Washington v. Alabama

[davidonmi]

I was wondering for a while why JB didn't look like the one I saw against Stanford..He has a laser quick pass but you didn't see it later in the season..I sure hope it's back now

if the injury rumors were real. it will be

 

[chris98251]

Guess who is now the OC now that Kiffen took that other job?


Steve Sarkisian.

 

[SeatownJay]

Guess who is now the OC now that Kiffen took that other job?


Steve Sarkisian.

Ya know how a lot of alumni like to go to their school's bowl games? Maybe we can get Jerramy Stevens to show up a the Peach Bowl, introduce himself to Sark, and take him out for a night on the town before the game.

 

[taz291819]

That's funny. Pretty sure Saban has a tight leash on Sark.

 

[sutz]

Guess who is now the OC now that Kiffen took that other job?


Steve Sarkisian.

Heard on the TV box this morning that Kiffen will call the plays in the bowl game. Sark won't be in until after season is over.

 

[NFSeahawks]

I think Washington's D-line will break before Alabamas in the fourth.

Bama 31
Huskies 24

 

[CamanoIslandJQ]

IF Alabama comes out, as I expect, very over confident, thinking they'll just walk over the Huskies, there in for a rough game. I think it's unlikely that the Huskies win otherwise, but I don't think it will be even close to a blowout. I see a score of 7-10 points in spread EITHER WAY, with the Huskies still having the chance to come out on top if everything goes their way. This should be a National - must watch game and I'm very much looking forward to it.

Also - seems to me this game should be played in a more neutral site, outside of SEC territory like maybe in like Chicago or somewhere other than the deep, deep South to be more FAIR. Just my opinion.
:smilingalien:

 

[Trrrroy]

I don't think it will be close. Think the USC game but worse. 31-17 Alabama. That team is just on another level athletically, while UW to me is the Kansas City of NCAA. Sure they have a good record, but do they really scare anybody? Nope. They just aren't there yet. Even when UW blows out teams like Colorado it just doesn't seem dominant.

Who knows though. I do think Peterson is one of the best coaches in college. He may be able to pull a rabbit out his arse. God knows he sure did that a few times at Boise.

 

[IndyHawk]

I don't think it will be close. Think the USC game but worse. 31-17 Alabama. That team is just on another level athletically, while UW to me is the Kansas City of NCAA. Sure they have a good record, but do they really scare anybody? Nope. They just aren't there yet. Even when UW blows out teams like Colorado it just doesn't seem dominant.

Who knows though. I do think Peterson is one of the best coaches in college. He may be able to pull a rabbit out his arse. God knows he sure did that a few times at Boise.

You are talking a game that Browning was playing hurt so the USC D was cheating on the coverages.I think a healthy JB makes a huge difference for this game.I think it will be a tough game and we have a chance.I really like the fact there is no SEC/PAC12 officials to screw up calls so that takes away part of the battle right there.

 

[CPHawk]

Alabama beat LSU 10-0 and LSU played without a passing game.

Washington can keep it close if they play tough on defense -- and they have an offense to trouble Alabama.

I think 'Bama wins but I wouldn't expect a pasting.

Bama also beat sc 52-3, how did that SC team do vs UW?

 

[Trrrroy]

Alabama beat LSU 10-0 and LSU played without a passing game.

Washington can keep it close if they play tough on defense -- and they have an offense to trouble Alabama.

I think 'Bama wins but I wouldn't expect a pasting.

Bama also beat sc 52-3, how did that SC team do vs UW?

That logic doesn't work in football. It's like saying the Rams beat the Seahawks, the Seahawks beat the Patriots, ergo the rams would beat the Patriots. Not to mention USC was vastly improved when UW played them.

 

[CPHawk]

Whatever fits your narrative. SC improved, but they weren't 50 points improved.

 

[Trrrroy]

Whatever fits your narrative. SC improved, but they weren't 50 points improved.

I'm not trying to make anything fit a narrative. I agree with you in that I think UW will lose. It's just that saying that they'll lose simply because USC beat them, and Alabama beat USC is not the way to make that point.

 

[HawkGA]

IF Alabama comes out, as I expect, very over confident, thinking they'll just walk over the Huskies, there in for a rough game. I think it's unlikely that the Huskies win otherwise, but I don't think it will be even close to a blowout. I see a score of 7-10 points in spread EITHER WAY, with the Huskies still having the chance to come out on top if everything goes their way. This should be a National - must watch game and I'm very much looking forward to it.

Also - seems to me this game should be played in a more neutral site, outside of SEC territory like maybe in like Chicago or somewhere other than the deep, deep South to be more FAIR. Just my opinion.
:smilingalien:

A bowl game in Chicago? Seriously? Sites are pre-seasoned and rotated, except that higher seeds do get to pay closer to home. If UW hadn't lost to USC, they'd be playing on their side of the country.

 

[Sports Hernia]

I think UW needs to play a near perfect game to win.
Can't get down big early, no injuries, no stupid penaltys, no turn overs, and the longer they keep it close the better their chances are (Duh, I know).

If they get to the point where 'Bama has an "Oh shit!" moment late in the game they can win.

 

[CamanoIslandJQ]

""A bowl game in Chicago? Seriously? Sites are pre-seasoned and rotated, except that higher seeds do get to pay closer to home. If UW hadn't lost to USC, they'd be playing on their side of the country.""

Bottom line, Alabama players and their fans can drive to the bowl game being played in their part of the country & the Huskies have to fly In. My only point is that Alabama is king of the mountain AND they get to play nearly a home game and that's a bit unfair.
:smilingalien:

 

[JSeahawks]

""A bowl game in Chicago? Seriously? Sites are pre-seasoned and rotated, except that higher seeds do get to pay closer to home. If UW hadn't lost to USC, they'd be playing on their side of the country.""

Bottom line, Alabama players and their fans can drive to the bowl game being played in their part of the country & the Huskies have to fly In. My only point is that Alabama is king of the mountain AND they get to play nearly a home game and that's a bit unfair.
:smilingalien:

Game location was set years in advance. If UW didnt want to go to Atlanta they shouldnt have lost to USC. Then they'd be playing in Phoenix instead.

 

[Seahawks Guy]

I think UW deserved the #3 or #2 spot. Probably the #3 spot because Ohio State's resume is tough to beat with those quality wins even though they don't have a conference championship. The committee focused too much on the weak OOC schedule for UW (which really wasn't that weak considering Idaho's record and bowl game win), and not enough on the fact that they easily established themselves as the best team in a pretty good PAC-12 conference. Plus, the loss at home to top 10 USC was a much better loss than Clemson's loss at home to a mediocre Pittsburgh.

If UW had gone undefeated, you could make a really good argument for putting them at #1 and Alabama at #2. Obviously, these things don't happen to teams that haven't been good in years and play on the west coast.

 

[HawkGA]

You're totally misreading that Clemson loss to Pitt. Didn't you hear the news about Penn State's loss to Pitt? Pitt was the next best thing to sliced bread and PSU was robbed because they put such a monstrous powerhouse on their schedule.

No, I don't mean that. But the analysts did.

 

[Seahawks Guy]

I like how analysts can't even fathom the possibility that both Clemson and Penn St losing to Pitt might mean both are overrated, but instead all they can see is that Pitt must be good team even though their record says otherwise.