Huskies 2017 Season

[WizardHawk]

There certainly are no lack of people panicking around the region. Probably some of the same that were way too high on themselves with thoughts of undefeated play through to the playoffs. Many fans are fickle like that.

The truth is that game was the perfect storm. It should have ended more like the Arizona and Utah games last year, but not one break went their way. They aren't horribly flawed, but they do have problems, as do most college teams.

Normally you might expect a team on their bye to be already game planning for two weeks from now. Petersen said they will be taking this week to more self scout and look closer at what happened, as well as going back to other games and looking for details they might not have seen with what is going on with the offense.

There are a few substantial concerns for this team going forward and the real question is what can they do about all of them either in the next two weeks, or at least by seasons end? Some are addressable and others not as much.

1. Injuries. Always the one thing that can ruin a season or game at the snap of a finger. They are already missing a couple of receivers, their anchor on the O line, and both of their top cover corners. Hopefully they are killing it in preparing the younger kids to be ready to step up when their number is called.

2. Lack of clutch options at receiver. It was glaring that either Browning didn't really trust anyone outside of Pettis, or no one else was ready to step up, but that passing game was rendered entirely inept because of it. Browning had time to throw, but often ended up running around trying to buy time for receivers to get open and rarely did they. This has been an issue all year since McClatcher went down. This is what Smith, Petersen, and their WR coaches get paid for. It might be time to burn a red shirt or otherwise look to some of the younger kids. We keep waiting for a fix and we have no idea when those options will pan out. It should be fixable this year, but will it?

3. Something is really off with the O line. And has been all year. UW ran fine in the Colorado and Oregon State games, but that's about it. Well maybe the Cal game too. Even the shitty OOC games were really bad with the run game. If you focus in on the line in run replays they are often not in sync. They are missing key blocks or have guys not switching up and going into defenders already covered and killing plays. This is a veteran line in the same scheme as last year. Now that Adams is out it's not likely to improve. Maybe it's time to shit can the OL coach? It's broken and they have until the last 3 games to fix it. I'd like to think they can make progress, but I'm not betting the farm on it.

4. Scheme/play calling. This one ties directly into the prior two. While some want to put a huge amount of blame on this, the truth is players have to make plays to make any offense work and right now there are too many that aren't. Smith rightly should shoulder a substantial amount of blame, but not as much for the in game calls as much as being the chief overall of the offense and not finding solutions to #'s 2 and 3 above or scheming around those deficiencies above. They have weapons in Gaskin/Colemen/Pettis, and maybe we are seeing signs of Pounds, Ahmed, and a couple of others possibly rising. So do your damned jobs and find ways of getting your play makers the ball. I'm not very confident that this gets addressed fully this year at all. They should improve over the next two weeks and enough to win 3-4 of their last regular season games, but it won't be fully fixed.

5. Kickers. No need to hash this one deeply. We know it sucks and there isn't much they are going to do to fix it this year. Kicking likely will cost us another game at some point. They will end up having to go for 4th downs more and further stifle scoring.

6. Kick off returns. We don't have any. That's a problem. They have talked about putting Ahmed back there so they are at least looking into it.

No, I'm not listing Browning directly here as I think most of his problems are related to 2, 3, and 4 above. Give him a potent ground game and at least two real threats in the passing game and he's probably the same as last year or better. Fix some of those and you fix him.

Outside of the injury depth in the secondary I don't have any real concerns with the defense at all. Their punter is outstanding and that blown protection for him wasn't something we have seen before so hopefully that isn't a new thing to worry about, but I'm not treating it like it is.

These are the things the staff are working on this bye week. They need to make some real progress on #'s 2 and 3. They for sure are looking at and working on #4, but there is a ceiling to how much progress they can make with that IMO. 5 is a lost cause, or at least not entirely fixable.

The good news is the next two games are at home against two teams you shouldn't fear a lot. UCLA is horrible on the road and the Ducks offense is so bad right now it might not matter how much you score on their defense. They have time to make adjustments and fine tune them before Stanford.

 

[mcnabb7542]

There certainly are no lack of people panicking around the region. Probably some of the same that were way too high on themselves with thoughts of undefeated play through to the playoffs. Many fans are fickle like that.

