Advertising

The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds | seattletimes.com

Huskies


Our network sites seattletimes.com | Advanced

Husky Football Blog

Times reporter Bob Condotta keeps the news coming about the Montlake Dawgs.

E-mail Bob| RSS feeds Subscribe | Blog Home

May 27, 2008 6:02 PM

Programming note

Posted by Bob Payne

Bob Condotta is taking some time off this week, so posts will be sporadic at best.

Digg Digg | Newsvine Newsvine

Submit a comment

*Required Field



Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Posted by HMFD 82

6:05 PM, May 27, 2008

First!!!

Go Dawgs!!!

Posted by wow

6:58 PM, May 27, 2008

condotta's lazy....

haha I'm j/k

enjoy your time off!!

Posted by mutt

7:28 PM, May 27, 2008

Time off.....from doing what, just jerking your chain...enjoy!

Posted by huskiesjv

7:38 PM, May 27, 2008

Well deserved. Thanks for all the updates Bob.

Posted by brchco12

9:04 PM, May 27, 2008

i hope everythings alright, seems like in the past bob said when he'd be taking vacations.

Posted by MD for prez

11:19 PM, May 27, 2008

That's OK. We got MelloDung to give us insights that can't be beat.

Because they don't compete.

Posted by MelloDawg

12:26 AM, May 28, 2008

It's true MD. 11-25 and a career of mediocrity is all the insight you need.

Glad to hear you think that equates to a good coach.

Posted by aemery

8:07 AM, May 28, 2008

Bob and Halseth are getting ready for SeaFair

Posted by jh

9:21 AM, May 28, 2008

...don't you just enjoy someone referring to themselves in the third person...

Posted by shoot me now

10:25 AM, May 28, 2008

mellowdawg, aemery, and jh back to back to back. ugh, that sucked. blah, blah tyrone sucks, blah, blah, mike halseth blah, blah, whistling in the graveyard, blah, blah.

Posted by williams3

12:19 PM, May 28, 2008

Which Polk will have more total yards next year? Chris, running/recieving or Jordan, on returns?

Despite his height, Jordan just might be quite the get from the state of oregon. Clearly he's fast, and watching his highlight film, looks like he has great vision on the football field...

Posted by HMFD 82

3:04 PM, May 28, 2008

williams3,

thats a no brainer, Chris obviously. Jordan will be lucky to even see the field, I believe they'll try and redshirt him with all the talent at WR. But then again, the total of WRs isn't what it was, a lot of young guys. Plus they have to rebuild depth at that specific position. Jordans only chance is at the return position, which he could take it with his speed.

There's a lot of hype/pressure on Chris, and I wasn't too impressed with him at the spring game. But the spring game is the wrong place for me to evaluate him, since the coaches have seen him a hell of a lot more than i have, so whatever. Just a feeling of mine...

I was walking from the Graves Building to Hec Ed the other day, when Donatell walked out of Hec Ed, and man that guy looks intimidating. I gave a nod and he nodded right back, but he seemed so serious and business like...I can not wait to see the new defense.

Alright, lets keep it going...Which LBs will have the most tackles, biggest hits, maybe a freshman like Kurt Mangum(unless he's redshirting) will have a late impact in the season, etc...

Go Dawgs!!!

Posted by ShamedCoug

3:13 PM, May 28, 2008

Regarding the Cougs pulling Schidtke's scholarship, I have the following questions:

1) Both Hicks and Roof have tripped up multiple times and are still are part of the team. Calvin did have some other stuff but tripped up just once after his offer. Why is he being treated differently?

2) We were docked 6 schollies by the NCAA for poor academics. Is this part of the fallout? Howmany scholarship players would we have had with Schmidtke? Please no spinnning numbers.

3) Was Calvin simply offered as a means to try and get Kavario and/ or Jermanine to come to Pullman.

Posted by Gabe

3:16 PM, May 28, 2008

Despite myself, I'm starting to see MelloDawg as the anti-hero, like a scrappy guy from Baltimore or Philly or some other burned out city, who just won't accept that reality has dealt him a bad hand, he just keeps on pushing and yaking and hoping against hope that someone might listen to him, that he might get just a little bit of respect. But no. He's the axel that needs some oil, the guy who makes this country run despite itself, the kind of guy who got under the skin of 10,000 drill sargeants, and at least two I've known, over the last century. The Constitution and the Seattle Times say he's entitled to his Ty-rades. He has a point of view, sort of, and once in a while a point, and as long as he's griping about some guy who makes over a million a year coaching a game and hasn't produced tangible results to date, then we should all cut him a little slack. And if TW ever does produce a winning season, then Mello will have to stop his Ty-rades and shut up, at least for a little bit. (But we know he won't.)

Posted by Gabe

3:20 PM, May 28, 2008

And Troy Must Be Destroyed.

Posted by Formerly Guest

4:03 PM, May 28, 2008

Gabe,

I think a lot of what Mello says makes a lot of sense. I think the attacks against him are more a response to his daily unsolicited delivery.


Shamed Coug, who is this guy you are talking about?


HMFD 82,
I may be in left field but I was actually quite impressed with Polk in the spring game. He looked like a Beno Bryant guy. Faster and more certain about the hole than anybody else I have seen in Purple in quite some time.

Posted by MelloDawg

4:11 PM, May 28, 2008

Gabe and FG,

God bless you both. I appreciate the comments. For a blog entry with only one sentence, I like the tone of its subsequent thread.

The cost per win based on Ty's contract should be obvious to the point where I don't need to point it out. He's making $1.5 million and has won 11 games over 3 years.

There's just nothing else to discuss. The "which player do you think will have an impact" question has been answered, as has the "do you think Coach X's new schemes and attitude will help?"

The Oregon game isn't for another 3 months.

As for whether or not I'll shut up if Ty produces a winning season, he's got to do it two years in a row to prove he's legitimate as a Husky football coach. I know we grasp at straws for any kind of legtimacy for our program/players/coach, but we shouldn't, by any means, say "We're back!!!" if we produce one good season out of 4 under the Ty regime.

Two consecutive 8 win seasons and I'm back on the Ty wagon.

Posted by pdxdawg

4:29 PM, May 28, 2008

I fell off the Ty bandwagon about midseason last year, but I'm still (and always will be) a lifelong Dawg fan, so for the sake of the team/program, I hope he proves all the doubters wrong. Like it or not, I realize he's the man in charge for at least one more year, so I choose to accept it and hope for the best. My biggest criticism was his loyalty to others (i.e. Baer and Williams), but at least they're gone, plus you have to admit he has a fairly good recruiting class coming in, so that should give us at least some optimism that things are headed in the right direction. As for Mellow (and anyone else anti Ty), I have no problem with them. It makes the blog that much more interesting, especially during the offseason when news is few and far between. Plus, the guy obviously bleeds purple and gold, and any Husky fan is OK with me, even if we don't always see eye to eye. Besides, if he doesn't prove himself this season, I have no doubts Turner will do the right thing and replace Willingham. Just my opinion.

Posted by Bob (Not C.)

4:59 PM, May 28, 2008

Ty has his strengths and weaknesses, like anyone else. His main weakness is his play-calling. He seems to leave that to his coordinators, so a lot of his success is tied directly to them. Baer was absolutely horrible. Lappano is inconsistent.

If Donatell works out, and Lappano improves a bit, then I see Ty being successful. The problem with putting so much on your coordinators is simple: coordinators leave, for head coaching jobs or the NFL.

Posted by mutt

5:01 PM, May 28, 2008

I bet Mello, went and washed his mouth out with soap after his last post.

Posted by Sandinista

6:54 PM, May 28, 2008

Good news everyone. Just over six months left of this ridiculous era of Ty Ball.

Come the Monday after the Cal game, Ty will be gone.

At this time last year, we already had five commits. This year we have ZERO. What does Ty care? He is stealing millions of dollars from the UW either way.

