8-5
4-8

You know what I like best about this is how HC Peterson is the real start of Washington Huskies return to football royalty. I guess guys like Sarkisian and Willingham don't count. UW has been as best average the last few years. Not much different than Rutgers. You argument is like claim your the tallest midget.

Next, you went after the Rutgers players on New England. Have they really been that bad it's has costed them championships? Belichick's love for Rutgers players has to do with them being well coached and ready to play at the next level. The core players from Rutgers have done well for NE. This does go back to my point about coaching up players when they get to college once you get pass the class rankings. It's easy to spot your dislike for Rutgers. You can go and Alaska Dawg can stay.

Would you like to compare schedules during those years?

 

[cubuffsdoug]

Would you like to compare schedules during those years?

Actually I just wanted that guy to go away. We're all good. [cheers]

 

[urbanecane]

You know what is funny all those superior recruiting classes resulted in a similar record and during that time UW had better coaching. Oh, maybe it was another hype job. You know the one where recruits receive a bump in ranking due to where they commit. Rankings have a way of lying. We have learned it's not what the classes look like coming in, but how they perform when they get to college. Rutgers is known for getting the most out of little recruited kids. Just look at the number of Rutgers players in the league.

Most of the guys RU put in the league were high profile recruits though. Schiano got the ball rolling with Rice and the McCourty twins, but recently it's been 4* guys like Britt, Davis, Ryan, Carroo, Savage and the occasional high 3* like Harmon and Kroft. That "program on the rise that develops the under-recruited" reputation was gone about halfway through Flood's tenure.

 

[beaced]

I think we win outright. #yolo

Are YOU listening up THERE?

 

[beaced]

I truly cannot pull up a score on this game.Too many unknowns on our part. Wish that we play well. Hope that we WIN. This game is the FIRST step towards a FUTURE that WILL be BRIGHT. WIN OR LOSE!

 

[Arizona Knight]

Oregon played Auburn and lost by 3 pts. Fact of the matter is the BCS was ran by ESP1N which happens to own the SEC Network hence the reason there was a Bama vs LSU BCS natty game. It was that kind of bs that got us a four team playoff.

Honestly, my bad. For some reason I thought Oregon got their doors blown off.

 

[Alaska_Dawg]

Honestly, my bad. For some reason I thought Oregon got their doors blown off.

They did by Ohio St. the year before last.

 

[hanoverian]

I get it. We all use facts to fit our agenda or point of view. It's called shaping one's perspective. You know as well as I do the Pac 12 is not as difficult as the B1G, so the strength of league schedule makes it difficult to compare. I'll play you now, why not compare overall record for the last 15 years. That's a better indicator of success.

UW since 2002:
7-6
6-6
1-10
2-9
5-7
4-9
0-12
5-7
7-6
7-6
7-6
9-4
8-5
7-6

RU since 2002:
1-11
5-7
4-7
7-5
11-2
8-5
8-5
9-4
4-8
9-4
9-4
6-7
8-5
4-8

You know what I like best about this is how HC Peterson is the real start of Washington Huskies return to football royalty. I guess guys like Sarkisian and Willingham don't count. UW has been as best average the last few years. Not much different than Rutgers. You argument is like claim your the tallest midget.

Next, you went after the Rutgers players on New England. Have they really been that bad it's has costed them championships? Belichick's love for Rutgers players has to do with them being well coached and ready to play at the next level. The core players from Rutgers have done well for NE. This does go back to my point about coaching up players when they get to college once you get pass the class rankings. It's easy to spot your dislike for Rutgers. You can go and Alaska Dawg can stay.

Seriously? I have never followed Rurgers and could care less. I gave you my perspective and you got ridiculous (eg, 15 years) . And I am sure even you could tell Willingham was the bottom.

You might also be aware Sark became known as "seven win Steve" although he broke through to nine in his last year. The sense though is that Petersen is a huge upgrade but this year may or may not demonstrate that.

Sorry if my Pats related comments came across badly. I can see how my wording was less than ideal. I guess the sense in NE was almost always that better players were available and the team had bigger needs than what seemed like an endless supply of Rutgers DBs. And yes, I think the consensus up there is that dubious draft choices have probably cost them a couple of rings, but it is hard to really criticize Belichick's achievements,

I'm gone. Enjoy the game. I suspect you will keep it close but not win

 

[moondawgie]

Seriously? I have never followed Rurgers and could care less. I gave you my perspective and you got ridiculous (eg, 15 years) . And I am sure even you could tell Willingham was the bottom.

You might also be aware Sark became known as "seven win Steve" although he broke through to nine in his last year. The sense though is that Petersen is a huge upgrade but this year may or may not demonstrate that.

Sorry if my Pats related comments came across badly. I can see how my wording was less than ideal. I guess the sense in NE was almost always that better players were available and the team had bigger needs than what seemed like an endless supply of Rutgers DBs. And yes, I think the consensus up there is that dubious draft choices have probably cost them a couple of rings, but it is hard to really criticize Belichick's achievements,

I'm gone. Enjoy the game. I suspect you will keep it close but not win

Sark only won 8.

 

[cubuffsdoug]

Seriously? I have never followed Rurgers and could care less. I gave you my perspective and you got ridiculous (eg, 15 years) . And I am sure even you could tell Willingham was the bottom.

You might also be aware Sark became known as "seven win Steve" although he broke through to nine in his last year. The sense though is that Petersen is a huge upgrade but this year may or may not demonstrate that.

Sorry if my Pats related comments came across badly. I can see how my wording was less than ideal. I guess the sense in NE was almost always that better players were available and the team had bigger needs than what seemed like an endless supply of Rutgers DBs. And yes, I think the consensus up there is that dubious draft choices have probably cost them a couple of rings, but it is hard to really criticize Belichick's achievements,

I'm gone. Enjoy the game. I suspect you will keep it close but not win

You're the one that came here for your first post talking s***. Alaska dawg posted here and nobody had a problem with him. He makes his point without being nasty. Even when you try to apologize you still come across as an a******. You're the visitor to an opponent's board, so you don't want to come across as d*ck. We don't have to agree but you don't have to come off like that.