The truth is that game was the perfect storm. It should have ended more like the Arizona and Utah games last year, but not one break went their way. They aren't horribly flawed, but they do have problems, as do most college teams.

Normally you might expect a team on their bye to be already game planning for two weeks from now. Petersen said they will be taking this week to more self scout and look closer at what happened, as well as going back to other games and looking for details they might not have seen with what is going on with the offense.

There are a few substantial concerns for this team going forward and the real question is what can they do about all of them either in the next two weeks, or at least by seasons end? Some are addressable and others not as much.

1. Injuries. Always the one thing that can ruin a season or game at the snap of a finger. They are already missing a couple of receivers, their anchor on the O line, and both of their top cover corners. Hopefully they are killing it in preparing the younger kids to be ready to step up when their number is called.

2. Lack of clutch options at receiver. It was glaring that either Browning didn't really trust anyone outside of Pettis, or no one else was ready to step up, but that passing game was rendered entirely inept because of it. Browning had time to throw, but often ended up running around trying to buy time for receivers to get open and rarely did they. This has been an issue all year since McClatcher went down. This is what Smith, Petersen, and their WR coaches get paid for. It might be time to burn a red shirt or otherwise look to some of the younger kids. We keep waiting for a fix and we have no idea when those options will pan out. It should be fixable this year, but will it?

3. Something is really off with the O line. And has been all year. UW ran fine in the Colorado and Oregon State games, but that's about it. Well maybe the Cal game too. Even the shitty OOC games were really bad with the run game. If you focus in on the line in run replays they are often not in sync. They are missing key blocks or have guys not switching up and going into defenders already covered and killing plays. This is a veteran line in the same scheme as last year. Now that Adams is out it's not likely to improve. Maybe it's time to shit can the OL coach? It's broken and they have until the last 3 games to fix it. I'd like to think they can make progress, but I'm not betting the farm on it.

4. Scheme/play calling. This one ties directly into the prior two. While some want to put a huge amount of blame on this, the truth is players have to make plays to make any offense work and right now there are too many that aren't. Smith rightly should shoulder a substantial amount of blame, but not as much for the in game calls as much as being the chief overall of the offense and not finding solutions to #'s 2 and 3 above or scheming around those deficiencies above. They have weapons in Gaskin/Colemen/Pettis, and maybe we are seeing signs of Pounds, Ahmed, and a couple of others possibly rising. So do your damned jobs and find ways of getting your play makers the ball. I'm not very confident that this gets addressed fully this year at all. They should improve over the next two weeks and enough to win 3-4 of their last regular season games, but it won't be fully fixed.

5. Kickers. No need to hash this one deeply. We know it sucks and there isn't much they are going to do to fix it this year. Kicking likely will cost us another game at some point. They will end up having to go for 4th downs more and further stifle scoring.

6. Kick off returns. We don't have any. That's a problem. They have talked about putting Ahmed back there so they are at least looking into it.

No, I'm not listing Browning directly here as I think most of his problems are related to 2, 3, and 4 above. Give him a potent ground game and at least two real threats in the passing game and he's probably the same as last year or better. Fix some of those and you fix him.

Outside of the injury depth in the secondary I don't have any real concerns with the defense at all. Their punter is outstanding and that blown protection for him wasn't something we have seen before so hopefully that isn't a new thing to worry about, but I'm not treating it like it is.

These are the things the staff are working on this bye week. They need to make some real progress on #'s 2 and 3. They for sure are looking at and working on #4, but there is a ceiling to how much progress they can make with that IMO. 5 is a lost cause, or at least not entirely fixable.

The good news is the next two games are at home against two teams you shouldn't fear a lot. UCLA is horrible on the road and the Ducks offense is so bad right now it might not matter how much you score on their defense. They have time to make adjustments and fine tune them before Stanford.

Nice write up Wiz!


On #3- I have from day one when this staff was hired knew that their blocking scheme was built around the zone run. Which is very very popular in today's game. Hell even some NFL teams have run to day light plays.
But if you look at Bama, they line up and run it right at you, smash mouth football. Now I know using Bama as an example is harsh since they could compete against some of the crappy NFL teams.