Posted by MelloDawg

7:43 PM, May 28, 2008

mutt,

See that's the thing; I've said numerous times that I was a Ty supporter for the first 2.5 years. After we fell out of bowl contention last year and lost to teams like Arizona, WSU, and Oregon St, it sort of sealed the deal for me. Heck, we had Hawaii until an absolute meltdown in the 2nd half (as per the usual).

If Ty strings together a couple 8 win seasons, great. The problem is that he has only done that 3 times in 13 years.

Posted by mutt

9:05 PM, May 28, 2008

I watched all the games to Mello!, I'm not disagreeing with you....in fact I think you usually have a good point no matter of the others, or utters say, you stick to your epistolaries.
I don't have a personel side to TW, I don't think he's coach enough to sustain a winning program???

Posted by Formerly Guest

10:43 PM, May 28, 2008

Mello,

I agree with a lot of your points, but disagree on two-

1) I like that TW is our coach this year
2) There is plenty of other stuff to discuss besides TW's retention. The Ty debate is old and stale, and I would much rather discuss plenty of other sh*t-
-recruiting
-other teams' problems
-who will play what next year

These topics too are old, but not as beaten as "I don't like our coach..." "That band guy who keeps posting he doesn't like our coach is a whiner..." "Hey, I'm a money-paying fan too! I don't have to like the coach."

I find most of your criticisms of Ty hard to counter, and make sense to me. And certainly you aren't the only one calling for his job all off-season. But the debate is old.

At least discussing a premature replacement strategy, while in poor and sour form, would be a nice change from the same old ranting of "Good man, decent coach!" versus "Losingham! Losingham!"

Posted by HarborDawg

6:32 AM, May 29, 2008

Hey you guys, I've been staying in the shadows and will be lurking till August but seriously...does anyone know of Bob's status?

Hoping he is just stepping away for a bit and it's not something more serious.

Bob, come back so we know you're ok.

GO DAWGS

Posted by onewoodwacker

6:35 AM, May 29, 2008

Geez Bob - now that you have all this time on your hands you want to do some community service in the form of "Honey-Do" list items?

I was hoping for your input on Eric Smiley and why we haven't offered him yet since I asked you 3 weeks ago. Someone must have started vacation a little early!!

OK - just giving you some crap!! Have a good time.

Shamed Coug; I wouldn't take the release of Schidtke too personal - the Cougs already have 6 QB's of scholarship. With a limited number to give out over the next few years; I'm sure Wulff is going to use them to bring in Linemen first - everything else second. Winning the line-of-scrimmage is and will always be the key to winning football games.

A D-Line that can control the running game is almost always a winning situation.

I've seen so many supposedly "great" RB's reduced to "average" when there is a bad O-line blocking for them and vice-versa.

I just went to your recruiting site and Wulff's first commitment this year is Geoff Meinken
a DE from Lynnwood HS. I think you're going to see a lot of this type of recruiting from Wulff for the next few years.

Posted by onewoodwacker

6:49 AM, May 29, 2008

Mello - man;

The "Nation" is still giving you crap?

I will say this - I'm not, by nature, an "I see the glass half empty" kind of guy. I try to see the best in every situation, but it's not very often that the people on this site back up their beliefs with stats the way you do. Most of us go on blind faith and/or hope.

I see Ty's biggest problem being his managerial skills. A guy who has to have a finger in every pot usually doesnít last too long as a Manager. I want to see Ty turn this team over to his Coordinators this year. It's hard to put your future in someone else's hand but isn't that the true essences of Football? Trusting your team-mates to do their job?

Posted by Pat

7:30 AM, May 29, 2008

It now appears that the UW is the only PAC-10 school without a 2009 football commit.
Comments?

Posted by OlyDawg

8:14 AM, May 29, 2008

I see us picking up 3 or 4 recruits in a span of a few weeks if we just get one big name to commit. My hope is for Deandre Coleman (what a beast).

But I do think we need to get one commit in the next month or we are asking for trouble. Not too worried yet though. Ty was very methodical when choosing a new DC, and I think he chose very well based on what I saw at the spring game. My hope is that he is methodically recruiting some great guys behind the scenes.

Posted by SpokaneDawg

8:35 AM, May 29, 2008


Mello,

In fact Ty has managed to "string together" 8+ winning seasons only once, and that was at two different school (his last at Stanford and first at ND). Of course, such stats are meaningless to those of us who look at the bigger picture unless you can put them into some sort of usefull context, e.g. what other coaches have put together consecutive 8+ winning seasons at Stanford, etc., etc., etc.

Posted by Reality Check

10:32 AM, May 29, 2008

So, I'll come to mello's aid with some more thoughts. Folks get tired of the numbers, I know. 11 - 25 record. 5 - 15 over his last 20 games. Worst defense ever. etc. Okay, got it.

Since this information is old and recycled, I'll take things a new direction. I've noticed Ty is given a ton of slack because the "program was such a mess when he arrived." So, I'll submit this in response.

How is it that Cal is now a winning program? That team STUNK for years yet Tedford has them winning. And for anyone who knows that school at all, their fan base and support level is a joke compared to UW. How did Oregon State go from annual doormat to winning 8+ games per year? How did Boise State go 12-0 and win the Fiesta Bowl?

The fact is, good (or great) coaches can come in, take a pile of garbage, and turn it into something good. Losers come in, make excuses for not winning, and continue to lose. (The "not enough bullets in the gun" quote comes to mind about now.)

I'm like many others where I was on the Ty-wagon until mid way through last year. When I saw a potentially good season completely fall apart under his "leadership", I realized he wasn't the guy for the job.

I hope like hell that he wins 8+ games next year. And I hope he shocks many of us and is a successful coach here for many, many years of great, winning seasons. But, given what I've seen, I absolutely do not believe this will happen as long as he's here.

So, there you go Mello. You've got a fan and supporter out there!

Posted by MelloDawg

10:53 AM, May 29, 2008

Spokane,

I know the two consecutive 8+ win seasons only happened once, I should have been more clear. I meant that Ty had only won 8+ games 3 times in his career (perhaps a worse stat?). The whole argument regarding Ty winning those games at Stanford is kind of a retread argument. Does that make it more impressive? Was he not supposed to win at that school?

--------------------------------

FG,

Obviously I'm of a different mindset in regards to Ty being our coach. Actually, I don't really care WHO our coach is as long as we win. If Ty can string together a couple seasons, he'll be the man for the job. Until he does that though, I can't say I agree with him at the top.

---------------------------

onewood,

That's the problem with Ty though, right? He feels the need to control everything on his team (granted, I understand that's sort of the role of the head coach). If he can really let Donatell impart his wisdom unto the defense and get a new attitude in place, then perhaps Ty can change his spots. He's got to trust his assistants.

He has to let go of some of his old ways if he wants to keep his job.

Posted by Formerly Guest

11:00 AM, May 29, 2008

Pat,
it's nice to be known for something, right?

Posted by Formerly Guest

11:03 AM, May 29, 2008

Mello,
Agreed. I just think it is an old - and worthless- debate until we get more data next fall on how our program is doing.

It seems I am in the minority on this, as many of us continue the debate...

Posted by Reality Check

11:16 AM, May 29, 2008

I think the reason I feel compelled to chime in on the Ty situation stems from the concern over some of the comments I'm reading.

I've noticed more and more comments creeping into the blog about "tough schedule" or "with Juan injured now" or "2009 looks great" etc.

I think 2008 is the year (for me) where Ty either wins or leaves. I don't want to hear more excuses for why we can't win. Frankly, I think he had the tools to win in 2007. In my opinion, he simply didn't perform.

Whatever the case, I just don't want to go 5-7 in 2008 and then have folks defending this as improvement and using the hope of 2009 as a reason to keep him around. In my book, he must prove he is a winning coach in 2008 or he must go. I'm tired of the excuses at this point. I've seen a lot of other coaches win a lot of games with much smaller budgets, less talent, and less support overall. Frankly, I think it is nothing short of stunning to think we've paid the man $4.5 million for such a pathetic showing on the field!

