Huskyfan1997

Personally, my favorite steakhouse is called John Howie in Bellevue. But in general I agree with y'all about talent evaluation. I'm a Seahawks fan and that Legion of Boom defense had only 1 1st rounder, Earl Thomas I believe. But that defense stifled supposedly the greatest offense (statistically speaking) in the history of the NFL in the Super Bowl. I am a believer in defense winning championships, so I'm a bit skeptical my huskies can pull this off. One can hope though.

Put simply, if Ewers gets injured in the game, many of your fans may be excited to see your one of your 5 star backup QB's play. If Penix goes down, well, let's just say no UW fan is excited to see our backups play haha. Same goes for many other positions. Anyway, I never post on opposing team message boards, but thought I would here. Mad respect for what your team did to Alabama and I'm truly happy for Sark. Willingham literally almost killed our program and Sark gave us hope and life so will forever be grateful to him. I can completely understand why he left for USC. Way easier to recruit to that school than to rainy Seattle. I hope UW plays like they did against UO so the game is at least exciting and close.

Well, the point was that you guys have 4 and 5 star players subbing in for injuries, which seems like a pretty decisive advantage. And it showed in UW's games when they had players out or sick. That was the whole point of the post. Great coaching and schemes can make NFL draft picks. Doesn't equal NFL talent though. Look at John Ross and Jake Locker. Both top 10 picks but did absolutely nothing in the NFL. Not sure why you guys are always so confrontational to people trying to add some insight. But yes, players can be developed to be better than their star ratings, which is all subjective anyway. NFL talent is directly correlated to the play style system fits. I was just saying raw athlete talent seems to be decidedly in your favor, which is especially important in injury and depth situations.

I'm a husky fan that does not wear rose colored glasses, and wanted to provide my honest husky perspective. ESPN has Texas at about 70% win probability vs 30% Washington. And it's easy to see why: Texas has much better talent overall Texas recruits at top 10 level every year, sometimes top 5 Washington recruits at a top 25-35 level Texas has way more depth Which is why UW struggled against weak teams. They were sick and injured If someone gets injured, Texas has 4 and 5 star players waiting in the wings, UW doesn't Sark was easily our 2nd best recruiter this century. Neuheisel recruited at a top 15 level. Sark recruited at a top 15-25 level. Chris Petersen recruited at a top 25-35 level. We are just never going to compete for top 5 classes. Unless Deboer wins a few national championships in a row. Texas has a huge advantage on paper due to athletes on the team. The ONLY thing that Husky fans can truly pin their hopes on is this: Under Deboer, the Huskies are 9-0 against top 25 teams. And he's doing this with talent level outside of the top 25. They are 3-0 vs Oregon who has top 5-10 talent. UW really has no business beating that team. So Deboer and staff must be outcoaching a lot of their opponents with great gameplans and schemes. Sark basically won 7-8 games per year with us and slightly better talent overall than what this coaching staff is working with now. But Sark has become a great coach since he left Washington too. So 70-30 still seems about right to me and therefore I feel the line is about right. Vegas thought the talent difference between Oregon and UW was worth 9.5 points. UO and Texas compete for the same athletes each year and are about equal in terms of talent on their rosters. So I guess Vegas is finally giving a little respect to UW now, since they're now only 4 point underdogs haha.