Cougarbib2 wrote:

Keep in mind that at least 5 PAC 10 Teams were in the top 10 at some time last year and UW played all of them plus a Notre Dame type OOC schedule. The easy games for UW were Boise State and Hawaii at Hawaii. In other words, they had no easy games. They were not great last year, but they were not a bad team. IMHO there are few teams in college football that could have played that schedule and gone over 500. Do not take UW lightly. They have a similar schedule in 2008 and may again struggle to go much over 500, but at home they will be a formidable opponent.

while i agree that UW will not be a pushover, I disagree that BSU and Hawaii were tough games. They had great records but both played extremely weak OOC games and in the WAC which for a majority of their conference is really like playing ina FCS league.

Ball4 wrote:

domanater wrote:

UCLAs fate rests on our ability to improve quickly on defense, (the guys like g pittman, howard, bradley, etc. etc.) The beauty is that our dline is very solid (Dulan isn't going on a mission so we're very deep) and Ben Olson is not mobile in the slightest. Jorgenson is going to have a big
day. Bottom line vs UCLA, if we can run the ball against them and force Big Ben into long 3rd downs, I think we'll win by 25. If they can run and we see a lot of 3rd and shorts, Ben gets a little confidence, or Max finds ways to turn the ball over still, it will be tight.

Honestly, our toughest games this year will be Utah, Air Force, and TCU, if we can't beat washington or ucla, we'll probably drop one of those conference roadies too. Going undefeated will be a monumental task (which is why we've only done it once in our history) but we have the horses.

Dominator...will you clarify the Dulan situation? I hadn't heard about his not going on a mission.

Dulan is playing next year, not sure what needs to be clarified.

I am not trying to say that BSU or UH were great teams or that UW was a great team. But those were the easy games. UW was not a bad team. UCLA was only slightly better.

By contrast, BYU had three pushover games. BYU had another three fairly easy games. Then BYU played 6 decent teams and a decent team rematch in the Las Vegas Bowl. BYU did not play any great teams so we do not know how they woud have done against a Top Ten team or a team like Georgia that may have been the best team in the country at the end of the season. BYU did not lose to any bad teams but lost to a two decent teams on the road in different time zones.

In 2008, BYU plays two decent teams - UW and UCLA in OOC games and two that should be gimmes (although one of them is as good as the team that beat Michigan last year). Now if we argue that this is not true and that UCLA and UW are not decent teams -then BYU plays zero decent teams in OOC schedule. There will also end up being 2 or 3 pathetic teams on the MWC schedule. In other words, UCLA or UW would have 5 or 6 easy wins if they substituted these games for the weakest games on their schedules. In yet other words, if you have fewer wins than losses in MWC games or with poor to mediocre OOC games, you are not a good team. But if you go 5 and 7 in the PAC 10 playing Wisconsin, Syracuse, Boise State, and UH at Hawaii for OOC, you might still be a decent team. Not a great team, though.

I am not knocking BYU. I love BYU. I also know that it is almost impossible to go undefeated even if you played UNLV 12 weeks in a row at home. Put half of those games on the road and it becomes more improbable. Put half of those games in different time zones and it becomes more improbable. Put 6 of those games against decent teams like UCLA, UW, Utah, TCU, New Mexico and whomever else turns out to be decent in the MWC and it is quite improbable. Not impossible. Don't take UW or UCLA or anyone else lightly.

Go Cougs! Go Cougs! GO Cougs!

The UW 2008 schedule is about like last year. You can't accuse UW of dodging anyone. In 2007, BYU played Arizona (won), UCLA (lost), and UCLA (won) all of whom could be said to be similar to a typical UW opponent last year or this year. BYU played Tulsa (lost), Utah (won), TCU (won), and New Mexico (won) who were decent teams. BYU did not play anyone ranked as high as the 4 best UW opponents. BYU has only beaten UCLA 2 outof about 8 tries. BYU is probably about even with UW over history in head-to-head games. BYU is probably about even with Oregon. BYU has lost far more to Arizona and ASU, but that was before the glory years. Since then BYU is about even with them. In fact, you could probably go back and look at BYU historical records back to when Lavell started, and find that BYU is about 50-50 against PAC 10 opponents.

I know I am going to lose my last karma point for this, but do not overlook anybody from the PAC 10.

Go Cougs! Go Cougs! Go Cougs!


Washington Football Future Schedules
Note: Future football schedule are tentative and subject to change

2008

Date Opponent
Aug. 30 at Oregon
Sept. 6 BYU
Sept. 13 Oklahoma
Sept. 27 Stanford
Oct. 4 at Arizona
Oct. 18 Oregon State
Oct. 25 Notre Dame
Nov. 1 at USC
Nov. 8 Arizona State
Nov. 15 UCLA
Nov. 22 at Washington State
Dec. 6 at California


2009

Date Opponent
Sept. 5 To Be Determined
Sept. 12 Idaho
Sept. 19 USC
Sept. 26 at Stanford
Oct. 3 at Notre Dame
Oct. 10 California
Oct. 17 at Arizona State
Oct. 24 Oregon
Oct. 31 Arizona
Nov. 7 at UCLA
Nov. 14 at Oregon State
Nov. 21 Washington State


2010

Date Opponent
Sept. 4 at BYU
Sept. 11 Syracuse
Sept. 18 Nebraska
Sept. 25 at California
Oct. 2 at USC
Oct. 9 Arizona State
Oct. 16 Oregon State
Oct. 23 at Arizona
Oct. 30 Stanford
Nov. 6 at Oregon
Nov. 13 UCLA
Nov. 20 at Washington State




Printer-friendly format

I had to go check. In 2007 we went 2-1 against the PAC 10 not having played anyone in their top third finishers. We split with UCLA and beat Arizona. In 2006 we went 1-1 against PAC 10 losing to Arizona, who was not as bad as their record indicated and beating (killing) Oregon in the Bowl Game. In 2005, BYU was 0-1 against the PAC 10 - losing to Cal in the Bowl Game.