Posted by Gabe

11:47 AM, May 29, 2008

Does anybody know who the last of our big-time, highly successful recruits was out of Southern California? By that I mean south of Tahachapies, not Fresno or Sacramento or south San Jose. I'm talking about someone who was a highly regarded recruit and actually performed big time.

I ask because I think a basic problem we have here is geography. Kids who grow up in So Cal think they live in paradise and at the center of the universe. They might be lured as far north as Berkeley by a charasmatic coach, but they are disinclined to come to a rainy place in the extreme northwest corner of the contiguous states. I know because I grew up there. The best kid on our h.s. team a few years after I left went to San Diego State; nine years later he was AFC player of the year. Can't imagine he would have gone to soggy Seattle, or even knew where it was. I think to really recruit in So Cal you need somebody who is well known there and can convince kids to come. Someone who can be a pipeline year to year. A recruiting trip by a UW assistant now and then doesn't do it. Unforturately, Ricky N was the only guy we've had who really fit that bill to a tee. It's a huge population to ignore. We must find a way to do better there. I realize TW has at least one very good prospect from the L.A. backyard of this year. That may be an aberration, or may be a start. I don't know how he did that. Any ideas?

Troy Must Be Destroyed.

Posted by The Law

12:26 PM, May 29, 2008

Don't forget about Illinois being the joke of the Big 10 for many years and in year 3 Ron Zook had them in the ROSE BOWL.

Where did Tyrone have us in year 3? Still at the bottom of the league.

I'm not surprised that recruiting is not going too well right now. That is what Tyrone does. One good season, one bad season. One good class, one bad class. One good half, one bad half. One good play. One bad play.

He has never led a consistent winner. Never sustained anything. Why do you people think that he will suddenly start doing it now?

Posted by AJ

12:39 PM, May 29, 2008

Why haven't we offered Eric Smiley yet? If we don't offer soon, freaking Ole Miss or Arkansas will take him. He's a four star DT/DE who grew up here and wants to come home. Snag him soon, and watch the other recruits follow.

Posted by Dave

12:40 PM, May 29, 2008

Gabe it depends on what you mean by "big time" but the answer to your first Q is probably Dashon Goldson. Stan Daniels also springs to mind.

Your big picture points re geography are exactly why destroying Troy is never gonna happen. If you look really closely no Husky coach has ever consistently outrecruited the LA schools for SoCal high school superstars. Never happened, never will.Trust me they are not ignoring SoCal but consistently pulling off upsets like Polk is never gonna happen for all the reasons you cite. About the most we can expect is to dominate PNW recruiting, become the mainland destination of choice for island kids who want to get off the rock, and mix in some diamonds in the rough from CA and elsewhere (Foster, Aiyewa) with the occasional upset like Polk or Napoleon Kaufman. That would be enough to destroy Niketown (figuratively) which is really our most important goal. Love your work, though.

Posted by DAWGONE in AZ

12:43 PM, May 29, 2008

Quick Question:

Does anyone know why Bob is gone all of a sudden?

I hope it's nothing bad for him...kinda think that the TIMES should at least say a quick blurb on here if it's NOT serious.

By the way...it's 95 right now in Scottsdale...haha!

Posted by 2Tite4U FoSho

12:56 PM, May 29, 2008

forty first forty first forty first forty first forty first forty first

Jeez bob c'mon back. I gots to go to perezhilton and other places to try and be "first". We misses U big guy.

Posted by Gabe

1:07 PM, May 29, 2008

Dave, as usual your points are very well taken re So Cal. Perhaps Hawaii willl be a bit of a counterbalance. Also, there are so many kids in So Cal that we should continue to look for more of those diamonds in the rough. They might have been all stars in the NW. I have to think it's worth the effort if UW can make the right connection down there. Often it's through an assistant coach who knows others there. I agree Oregon is the first order of business every year and that seems a huge challenge in itself. But there was a time when we frequently beat, if not entirely dominated, USC. I think we can come back to that point, especially if the NCAA has the guts to meaningfully sanction one of their biggest television draws. Anyway, you have to have high aspirations, so I still say Troy Must Be Destroyed.

P.S. Like anyone else, Bob can use some time off. This is pretty much a dead time in his sports merry go round. Doing the day to day reporting is hard enough, and this blog no doubt gets to be a ball and chain at times. Besides, he might be out there out there chasing down the real story on whether the Bayou Boys involved TW in the decisionmaking to schedule LSU----or just told him that's what they intended to do.

Posted by BTown Fan

2:48 PM, May 29, 2008

I like the enthusiasm Gabe. I just want to point out that during our glory years we did land many top-notch athletes out of So. Cal. To name a few:

Mark Brunell
Jaime Fields
Napoleon Kaufman
Chico Fraley
Tommie Smith
Darius Turner
Beno Bryant
Dana Hall

Posted by 206dogg

2:53 PM, May 29, 2008

Reality Check-
Regarding your quote:
I think 2008 is the year (for me) where Ty either wins or leaves. I don't want to hear more excuses for why we can't win. Frankly, I think he had the tools to win in 2007. In my opinion, he simply didn't perform.

I don't hear many people disagreeing with this statement. I think the distain comes from the constant banter by Mello and others simply stating there opinions over and over and over again. WE GET IT.
I agree that Ty needs to WIN and WIN in 2008. I do think that the previous years lack of success was due to his horrendous DC and OC. However, I think Lappano is willing to check himself and take in new ideas where Baer simply wanted to rule the roost all to himself (he was very territorial over his Defense). With the addition of new offensive coaches, many ideas have already been injected into the offense. I believe these new ideas, inspired by White and Gervais, will help to hold defenses in place, slow their read/react time and put opposing defenses on there heals. THIS DOESN'T INCLUDE ALL THE DEFENSIVE CHANGES TAKING PLACE.

I believe this is the reason why so many of us are being optimistic this year, rather than following Mello. However, the answer to all of this will only be known after the first 3 games.

Posted by Husky Fan In New York

2:55 PM, May 29, 2008

Don't forget Lincoln Kennedy.

Posted by Dave

2:56 PM, May 29, 2008

Btown you are right that all those guys were top notch athletes. Still you are talking about 8 guys over a period of what, four or five recruiting classes there, at the absolute pinnacle of UW recruiting ever. And even then, not all of them were head to head recruiting "wins" over USC. For example Mark Brunell came to UW and was regarded as the second best (or maybe third) QB in Cali that year behind Todd Marinovich (and maybe Tommy Maddox who went to UCLA). Now I would much rather have had Brunell than the unfortunate robo-QB both at the time and of course looking back on it now. But the point is that we did not beat out USC for him, we just were able to get the right guy because they wanted Marinovich.

Posted by onewoodwacker

3:02 PM, May 29, 2008

OK Husky Nation I need some help concerning a discussion with a fellow husky fan and blogger named John.

John contends that we ran the "Spread" as our base offense last year and I contend that we ran a variation of the "I" Formation.

I say that with 329 of our 532 rushing attempts coming from RB's and with Paul Homer being the lead blocker on most of those attempts it hard to say we were in the spread. Especially since the spread is usually ran with no backs in the backfield.
That we only had 385 pass attempts last year is another reason for me saying that we did not run the spread as our base offense.

What you say Husky Nation? Thanks Onewood

Posted by Formerly Guest

3:06 PM, May 29, 2008

Dave and Btown,

Wasn't Brunell from the Sacramento area?

Also, I started college in S. Cal during fall of 1991. I remember watching the USC game. Our offense struggled a little, we only won 14-3, Beno was our offense with about 150 yards and 2 TDs.

The papers made a big deal down there about how stupid it was that USC had passed over Beno, as he had really wanted to go there, and he enjoyed sticking it to them every year for the Dawgs.

So Beno was like 2nd or 3rd best as well. Maybe he was passed over due to concerns about being so small...

As I recall, Fraley was also not that highly sought. He was seen as too small for LB, and a bit of a reach. I may be messing this up, as I think I was a freshman or sophomore in HS at the time.