But the point I'm trying to get at is they don't need 4* or 5* players to accomplish smash mouth football.
There are some big kids around the nation that don't get recruited cause of the hype of their high school programs. Which is understandable, but at the same time these kids can line up and take that 6'4" 255 pound DE and drive him back, or better yet the 300 pound DT cause of there size being the same up front.
Then you target a running back that is a "down hill runner" or "north and south" style back. I love Gaskin, and think he's a fantastic back, but I see them trying smash mouth football with Coleman when he's in there and they can't line up and drive guys off the ball cause all these kids know how to do is zone block, ( and they are two way different approaches to blocking).

I know it's only Coach Pete's 4 year, and they are still building it up, by I really want to see a depth at the offensive line position where kids are in the range of 6'4" - 6'-6" weigh around 3 bills and can run, and bench press a damn Buick, then you build up your stable of backs, yes your speedy ankle breakers, but also some big backs that aren't afraid of lowering a shoulder and trucking the hell out of someone in front of them.

 

[mcnabb7542]

You know AG started a thread about "does a 12-1 UW Team get in?"

And to be honest right now knowing what this team can and can't do, I don't want them to get in if their not built to win it yet!


I know that's a shitty comment, but why hype it if it's going to lay an egg ....

 

[WizardHawk]

You know AG started a thread about "does a 12-1 UW Team get in?"

And to be honest right now knowing what this team can and can't do, I don't want them to get in if their not built to win it yet!

I know that's a shitty comment, but why hype it if it's going to lay an egg ....

I wouldn't say it's shitty, nor that uncommon. I think a lot of people have that inner debate. Just getting to the playoffs gives national exposure that can impact recruiting, but is there an offset with losing early when there? No idea.

The coaches will say they don't worry about that stuff or debate it. Their entire goal is to improve and play the best football they can and look only to the next game. They let that other stuff play itself out. It's not a bad way to look at it by fans either.

Right now any discussion about playoffs is way premature. By the time the AC happens it will be way more clear and much more worthy of discussion if they somehow run the rest of their schedule unscathed.

For today it's about the things in that list above. Get that line in better shape. Do something about your receiving corp. Get Jake rolling again. Get Gaskin and Coleman rolling. Get Ahmed more touches and keep his development going. Patch up the kicking as best as you can in season. Focus on UCLA and coming out as strong as you can in that game and see where you are before Oregon.

I mean we all know AG likes to stir up the pot and that's all he's doing in that thread. Of course they haven't been entirely eliminated, but as I said I'm not really focused on that right now.

 

[WizardHawk]

Couple of notes here ~
Jen Cohen went in depth about the program, the loss, scheduling, and a bit more here
UW athletic director Jen Cohen weighs in on ASU loss, ESPN flap and schedule criticism
One thing of note that keeps coming up relates to Rutgers and the series with Wisky that they backed out of:

The Huskies scheduled Rutgers when they were a rising national team, only to have them fall to also-ran status by the time they played their series in 2016-17, thus buttressing the “cupcake” narrative. And Wisconsin backed out of a series that was originally scheduled for 2017-18, then backed out again after it was changed to 2018 and 2021.

So those of us who remember the Rutgers/wisky overlapping were correct even if all you can find online is reference to the 18/21 series being cancelled. It was 17/18 first, was changed, and then backed out of due to conf restructuring. That should help @AlaskaGuy with some of his fishing for sure.

On the Michigan H/H ~

UW has a series scheduled with Michigan in 2020 and 2021, though there have been rumblings that the Wolverines would like to get out of that commitment.

“As far as I know, we’re planning on playing Michigan, and I think it would be just a huge disservice to both programs, their fans, their student-athletes, their alumni bases, to take two storied programs that have had a commitment for a long time that are both battling in high standings within college football, and cancel that series,” she said. “So we’re expecting to play it.

“When Scott (Woodward, Cohen’s predecessor) was here, there were some conversations, I think, with Michigan, about Michigan’s desire to potentially not play that game. I have not heard from their athletic director. I think he’s an amazing guy. I respect him a lot, and I’m fully expecting that we’re playing that series.”

I've now heard analysis from a couple of different sources that have broken down the game film and I can't say I'm any happier after hearing the why than just what we saw on TV. Seems ASU was playing D in a low cloud cover 4 most of the game. This hybrid zone scheme is more meant to stop the run with often 9 up 'in the box'. They were very sound in handing off receivers through their zones and UW had no answers to it. One of the big things you do to attack that look is running seems, go routes, posts, etc and the couple of times UW tried that Jake badly over threw the routes.