Before we fire Bronco for being 50-50 agaisnt the PAC 10 not having played any of their best teams in his timeframe, let's celebrate the fact that no matter whether you go back a few years beyond his time or a lot of years, beyond his time, BYU has not broken even against PAC 10 opponents. So we are improving under Bronco, even at 500.

Lavell had 2 or 3 good years against PAC 10 teams near the end of his tenure, but BYU is sub 500 even in his tenure. Perhaps the main reason we won the NC in 1984 is that we did not play a PAC 10 team that year. Recall that UW was #2 and most national figures argued that they should have breen #1.

We are 10 below 500 if you go back to 1984. If you go back to the first year of Lavell Edwards era, we are a little further below 500 and if you go back to 1969 and count the Arizona schools that were in the WAC at the time it gets to 15 under 500. I could not bear to go any further back as we never played Pac 10 teams in those days and U of A and ASU almost always killed us and we were sub 500 almost every year.

So let us not take anyone lightly and try to go 2-0 against the PAC 10 next year and get Bronco back above 500.

Go Cougs! Buck With Bronco! Raise the Bar! Be Invested!

Bib

Wow! Some really wrong information in here!!!

From what I've seen, UW cares a lot less about offense (and winning games). From what I've seen (granted, it was last year), we don't need much of a defense.

Err, it was our defense that was horrible, not our offense. Well, the offense was not great, but it wasn't horrible by any means. We lost games because our Kent Baer "bend and then break" defense couldn't hold a lead, which we had in almost every game. If our new NFL defensive coordinator can pull a one off-season miracle out of his bum then things could be interesting this year.

i agree they were no that good offesnively last year and they'll liely be even less so with a new O-line, Wr, and RB. this game should be an double digit win.

We do not have a new Oline, we lost our right tackle, we return 7 of our 8 offensive lineman who played in games last year, including all starters but the right tackle Macklin. Our center Garcia was awarded a sixth year of eligibility because of some weird academic year or something. We did lose our wide receivers but we have more talented frosh replacing them. The frosh RB Brandon Johnson got a good amount of playing time last year (including the 2nd half against the Cal Bears where he wen't for over 100 yards) and with a veteran (and big!) offensive line including a veteran FB he should put up some great numbers as he is a talented young man.

Washington loses the following starters on Offense:
(I could not find the data for the backup's starting experience)

Split End
Flanker
Center - Garcia was awarded another year of eligibility.
Right Guard - did not lose him, still here.
Right Tackle - graduated.
Tight End - three crappy to mediocre TE's gone, young highly talented ones replacing them including Chris Izbicki (rated 4th in nation in TE recruits) and Kavario Middleton (rated #2 in nation in TE recruits).
Tailback - we lost Rankin, but we have B. Johnson and some other young guns to replace him and they will have a veteran Oline to run behind.


Washington loses the following starters on Defense:

Right Defensive Tackle
Left Defensive Tackle
Right Defensive End
- we lost our starting defensive line except for Teo-neisheim. Should be addiction by subtraction because our seniors sucked.

Left Outside linebacker
Left Inside Linbacker
- we lost one starer, Dan Howell. Butler, Savannah, Tui and Foster return.

Free Safety
Strong Safety
Right Corner

- Ouch, our secondary sucks.

My biggest worry about UW is how do we slow down Locker's running game? He had 100+ yard rushing games last year (as a Frosh) against UA, Ohio State, and Wazoo, plus putting up some decent but not great passing numbers. He's the top returning rusher in the Pac-10 even though he's the QB.

I'm hoping that his running ability doesn't translate into coverage errors for our inexperienced DBs. Our offense better be clicking early or it could be a long game.

He comes from a football family - dad and three uncles all played FB at WWU.

His QB rating was 105 last year with a 47% completion rate. Interestingly he also had four unassisted tackles (I'm assuming after interceptions or fumbles). He also played CB in high school so he knows how to make the open field tackle.

In another year, this kid could be a legit Heisman candidate. Here's hoping that we don't provide him his first big headline of the season.

Locker is good but all you have to do is put a man on him. He runs nearly most of the time and when he throws it is usually not a very good throw and is likely not to be caught. The guy is a run first throw maybe type of QB. He has an average arm and poor accuracy but is a great runner. I don't think he looks any farther then his first progression maybe his second if he is given time. New O-line and Jorgensen and Dulan coming in, not to mention Nixon he'll have little time to look past his 1st and he'll run. Personally I think he'll be surprised to find out how fast our LB's are.

Locker 2007 Highlights http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMfiq9CXss8

For a bunch of great Husky videos check out Pumas videos on Youtube.