Posted by Gabe

3:09 PM, May 29, 2008

Btown, that's really an excellent list you put together. Some Husky greats there, particularly Brunell and Kaufman. Maybe we'll see someone with Kaufman's speed and grit in this incoming class. Believe Kaufman was from East Bay, not So Cal, but I may be wrong. Whichever, I take this list as demonstrating how things have fallen off in So Cal recruiting. No doubt it's easier to recruit anywhere when you're a powerhouse progam with a legedary coach. Look at Nebraska and Notre Dame, among others, in their glory years. I happen to think UW can still recruit in So Cal, despite the challenges, and there are some signs they are doing it, but it will take real effort and a network of connections that seems to have fallen apart in recent years. Other areas where we've had success in past, such as Bay Area, Stockton-Sacramento and Fresno shouldn't be overlooked. The population out in the central valley just keeps growing. Troy Must Be Destroyed.

Posted by Dave

3:13 PM, May 29, 2008

As to "the time when we frequently beat, if not entirely dominated, USC." Jim Owens went 3-15-1 against USC. DJ who was our greatest modern coach went 9-8 against them. Lambo went 2-3-1, Neu went 1-2, and we all know what's happened since. We're 26-48-4 against them overall and have beaten them by more than 15 points 6 times in history.

With all that as backdrop what can we expect against USC? I think if we get a really good coach we can expect to beat them about half of the time.

Posted by Formerly Guest

3:17 PM, May 29, 2008

Napolean was from Lompoc, south of Santa Barbara, definately S. Cal.

My guess is he was, by far, the most sought after recruit on Btown's list.

Posted by Formerly Guest

3:20 PM, May 29, 2008

Our best times against USC in my lifetime can be defined as the LArry Smith years and the Paul Hackett years. I would think all other Pac-10 programs can say the same.

In other woerds, I think it has been more determined by whom their coach is, rather than whom our coach is.

Posted by Reality Check

3:24 PM, May 29, 2008

2006dogg --

Point taken. I agree.

I think my frustration is a backlash against some of the posts in recent weeks about how "this is a 5 year plan, and it's foolish to stop it in year 4" or "wait until 2009" and that sort of thing.

I'll be glued to my TV August 30th hoping to see signs of life for this program. And my season tickets are bought and paid for -- so I'm hoping and praying for good things. But if 2008 isn't a big success, then I really hope the Ty supporters will please take a long hard look at things and realize that a 5th year isn't going to make a difference.

Posted by Gabe

3:24 PM, May 29, 2008

Dave, your estimate of a best case outcome is pretty hard to argue with. Winning 50 percent of the time against SC, taking into account this would indicate greater success against most other schools, is a pretty nice picture. Reggie Bush might give us an unintended assist if there are bowl disqualifications in the works, though realistically SC will be a recruiting engine regardless. If we got the second or third best player at a position available in So Cal now and then, that's going to be a mighty good player and step forward for this program. Maybe some of these new assistants have what it takes to get the job done there or have prior contacts in the h.s. coaching community. We'll see. In the end, Troy Must Be Destroyed.

Posted by Dave

3:35 PM, May 29, 2008

Agreed Gabe. If offered a .500 stretch over a decade or more vs. USC, I'd take that in a heartbeat as would every other school in America with the possible exception of Notre Dame (UCLA might struggle emotionally with that, but they'd be foolish not to take it, since they're 28-42-7 lifetime vs. the Trojans). Any team capable of doing that would probably be going at least .700 against everybody else.

Formerly Guest, your point is exactly right, but it's also interesting to note that even the bungling Larry Smith went 3-3 against us at USC and threw a scare into the national championship team in a 14-3 loss. It was our misfortune to skip USC in Hackett's last two seasons when we would have beaten USC like a drum. He beat us the one and only time we played them with him as head coach.

Posted by Reality Check

3:37 PM, May 29, 2008

I'm not sold that a roster full of 3 and 4 "star" guys isn't as good or better than a roster full of 5 star guys. Here's my take:

* The 5 star guys have been drooled over for the entire recruiting process. It seems many (not all) of them come in with an attitude.
* The 3 and 4 star guys often have a chip on their shoulder as they weren't deemed "top talent." I think this can translate into better effort and motivation.
* The 5 star guys probably have an eye on the NFL and may even leave early in some cases. Many of the 3 and 4 star guys view college as the promised land. (Sure, some play their way into the NFL, but I don't think they enter college with an eye automatically on the NFL.)
* Programs built on 5 star talent have higher turnover with early defections to the NFL. We're seeing more and more of this each year. I think having a 5th year senior rather than a 3rd or 4th year player can be an asset.

In short, I'm not sold we can't have an elite level program built on 3 and 4 star guys (or red chip guys.) Sure, I'd love as many 5-star guys as we can nab, but I think a blue collar, workman's attitude with a bunch of talented, hard working kids can give us as much or more success as a USC or similar program.

I mean, let's be honest. When you look at the numbers, there's often virtually no difference between a "5 - star" and "4-star" player. Maybe a fraction faster in a 40, or a few pounds heavier, an inch taller, etc. But I think we've seen this can be overcome with hard work, good coaching, and desire.

Posted by Reality Check

3:40 PM, May 29, 2008

(I'm writing in response to the earlier posts about going after elite So Cal talent.) I think snagging all of the top talent in our state, plus a few quality of out of state players is a fine receipe for success!

Posted by Dave

3:48 PM, May 29, 2008

I'm pretty much with you Reality Check. It's just that there's obviously more margin for error with the "5-star" guys since those are going to be the guys who are obvious potential all americans. Great coaching and attitude can make up the difference though as long as there's a certain baseline of athletic ability. I continue to argue that the whole emphasis on "ranking" classes is an attempt to quantify the unquantifiable, esp. after seeing our program darn near destroyed over the careers of our classes of '01 and '02, who at the time they came in were supposed to be hot stuff.

Posted by Tarn

3:55 PM, May 29, 2008

I found Bob. That's him in photo #7a. Pretty sure. I recognize the pickup.
http://www.awfulgames.com/fun/womenlivelonger/

Posted by Formerly Guest

4:08 PM, May 29, 2008

Dave,
thanks for your facts on how we REALLY did head to head against Hacket and Smith's USC teams. Pretty enlightening, and really undercuts my faulty memories.

Posted by Husky Ron in LA

4:13 PM, May 29, 2008

Napolean Kaufman was from Lompoc, which is north of Santa Barbara.

I believe that Mark Brunnell was from Santa Maria, which is also north of Santa Barbara and is considered Central Coast of California, near the ocean.

Fourth attempt.

Posted by onewoodwacker

4:14 PM, May 29, 2008

Can anyone tell me if we ran the Spread or I Formation as a base offense last year?

Posted by Dave

4:14 PM, May 29, 2008

Your larger point is right on, though, and I would phrase it this way (and I bet you'd agree): any Pac-10 team's chances of beating USC on a non-fluke basis has more to do with the quality of USC's coaching than anything else. If their coaching is down a little (Hackett, Smith, Robinson II) it is somewhat realistic. If their coaching is solid (Robinson I, Carroll) it's going to be tough for anyone to handle them, ever.

Posted by Formerly Guest

4:26 PM, May 29, 2008

Dave,
agreed.


OWW,
I think John answered your query pretty well in the last thread. From one of his posts-
'OWW: I'm sorry, but you're wrong to assume that we didn't run out of the spread.

Perhaps you're thinking of the NFL. In NFL Spread offenses (where they will either line up in shotgun or single-back formation) more plays will be passes, with the runs being mainly draws.

In college spread offenses, since the quarterback is usually a threat to run (as is the case with the Huskies), there are commonly more runs than passes when using the spread. Maybe you remember that play where Jake and a back would line up in shotgun, Jake would fake the handoff to the back and run in the other direction. Or he would hand it off. Seemed like we ran that play 10 times a game."

My undertsanding of the college spread is it is usuallya running QB and 1 RB in the backfield, making 2 threats to run the ball.

