Since when does a not-fully healed broken rib equate to a sprained ankle and turf toe on a running quarterback? Might as well hand over the pink slip before the race.
Locker was not a run first quarterback either of the two years under Sark, in fact Sark was criticized for not running Locker enough. I've never had a broken rib, but I'd imagine it would be a major hindrance period, but certainly in the passing game. What most perceived as Locker's issues were actually mostly issues of his receiving corps and offensive line. He was behind a different O-line every other game, there were six line changes over thirteen games and our best O-lineman was a true freshman. A LINEMAN true freshman. There is no way to sugarcoat it, UW's line was bad and couldn't hold a pocket which is why Locker got crushed and broke a rib in the first place. As for going against NE corners, it could have been Peyton Manning out there, but if your receivers can't get open, you're not going to be completing any passes. Plus, when they did get open, they had a well-known tendency to drop balls. The whole "overrated" thing, well we'll see, and that is now just between the Titans and their #8 overall draft pick!
Also, your buffer against revenge doesn't make a lot of sense. When Nebraska wanted to beat Texas, we weren't trying to avenge McCoy beating us - we were trying to avenge an entire program beating us. Similarly, I don't think anybody cares about Locker or the previous Washington players. They care about beating the team and that's usually how rivalries work.
Undoubtedly, but like I said, the whole rivalry thing is over-hyped. Laughable even. Rivalries do not result from one single bowl game. It was just a freak accident we're even playing three games in two years. I think the last game between UW and NE before that was 1991! It'll be decades before we schedule again, if ever. Hardly a rivalry. Plus, if the players do actually hate the Washington program over
one game many on here claim
they didn't even care about, well, yeah...hmmm. I think there is a contradiction in there somewhere! Plus, the lost fact in this is they DID beat Locker. Badly. He had the worst statistical game of his career.
I don't get all the masochism here. There is so much desire to make a team you won one and lost one to look bad, why? Locker and UW were not a bad team. They were not a good team either, but you don't win seven games off the third hardest schedule if you're a bad team. They were an average team with some key skill position players, that if healthy and on their game, were capable of beating most teams. Sark beat Pete Carrol's #3 USC his first year, after all. Any given Sunday, as they say for pro ball.
I completely agree with Texas. As I said, I'm actually from Nebraska, and only moved when I joined the Navy and got stationed north of Seattle. We hate Texas as a program, check. If anything, be pissed off about that loss, because Texas really was a rival and a bad team. Washington was a chance non-con like you said, and I don't understand why everybody is so worked up about a game that really isn't that important, especially moving into the Big 10. It's just a non-conference game with a little extra spice to it that cannot be overlooked heading into conference play. That's it. I don't get the fixation.