UW didn't make adjustments in the first half to deal with what ASU was doing, and their adjustments at halftime didn't improve things much either. That's the biggest problem in the game. No ability to adjust to what the defense was doing and make them pay for it. None. I really don't know how they fix that. Sure, they will see what ASU was doing and get a plan now for making sure no other defense can use that against them, but what will happen the next time they see something they aren't prepared for? They clearly can't adjust on the fly. That's a problem.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Jake had the 2nd most rushing attempts on the team vs ASU along with 30+ passing attempts. Fvck all that. Give the ball to the RB's and let them do their thing. Eventually ASU's DL would have gotten worn down not to mention it would have kept the UW defense off the field. Smith has pulled this shit several times other than when Tedford was around to keep shit together.

 

[WizardHawk]

It's way too simplistic to just say you needed to run more. Sure, they have play makers back there so get them the ball. It's more about the broader issue that UW's offense let ASU's defense dictate the play all night and didn't adjust. Whether that was screens, zone breaking routes, deep balls to force their safeties back to respect depth again, or designed runs to work through their 8-9 man fronts. Whatever the answer was, they didn't come up with it. None of it. It's more than just not running. They did NOTHING. It isn't just Smith. Petersen is a QB/offense guy and is on the headset. You also have Huff, Lubick, and Bhonapha all with voice that should be expected to contribute and put in suggestions for what to do to adjust.

They all failed. Badly. All of them. Ultimately the buck stops with Petersen and it's his responsibility to fix it. Whatever that means.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

The numbers don't lie. UW's RB's were averaging 4 yards per carry. Jake Browning had the 2nd most carries of any Husky vs ASU last Saturday night. You have three stud RB's .. give them the ball.

 

[Jamo]

You know AG started a thread about "does a 12-1 UW Team get in?"

And to be honest right now knowing what this team can and can't do, I don't want them to get in if their not built to win it yet!


I know that's a shitty comment, but why hype it if it's going to lay an egg ....

Good news is you won't have to wrestle with whether or not you really want them to get in because they have literally no chance whatsoever at this point. We showed up half drunk against a piss poor defense and slammed the door on our playoff hopes. No debating that

 

[WizardHawk]

Good news is you won't have to wrestle with whether or not you really want them to get in because they have literally no chance whatsoever at this point. We showed up half drunk against a piss poor defense and slammed the door on our playoff hopes. No debating that

That isn't entirely true. It actually could work out in their favor it was ASU they lost to instead of Stanford or Utah. Why? It was a road game and they weren't blown out, but they did suck against a shitty team. So did Clemson, and so did Clemson last year before winning it all.

By not having your loss against the few teams that might be ranked or at least considered good, you leave enough room to get 'cred' back with all of those types of games still left.

You go beat Stanford on the road, and always dangerous Utah team, and WSU after they are coming off a bye plus whoever comes from the south (Probably USC) and you did a lot to overcome that.

Now if your argument is you won't have to wrestle with that because you aren't going to win out to begin with, now that's a different story and I probably agree with you.

The door isn't entirely closed right now, but you have flaws and challenges left and probably still need some help from other top 10 caliber teams losing in order to get in that door and I don't place a high probability on all of that happening. Possible still yes, but not probable IMO.

 

[Jamo]

That isn't entirely true. It actually could work out in their favor it was ASU they lost to instead of Stanford or Utah. Why? It was a road game and they weren't blown out, but they did suck against a shitty team. So did Clemson, and so did Clemson last year before winning it all.

By not having your loss against the few teams that might be ranked or at least considered good, you leave enough room to get 'cred' back with all of those types of games still left.

You go beat Stanford on the road, and always dangerous Utah team, and WSU after they are coming off a bye plus whoever comes from the south (Probably USC) and you did a lot to overcome that.

Now if your argument is you won't have to wrestle with that because you aren't going to win out to begin with, now that's a different story and I probably agree with you.

The door isn't entirely closed right now, but you have flaws and challenges left and probably still need some help from other top 10 caliber teams losing in order to get in that door and I don't place a high probability on all of that happening. Possible still yes, but not probable IMO.