I think I saw Jake 10+ times/game last yr hand off to a back out of the shotgun and fake a run himself, or keep it after faking the handoff.

I think in the Stanford game and the Cal game (which I didn't see), we did more of the "i."

We did some weird stuff ouf of the spread at times, like have Homer in the backfield with Rankin, and he would lead for the RB and Jake would hand it off and fake a run, or keep it.

So a lot of the times we saw Homer lead block, they were still in the spread.

I don't have an answer for your question, but I think we were in a spread formation more often than in an "I." We looked a lot more like Florida and WVU in what we were trying to do, rather than like the Husky teams of old. The problem is, we weren't very good at it - in my opinion - on a consistent enough basis.

But Lappano said he expects to average 35 pts/game next yr, so whatever he is planning to do, he thinks it is going to work.

Posted by NINETY-ONE

4:28 PM, May 29, 2008

FYI, the PI blog posted an update on Juan Garcia:

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/huskiesfb/archives/139944.asp

Posted by Reality Check

4:52 PM, May 29, 2008

The cougars already weak recruiting class just got weaker!

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3416374

Posted by Dave

5:10 PM, May 29, 2008

perhaps now we know another reason Ty preferred Luther Leonard to Schmidtke

Posted by Gabe

5:14 PM, May 29, 2008

The population of WA is 6.4 million. The population of CA is 36.5 million. CA has 30 million more people. That's a lot. Worth poking around down there for players even if we're getting most of the WA talent.

Great truck pictures. Those guys are definitely in the running for Darwin awards.

Posted by John

5:42 PM, May 29, 2008

OWW:

I wouldn't say either position is wrong (except to say they are both wrong). Our base offense seems to change game-to-game. An impartial observer watchingthe 2007 Cal game would definitely say our base offense is the 2-back I formation, but that same observer might assume our base is spread-option when watching the 2006 UCLA game (can't think of a specific example, I'm just going off some old Seattle Times articles that I found with the search "Lappano spread offense" on the seattletimes.com search above. I linked them in a post on the previous thread, but it says the post is pending approval.).


Our game plans vary pretty wildly compared to a lot of schools. It's not bad if it works, but it's definitely contributing to our lack of consistency. We'll see what happens this year.

Posted by Husky Fan In New York

5:46 PM, May 29, 2008

One fact important to remember is that 5 of our losses were by 7 points or less (none of our 4 wins were by 7 points or less). Plus, the other losses of 7+ points were still competitive games until a little ways into the 4th quarter (except for tOSU loss since Shaw's fumble on the kickoff to start the 2nd half began the snowball in the 3rd quarter).

Honestly, Jake 2.0 and Donatell can be the difference to winning a good amount of those games!!!

http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=812164

Posted by Gabe

5:49 PM, May 29, 2008

Must be getting old. Last time I entirely forgot---and this is inexcusable---that Troy Must Be Destroyed.

Posted by Give 5

6:50 PM, May 29, 2008

Hasn't Coach Willingham and the staff improved our So. Cal recruiting recently? It takes time to build the recruiting relationships. Changing coaches again would just set us back in recruiting.

Posted by bomberboy

7:03 PM, May 29, 2008

yo Melo,
We have been through this before but you define TW sucess as back to back 8 win seasons. SInce 2002 only three PAC-10 teamshave accomplished that, USC (every year), CAL (once), WSU (once) and the only other team to do it twice OSU, the best program pound for poiund in the conference. So you would designate Oregon as a failed program.

I fully agree that UW has been a complete failure for yearsbut four head coaches have contributed significantly to that failure. Waiting for back to back 8 win seasons is a formula for a coaching switch every three years....see Ole Miss, they are still waiting for the second coming of Manning sr and just hire and can coaches every three years....I forsee 6-7 wins for Ty this year, and he will be canned anyway, guarenteeing NOBODY will take this job!

Posted by John

7:07 PM, May 29, 2008

"So you would designate Oregon as a failed program."


So would I.

Posted by mutt

7:55 PM, May 29, 2008

TW said at a coach's conferences just recently responding to a question asked, do you think blacks have a equal opportunity to in coach collage football ( or something like this), he's replay was the numbers speak for themselves.
His outstanding, mind boggling, coaching record speak for it self also...right?

Posted by Formerly Guest

9:14 PM, May 29, 2008

Husky Ron,
Thanks for the correction on Brunell. Are the Hoffman brothers from Sacramento? Perhaps I was thinking of them...

Posted by Formerly Guest

9:18 PM, May 29, 2008

Tarn,
I think that would have to be the link of the month.

Posted by Faction

9:34 PM, May 29, 2008

Hoffmann's were from the Bay Area somewhere.

Tony Parrish was another raw athlete like Chico Fraley and Jaime Fields that was plucked out of the LA area.

Posted by Mo Bay

9:37 PM, May 29, 2008

Congratulations Tyrone Willingham. You have destroyed in three short years what took a century to build. And you've stolen millions of dollars while doing it.

Tyrone Willingham has forever tarnished the once proud legacy of Husky Football.

Posted by Bye Bye Ty

10:26 PM, May 29, 2008

76-76-1 career
33-41 Pac 10
1-5 Bowl games

10th 9th 10th at Washington.

Ty is really turning it around now isn't he?
This is who we are placing our trust in?
Why would a big-time football program have a small-time football coach?

I can't wait for the new AD to get in here and take care of this mess.

Posted by John Q

10:32 PM, May 29, 2008

I heard Tyrone hasn't got any verbals because he doesn't want to help out his successor. He wants to try and sabotage the new coach so he doesn't look like such an idiot when a real coach comes in here and starts winning like Tyrone could never do. Anyone else heard about Tyrone just mailing it in this year and just cashing in his $2.2 million?

Posted by MelloDawg

12:18 AM, May 30, 2008

bomber,

I know you're not intentionally doing this, but you're falling into the trap of comparing UW to other programs that, well, aren't UW (i.e. Ole Miss). I think we, as Husky fans, can come out and say that we expect to have back-to-back 8 win seasons because we're Washington. When we went to the Rose Bowl in 2001 and things semmed on the up and up, woiuld you have said we had no chance to win 8+ for 2 years in a row? Of course not, you'd have said "we're UW, we can do it." USC is USC, but Cal and WSU? We're lightyears ahead of them in football prestige. When they string together 8+ wins, it's a miracle, but when we used to do it, it seemed like old hat. Does anyone remember that?

People have lowered expectations now because of the culture of mediocrity Ty has made some accept. Look at us, some of us are content (note I didn't say "happy") with a 6-6 record in a coach's 4th year. I really wouldn't count on him being fired for going .500 either. If he can at least make a bowl game, he'll stick around.

It's not THAT hard to win 8 games a season if you have a program like we do. You KNOW the potential that we have, it just hasn't been re-tapped yet by a coach who GETS it both on the field and off. We're all Dawgs and we all root for the team, but if we ARE all Dawgs, then we understand that winning 3/4 of our games is not unreasonable.

----------------------------------

I know the 11-25 and the numbers argument gets old after a while, but it can't be stressed enough tha THIS is the person who is at the helm of Husky football. I honestly think some people forget the last 3 years and just say "we'll hope to be better next year."

Posted by onewoodwacker

6:37 AM, May 30, 2008

Reality Check and Dave -

Love most of your posts but have to whole heartedly disagree with your positions on 3-4 star vs. 4-5 star recruits.

If you look at the recruiting of USC, Florida, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Miami, Florida State, Oklahoma, LSU, etc. - the schools who are ALWAYS in contention for the BCS National Championship, they all have one thing in common - they all are recruiting the same kids every year. You look at the top players in almost every state and the same 10 schools are recruiting them.

Yes - every once in a while a Kansas pops up but for the most part it's the same schools getting the same top tier talent every year that sets them apart from the rest of us.

Does this suck as a Husky fan - YES - but that's the way it currently is. Can it change - YES - the Don James era proved that.

