1st and 10

[teachercd]

Enhance, no problem!

 

I did hear that he had to "throw away" 66 passes this last season because no one was open, that is a HUGE chunk that would kill his %, if that is true or not I dont know but it would really change thigns. I am sure you could argue that he threw them away because he has bad pocket presence but who knows.

 

He did play the wing-T but he was not brought to Washington to play that, at least I dont think he was. Wasnt Ty Willingham the coach when Locker got there or was it Neuhisal? Either way, neither of those guys run anything like the high school wing T.

 

On a side note, coaching against the wing T is SUPER ANNOYING!

[Spartness]

zoogies, yes it is a horrible reason, but at the very least that was part of it. Yes Washington played a great game. They wanted it a lot more than we did. And yes, there is no excuse for it, but the poor play had to do somewhat with what I was describing. The minute I heard that we had to play Washington again after that disappointing OU game, I saw trouble coming. I predicted this would likely happen. I feared that N would played poorly. It takes a lot of hard coaching and motivating to get a team up for a game like this, and our coaches failed, along with the players. I'm sure Watson was a major part of this.

[knapplc]

zoogies, yes it is a horrible reason, but at the very least that was part of it. Yes Washington played a great game. They wanted it a lot more than we did. And yes, there is no excuse for it, but the poor play had to do somewhat with what I was describing. The minute I heard that we had to play Washington again after that disappointing OU game, I saw trouble coming. I predicted this would likely happen. I feared that N would played poorly. It takes a lot of hard coaching and motivating to get a team up for a game like this, and our coaches failed, along with the players. I'm sure Watson was a major part of this.

 

 

"Part of it," as in, <50% of the reason. And yes, it's a stupid and horrible reason, but it's the reason that game happened. Also tack in there hangover from the CCG loss, apathy created by upcoming coaching moves (which the team was aware of, or at the very least strongly suspected), personality conflicts among players, and Bo not having his head in the game.

 

There isn't a single excusable thing about that bowl game. It was an embarrassment from the get-go.

 

And not to be rude to Washington, but they are who they are, and that most definitely is NOT a team that improved to the tune of 49 points on defense in about three months. As badly as we played on defense (and we played badly in many ways), we still held them to fewer points in the bowl game than we did in the real game.

 

I would expect a significant amount of motivation from the players heading into this year's rubber match. And unlike Texas, Washington does not have the athletes to overcome overall suckiness. I fully expect an epic beatdown.

[zoogs]

I agree with you Spartness. When I saw that matchup, I saw trouble too. It is a bit tougher when you have a "round 2" game like this and it isn't for all the marbles.

[tschu]

Bayless isn't an idiot. He (and the people he argues against) are just paid to be professional trolls...just like Rick Reilly, Gene Wojciechowski, Stephen A Smith, etc etc. They get paid to write/say things and get a reaction out of them and create argument for the sake of TV. So I almost never take anything these guys say seriously.

[huKSer]

Locker didn't prove anything at WU, has good mechanics, that's about it.

 

[funhusker]

Wow...

This might be the longest thread where nobody has been blasted for "reading comprehension."

 

Skip Bayless is getting called all kind of names and he's not the one that made the stupid comments. It was "the other guy on today."

 

C'mon Huskerboard - Pay attention

 

 

 

p.s. I think Bayless can be entertaining. He usually looks frustrated as hell at the people ESPN makes him talk to.

[Enhance]

Come on guys, don't be naive. Bayless is a really talented sports writer, he wouldn't have the pedigree he has without being so. They put him on TV on 1st and 10 so he can be a shock jockey and say outrageous polarizing things for ratings, and all will be forgotten tomorrow when the next episode of 1st and 10 is on.

He can say what he wants, but that doesn't mean we can't criticize him for it .

 

I don't think anybody really doubts the pedigree of ESPN sports talk show hosts, but just because you are a tenured/respected sportswriter doesn't necessarily mean you can say what you want and not be criticized for it.

 

Enhance, no problem!

 

I did hear that he had to "throw away" 66 passes this last season because no one was open, that is a HUGE chunk that would kill his %, if that is true or not I dont know but it would really change thigns. I am sure you could argue that he threw them away because he has bad pocket presence but who knows.

 

He did play the wing-T but he was not brought to Washington to play that, at least I dont think he was. Wasnt Ty Willingham the coach when Locker got there or was it Neuhisal? Either way, neither of those guys run anything like the high school wing T.

 

On a side note, coaching against the wing T is SUPER ANNOYING!

I'm almost 100 percent positive that Washington had a wing T variant when he was first recruited. I could be wrong, but I remember hearing this a few years ago. Either way, he was not required to be a good passer in the offense he ran early on in Washington. It wasn't until Sarkisian got there and implemented an offense like he ran at USC that Locker was required to pass.

 

I'm sure Sarkisian loves Locker, but I'm sure that if Locker were coming out of high school now, Sarkisian would not recruit him for his offense.