Give me the best talent and I'll win in a year - give me the second tier talent and I'll win in 2-3 years - give me mid-level talent and I'll win in 4-5 years.

I don't care how good of coach you are - you can't teach 6-3 225lb Safeties with 4.25 speed (i.e. Taylor Mays) and we line up a 6' 210lb guy with 4.5 and expect to win - and when it's that way at EVERY position you get beat almost every time.

It's like getting the Hollywood Beauty - everyone wants her but only one guy gets her- the rest of us settle for what we can get. Unfortunately, we've had some pretty ugly beauties coming to Washington for the past 5-6 years and our record shows it.

Posted by onewoodwacker

7:04 AM, May 30, 2008

Bomberboy -
You hit the nail on the head. The coaching turn-overís have, in my opinion, been the #1 downfall of this program. Starting with Don James quitting instead of sticking around to see us through the probation years (I'm still pissed about that!!).

Many people seem to spit when the name Lambright is mentioned - bad recruiter, not winning enough - we fired him because these reasons.

In six seasons as head coach he was 44-25-1 and his last recruiting class was the 11-1 2000 rose bowl champs.

You don't think politics; the AD and President don't influence what happens on the field? - think again.

Is Ty the right guy? I just don't know - so far it hasn't worked the way him or us thought it would, but he gets my full support for this year for one reason only - I've yet to see his teams pack it in during a game. Have they lost games they should have won? Yes. Have they made bonehead plays? Yes. Have they ever quit? No. That tells me something about this coach and that's why he has my support this year.

Posted by Tarn

7:15 AM, May 30, 2008

onewoodwacker:
"Give me the best talent and I'll win in a year." BS! At what level?
"I don't care how good of coach you are - you can't teach 6-3 225lb Safeties with 4.25 speed (i.e. Taylor Mays) and we line up a 6' 210lb guy with 4.5 and expect to win"
What about attitude and football sense?
It's the size of the fight in the dog...
" Unfortunately, we've had some pretty ugly beauties coming to Washington for the past 5-6 years and our record shows it."
I would say the USC and Cal. staffs are still wondering what happened to their previous football season that was so promising at the start and before the wheels fell off. I would say their "beauties" were a disaster in the locker room and impossible to mold together as a unit. I'll take an underdog, ugly attitude anytime.

Posted by onewoodwacker

8:34 AM, May 30, 2008

Tarn -

"Give me the best talent and I'll win in a year." BS! At what level? Answer - Any level. Show me a team at any level, who, with inferior talent at every position beats the best players and I'll tell up that's why they call it an "UPSET". Yes- there are upsets but most of the time the best team wins. I for one am tired of winning 2-4 games a year just because I love our players!

And that's exactly why you're happy finishing 11-25 over the past three years - but I am glad you're happy!!

You addressed attitude. If you looked at my very next post you'd see that I praised the kids and coaches for their attitude. Still we finished 4-9, can you really argue and defend that?

Posted by pattapit

8:42 AM, May 30, 2008

Gabe,

You still owe a troy must be destroyed. You stated that one was for the previous post. And then you didn't close your post with troy must be destroyed. Technically that one should have had two.

In no way am I depressed about it, I just wanted to reiterate to everyone and you that TROY MUST BE DESTROYED!

GO DAWGS!

Posted by Dave

9:30 AM, May 30, 2008

One wood, you are right that the same teams tend to get the "five star" guys and always will. And obviously that gives them more slack, as I said before. But RC is right to an extent too. Those guys CAN be beaten if the coaching is right. Otherwise there would never be any upsets and the game would be about lining up on the sideline and throwing our press clippings out on the field.

The 2000 Miami team was one of the most talented college football teams ever assembled, but we beat them. Boise State (and here, we are talking about not "four-star" players, but "two-star") beat Oklahoma. Appalachian State beat Michigan. USC has had more trouble with Oregon State in recent years than with anyone else. etc etc.

Bomber, on the 8 win thing. You have to remember that with the proliferation of bowls we are now talking about a 13-game season. It shouldn't be that tough for a good coach to go 8-5 at a school like UW. That requires going 2-1 in the nonconference, 5-4 in the Pac-10, and beating some third place Mountain West team in the Vegas Bowl or the like.

Put another way, 8+ wins is now pretty much equivalent to having five or fewer losses. We had five or fewer losses EVERY year from 1977 through 2001. Had we played 13 games, there might have been a few of those teams that would have had 6 losses, but probably no more than two, the 6-5 1988 team and the 7-5 1999 team.

Posted by Gabe

9:49 AM, May 30, 2008

Pattapit----you are a philosopher, logician and grammarian all rolled into one, and you are so right about my last post. It should have twice stated: "Troy Must Be Destroyed. " As Dave mentioned yesterday, a .500 record over a number of years against SC would be considered an excellent result. I agree. Knowing that they were losing every other year to UW, and having to face that day in and day out, would shake Troy to its foundations. It would drive them nuts. And as they well know in CA, anything that shakes long enough will eventually fall. Troy Must Be Destroyed. . . . And for good measure, I should also add that Troy Must Be Destroyed.

Posted by SnohomishRick

9:50 AM, May 30, 2008

Bob we really need you back buddy. As several other people have asked about Eric Smiley and why we haven't offered him yet I would also like to know. He has us listed as a High interest team with lots of other offers including USC. Somebody ask Ty to get off the pot and offer this manchild for God's sake.

Posted by Reality Check

10:05 AM, May 30, 2008

onewoodwacker --

Your point is well taken. But I'll take it a different direction. In any given year, how many "5-star" guys come out of Washington? (Or the entire NW for that matter.) Maybe 2 or 3 tops in a great year.

So, unless we're able to go around the country and steal talent), then we really need to make it work with 3 and 4 star guys. I just don't see us pulling guys from their home states to come play at UW. We have a great program, but how many 5-star guys will leave So Cal (USC or UCLA) to come here? (Especially when their boosters are paying them thousands of dollars, and the NCAA won't do squat about it!!!)

Posted by Reality Check

10:11 AM, May 30, 2008

As for the Ty talk, I think I've had my fill of the guy.

What I used to view as quiet confidence is now beginning to feel like ignorant arrogance to me. There was a time when I'd accept his attitude. I believed in him and felt like I could trust his leadership. Now I feel like he has no clue how to win, and his attitude is really starting to bug me.

Some will consider this unfair, but I think he needs to pull off the nearly impossible and win 8 or more games next year to start moving me back into his dwindling camp of supporters. And to really win me back as a believer, he'll need to back up a big season in '08 with at least as much success in '09. (One decent year won't prove a thing to me. He needs to show he can coach a winner year after year -- not just one year in 4!) I feel like we've been incredibly patient as a fan base, but the numbers don't lie. He has been a complete and total failure as our head coach so far.

Posted by Dave

10:39 AM, May 30, 2008

agreed RC, but take heart in this: 8 may be tough this year, but it's by no means impossible. Home games vs. BYU, Oklahoma, Stanford, Oregon State, ND, ASU, UCLA. Of those, really only Oklahoma is at a totally different level than the Dawgs. While ASU should be favored, Erickson's teams often come unglued on the road. The others are eminently winnable. I don't say we'll be favored vs. BYU and ND -- I don't think we deserve to be right now--, but those games are winnable.

On the road, Oregon is tough but we get them breaking in the new QB which could be a great equalizer esp. if Donatell brings out a previously unseen defensive scheme for that game. USC is a near certain loss but Arizona, Cal and WSU are not that intimidating.

I think 4-3 at home, 3-2 on the road is not at all impossible with this schedule. And if we're good enough to do that we're definitely good enough to win a third-tier bowl game.

Posted by Husky Fan In New York

10:39 AM, May 30, 2008

I'm disappointed that no one has commented on the link I found that is essentially optimistic for 2008. I will repost:

One fact important to remember is that 5 of our losses were by 7 points or less (none of our 4 wins were by 7 points or less). Plus, the other losses of 7+ points were still competitive games until a little ways into the 4th quarter (except for tOSU loss since Shaw's fumble on the kickoff to start the 2nd half began the snowball in the 3rd quarter).

Honestly, Jake 2.0 and Donatell can be the difference to winning a good amount of those games!!!

http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=812164

Posted by Reality Check

10:58 AM, May 30, 2008

HFNY --

I love your upbeat view, and I wish I shared it.

My glass if half-empty view of Ty is that he finds a way to lose close games. How many close games has he won versus how many close games has he lost in the last 3 years?

Your point is valid -- we're not getting blown out regularly. However, I have reached a point with Ty as coach where I expect our team to lose at the end. I'm sure the players feel this way too, as is reflected in the performance.

By contrast, that crazy year in 2000 where we went 11-1, it was the complete opposite. We could have our backs against the wall, but somehow we'd win. Conversely, under Ty, it feels like we find new and miserable ways to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

In summary, until Ty shows me he can win on a regular basis, then I can't see him as anything more than a 2nd or 3rd rate coach at best. Close losses are nothing to celebrate in my book.

Posted by Dave

11:13 AM, May 30, 2008

OK HFNY, I'll bite. That is an interesting fact. Of your five close losses, one was the 13th reg season game vs. Hawai'i, an extra game that has no parallel this year, so we're really talking about 4 close losses in the "real" schedule. Those 4 were to WSU, Oregon State, Arizona and USC, all here except for Oregon State.

Which of those could we reasonably expect to flip into the W column with the improvements of Jake 2.0 and Donatell that you cite? WSU for sure; they're a mess right now, and as bad as we played, we still would've had them last year had it not been for one incredible busted play at the end.

OSU will be here instead of there and in the grip of a QB controversy between two mediocre candidates, so I think a minor overall improvement in our performance could reasonably be expected to flip that one.

I think 'Zona was playing about as well as a Mike Stoops coached team could play last year, so on that theory we have a shot to flip that one, although against that is losing the home field.

USC in LA: umm, no. We have beaten them in LA 3 times since 1965.

Flipping 'Zona, WSU and OSU into the win column and "holding serve" from last year across the rest of the schedule would get us to 7-5 reg season. Note that this would require us to also replace the win over Syracuse with a win over BYU, and to beat Cal again, on the road this time; or pull off some other upset.

Posted by Husky Fan In New York

11:16 AM, May 30, 2008

Agreed, though I'm definitely not celebrating close losses more that I'm not despairing as much about them. Essentially, I think the team wasn't that far off from a good record last year and now with Jake 2.0 and Ed Donatell being light years ahead of our previous DC, some of those close losses turn into wins.

Again, I hope Husky fans don't assume 2008 will be a losing season before it even starts.

Posted by Dave

11:17 AM, May 30, 2008

should add that it also requires us to replace the win over Boise with a win over ND, no sure thing.

Posted by John

11:35 AM, May 30, 2008

Yeah, but look at how we lost those close games. I'd say many of those were from our defense going into prevent mode (an exaggeration, but you get the point) as soon as we have a lead, especially in the 4th quarter. I don't know if that worked for Baer in the past, but everyone knows how to deal with it now.

If Donatell can keep the defense aggressive we'll do better.

Posted by Formerly Guest

11:41 AM, May 30, 2008

John Q,

I too wish we had some commits at this point, but I have noticed that TW has offered many juniors on the west coast, as well as several local freshmen and sophomores. I don't see him as trying to purposely sabotage our recruiting class for next year.

Posted by Husky Fan In New York

11:47 AM, May 30, 2008

Dave, good analysis. Thus, it's not very crazy to expect a 6-6 or 7-5 season right? UCLA and ASU are also at home (both losses on the road last year, that were competitive until our defense tired while Baer sucked it up) and UCLA especially has issues at QB, OL, and replacing a lot of good defensive players.

Posted by Formerly Guest

11:57 AM, May 30, 2008

HFNY,

I agree with your link, and drew the same conclusion the first day of the off-season. I also agree with OWW, that I haven't seen TW's teams quit in the last 2 years. Based on that, I was hoping we could stick with this coaching staff as I think the future looks brighter right now with them than without.

But it is close.

This team can turn the corner from 4-8 to 8-4. But it will be very hard.

And they have to do it several years in a row to get the heat off of our coaching staff. And the staff has to continue to out-recruit at least 6 other Pac-10 programs each year. I don't think we will ever be outrecruiting UCLA or USC, but we can always fight with UO, ASU and CAl for 3rd or 4th.

For fans to continue to think that the future is brighter with this coaching staff than without, this is what they will have to do to acheive that.

Posted by Dave

12:04 PM, May 30, 2008

Not crazy at all HFNY. Personally, (although it is still way before early, and last season showed the folly of trying to predict game by game in college football), if I had to lay the season out I would figure on something like this.

Wins vs. Stanford, OSU and UCLA at home, and against both Arizona and WSU on the road; losses to Oklahoma, USC and ASU; and a sixth win (but probably not much more) coming from among @Oregon, BYU, ND, and @Cal. Any of those last four would have to be considered an upset, but I think Jake has an upset win in him somewhere this year. That would put us in a minor bowl game and, particularly if it is against a non-BCS type team, I would expect overall talent level and the "Jake factor" to lead us to a win there. 7-6 overall.

Posted by Gabe

12:25 PM, May 30, 2008

I'm totally down with 7-6 after recent years. I'll go with Dave's call and excellent analysis overall on this string. FG has very good points in this direction as well. Even if TW goes 6-6, he's a lock for another year, when he'll clearly be expected to produce a winning season because this great entering class will have a full year under their belts with the (largely) new coaching staff. If TW can't improve on 6-6 with that class, then chances are he's a goner. In short, the noodling and debating about the guy's future will continue for another couple of years if Dave's prediction for next season plays out. Troy Must Be Destroyed (starting next year).

Posted by Sandinista

12:29 PM, May 30, 2008

6 or 7 wins isn't crazy. What is crazy is that in year 4 of Tyrone we as fans are trying to come up with ways that we can possibly get 6 or 7 wins and get into a bottom tier bowl.

I guess Ty really has lowered expectations so far that most everyone will jump for joy if we finish 6-6 and get into the Emerald (or whatever) Bowl.

Posted by Dave

12:43 PM, May 30, 2008

Sandinista, it's indeed a disappointment that our expectations Clash with our program's fine history. But at least there is this: if we don't reach a bowl game this year, our coaching staff will go Straight To Hell and have to seek new Career Opportunities elsewhere.

Posted by Formerly Guest

1:01 PM, May 30, 2008

Sandinista,

I beleive Dave knows what he is talking about. Just ask Kent Baer. After being thoroughly publicly humiliated, shamed, and desecrated, it seems he has been exiled to rural Nebraska to pull weeds for the rest of his life or something like that.

Posted by Sandinista

1:41 PM, May 30, 2008

Dave,

In regards to Coach Willingham, I am willing to Give 'Em Enough Rope to see if One More Time is what he needs to turn this around.

I'm Not Down for another losing season, but if Donatell's defense can Clampdown, maybe the Huskies can get back to Living in Fame.

Posted by John

1:54 PM, May 30, 2008

If anyone's interested in which defense Donatell will go with next season, here's a great primer on the differences between the 3-4 and the 4-3.

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2005/06/16/ramblings/strategy-minicamps/2665/

I think he'll start most games with a 4-3, then if he sees that our D-line is capable of handling the O-line of the other team he'll switch a series to 3-4. Having four linebackers out there at all times would be nice since it's a strength of our personnel, but you need a dominant nose tackle. I can see one of the freshman doing that sometimes, but I doubt they will have the stamina to consistently occupy 2 blockers.

But I think there's no doubt that he plans on using some 3-4: one major sign is that he moved one of our tackles to end. You want bigger ends in a 3-4.

And I CANNOT WAIT to see what he does to disguise blitzes and coverage.

Posted by John

1:55 PM, May 30, 2008

Here's a great post from the same site about disguising coverage:

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2006/08/21/ramblings/strategy-minicamps/4123/

This is something Kent Baer almost never did.

Posted by Reality Check

2:50 PM, May 30, 2008

IF Ty manages to scratch out 6 wins this year, what do you do?

1) Let him go into the 5th year of his contract as a lame duck coach. (This could kill recruiiting.)
2) Extend him.
3) Fire him.

Posted by Reality Check

2:51 PM, May 30, 2008

By the way... all ducks are lame, so I suppose that phrase is redundant.

Posted by Gabe

2:57 PM, May 30, 2008

RC--your options look right. I think Emmert lets him continue under his contract after a 6-6 year. That represents substantial improvement with a very young team and an All American quarterback. Hard to see Emmert firing the guy under those circumstances. In fact, I think he's a lock. Troy Must Be Destroyed.

Posted by John

3:15 PM, May 30, 2008

"By the way... all ducks are lame, so I suppose that phrase is redundant."

hahaha

Posted by mutt

7:59 PM, May 30, 2008

BOB, WHERE IN THE HELL ARE YOU.....114 POST AND COUNTING.

Posted by BoiseTruth

9:54 PM, May 30, 2008


Molly had a good interview with Jeremy Crabtree (Rivals) about where UW is in recruiting.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/huskiesfb/archives/140085.asp

Molly also has an interview with Garcia on her site.

Posted by Tarn

11:22 PM, May 30, 2008

Onewoodwacker,
"...but most of the time the best team wins."

There you go, you agree with me that the best team wins... it's not the best coaching staff or the best 4 or 5 star individuals. I would finess that with the team with the best character...the best football sense...the ability to use the pads/technique...and how do you apply "stars" to those football traits? You must understand that the 4 or 5 stars go to high school kids...not college players. Give me a unit full of character and I will take it. Enjoy the '08 season and Jake 2.0 behind that great line and the beef under the new DO. The Huskies will be flying to the ball next fall. "08 is going to be a fun ride. Enjoy it if you can.

Posted by onewoodwacker

5:57 AM, May 31, 2008

Tarn -
Thanks for the thoughts.

I honestly can't wait for the season to start!!! It is my absolute favorite time if the year. All comments aside, I really do expect us to win 7-8 games this year. Some marked improvement in our Special Teams play and our Defense might not be put into as many holes as they were last season.

Yes - I for one put much of the onus for our poor D stats directly on the shoulders of our Special teams. They were flat out horrible at times last year giving opponents far too good of field position. I believe that we completely upgraded our coaching in this area and look for great improvement.

If we manage to drop 5 games by 7 points or less again though, like we did last season, I'm gonna have to buy a new TV!!!!!!!

Posted by onewoodwacker

6:30 AM, May 31, 2008

OK - this is how I see the Pac-10 this year. My predictions are based on the fact that ;though most of the teams in the league this year are not lacking in talent, they are lacking in experience.

I see ASU, with a Senior QB, many returning starters and Dennis Erickson - winning the Pac-10.
USC second (QB situation is the difference)
Cal comes in third.
Washington fourth
Oregon fifth.
OSU sixth
Stanford seventh
Arizona eighth
UCLA ninth (the loss of both QB's OUCH)
WSU tenth

Posted by Husky Fan In New York

11:09 AM, May 31, 2008

onewood, not a bad list. Here's mine:

USC (too much talent and OL/DL will be fine while WRs improve)

ASU (well rounded team with a good staff. Just not enough high level talent to beat USC, especially since the game is in LA this year)

UW/UO 3rd

UO/UW 4th (hard to pick this one b/c the Yucks have more experience, especially on defense, while UW has more upside with Locker, Donatell, very good OL, young WRs, and inexperienced but quite talented DL and DBs). Anyone else get the feeling that since the Yucks got up early on a lot of teams that their defense benefitted since it made the opposition 1 dimensional when they were trying to catch up? I just don't think they'll have as many tackles for loss and sacks...we should run right at undersized Nick Reed and wear him down with the big Husky OL and Homer!!!!

Arizona (very veteran offense, pretty talented too. Defense should be decent enough).

Cal (questions at QB, RB, WR, possibly OL (beyond Mack) and Nose tackle (they were awful when Malele was out). Definitely not as explosive on offense and tedford momentum is gone.

OSU (great staff though still questions at QB, RB, and defense. Lots of experienced depth on defense but tough to replace that many performers and still be at that level. And Serna is gone too, which hurts them in tight games! Might be able to sneak past Cal in rankings if things come together.

UCLA (big, big questions at QB and OL. Issues at WR and DE, LB other than Carter, and lost some vets in the secondary. Basically lost a ton of starters on defense.

Stanford ninth (still not much talent, lost starting QB and good WRs. OL should be better)

WSU tenth (new coach, little talent, and lots and lots of legal problems. Seattle times expose coming soon, right?)

Posted by husky1225

1:13 PM, May 31, 2008

We don't have the right personnel to run a 3-4. Teo
Nesheim, our best lineman and only returning letterman on the d-line, is far too small to play end in a 3-4. I think Donatell already realizes this, and Hart knew it all along. That's why we didn't see the shift to a 3-4 in the spring that many expected.

Posted by scott158

2:50 PM, May 31, 2008

*crickets*

Posted by MD McClain

4:22 PM, May 31, 2008

MelloDung and others like,

How many passes did Coach drop last year?

How many passes did he sail WAY over the target's head?

How many assignments did he misread?

How many times did he try 'bump' a guy to the ground rather than wrap him up?

How many offensive plays did he call?

How many defensive plays did he call?


Now keep in mind, knee-jerkers, I'm not suggesting he's devoid of responsibility.

I'm suggesting you've put way too much onto one dude.

For that, you all suck.

But you've been playing the same tune for how many months now?

For that, you get no respect from me.

When we win big this year, thanks to people like Donatelli, the Skyline coach, Locker and other PLAYERS who continue to get better and understand what it's going to take (unlike Hasty, for eg.) and Rock Smooth Coach WIllingham, and you guys come crawling back, using new aliases, you will be exposed for the stone-throwing, arm-chair bound, insecure, boorish, nitwits you are.

Hah,

PSIKE!!!!

You rule MelloDung! Your insistence rocks!

Hah,,,

DOUBLE PSIKE!!!!

UW Rocks...

Posted by Gabe

4:45 PM, May 31, 2008

I saw some footage of last year's games recently and was struck by how many times our offense exposed Locker to serious risk of injury. In retrospect it seems inevitable that the injury he suffered at OSU would happen. It's a little surprising it didn't happen sooner given the teams we played. This makes me wonder whether there will be more of an effort to protect Locker this coming season. He was no doubt the best weapon we had, but he was out there running straight into to the teeth of the defense way too many times. And often he bailed out early on pass plays and pullled the ball down and took off. His attitude is that he can run through anyone, which is good and bad, in the long run bad because he can't run through everyone. Some dude is out there just waiting to ring his bell, and capable of doing it.

Maybe this coming season, his improved passing ability will allow him and the coaches to reduce the frequency of suicide runs. He definitely has a great talent for running, but now that he's establshed himself as a running threat, the other teams will respect that, and that may allow some running backs and receivers to take some of the pressure off him. Otherwise he'll become a sitting duck again and end up with a serious injury. I'd be interested to know what some more informed people out there think. Troy Must Be Destroyed (and that best be achieved with a healthy Jake).

Recent entries

Jun 1, 08 - 08:04 PM
Another possible AD candidate

May 31, 08 - 10:58 PM
Back at it

May 27, 08 - 06:02 PM
Programming note

May 25, 08 - 10:18 AM
Jordan Polk wins Oregon state titles

May 24, 08 - 08:55 PM
Locker named Lindy's Pac-10 Offensive Player of the Year

Advertising

Marketplace

Advertising

Advertising

Categories
Calendar

June

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          
Browse the archives

June 2008

May 2008

April 2008

March 2008

February 2008

January 2008

Advertising

Buy a link here