We need waaaaay to much help at this point. Clemson is a bad example because they didn't drop nearly as far in rankings after their loss to Pitt last year as we have after Saturday. We have 2 (pretty) good teams left to play (not counting whoever our opponent might be in the conference title game, assuming we get there). This is where a shitty schedule bites you in the ass. Last year we sorta had something to fall back on, primarily the fact that we lost to a pretty good team and smoked more than 1 ranked opponent. But this year is different. The stock is falling on WAZZU so we mostly just have a good Stanford team that we hopefully blow out. But we still have so many heads to jump over that it just won't happen

 

[TheDayMan]

That isn't entirely true. It actually could work out in their favor it was ASU they lost to instead of Stanford or Utah. Why? It was a road game and they weren't blown out, but they did suck against a shitty team. So did Clemson, and so did Clemson last year before winning it all.

By not having your loss against the few teams that might be ranked or at least considered good, you leave enough room to get 'cred' back with all of those types of games still left.

You go beat Stanford on the road, and always dangerous Utah team, and WSU after they are coming off a bye plus whoever comes from the south (Probably USC) and you did a lot to overcome that.

Now if your argument is you won't have to wrestle with that because you aren't going to win out to begin with, now that's a different story and I probably agree with you.

The door isn't entirely closed right now, but you have flaws and challenges left and probably still need some help from other top 10 caliber teams losing in order to get in that door and I don't place a high probability on all of that happening. Possible still yes, but not probable IMO.

Agree. This was being talked about on the main board the other week, it could be better to fall to a shitty team, if you look good other than that one game, than to lose the big game to a good team.

That said, I'm over the playoff stuff for now, at least until things shake up again and UW shows they can recover down some key guys.

 

[Jamo]

Agree. This was being talked about on the main board the other week, it could be better to fall to a shitty team, if you look good other than that one game, than to lose the big game to a good team.

That said, I'm over the playoff stuff for now, at least until things shake up again and UW shows they can recover down some key guys.

Since when do bad losses help a team? Yeah we still have the opportunity to go and beat ranked teams but nothing wipes away that shitty loss to an under-500 team that allows 36 points a game. Even in the best case scenario we won't have enough quality wins to make up for that fact

 

[WizardHawk]

Agree. This was being talked about on the main board the other week, it could be better to fall to a shitty team, if you look good other than that one game, than to lose the big game to a good team.

That said, I'm over the playoff stuff for now, at least until things shake up again and UW shows they can recover down some key guys.

Yeah, if this was Stanford they lost like this to I'd say it's pretty much 100% lock they have no path because of the loss of meat off that bone.

Losing to ASU and not really being blown out, even if you looked bad to a bad team doesn't kill you when you have time to make up for it.

Jamo, sure they dropped quite a bit. I think they did last year after the USC loss as well and that was worse because they didn't have a lot of meat left to make up for after that and STILL got in because of the chaos in the top 10.

Oklahoma lost to crap team AT HOME and are still in the hunt. Clemson lost to a bad team and of course will still be in it. Those aren't the points. It's that those kids of losses do happen and likely still will.

Do we really think PSU or OSU will come out without losing any down the stretch? Can Wisky gain any cred with having only the CCG against a ranked opponent for the entire season? Are we sure Georgia can be a threat to have two come from the SEC? No chance at all Oklahoma loses again?

Chaos and upsets the rule. Every single year.

There is way too much time left to rule anyone in or out. Bama is probably in no matter what and that's about it. All else is up in the air.

UW has to find some fucking balls on offense and fix that side of the ball or any talk of playoffs is entirely moot. That's really my only focus right now.

 

[WizardHawk]

Since when do bad losses help a team? Yeah we still have the opportunity to go and beat ranked teams but nothing wipes away that shitty loss to an under-500 team that allows 36 points a game. Even in the best case scenario we won't have enough quality wins to make up for that fact

If you listen to what the committee actually says, they look at the situation around losses and how they looked against their toughest opponents.

They didn't lose 37-7. They lost 13-7 in a game they were still in to the end despite not really doing anything right the whole day. And the fact it was on the road and against a team coming off a bye very much is taken into consideration.

They MUST go out and play well against Stanford and not just win, but look like they dominate doing it. They also need strong games against Utah, WSU, and probably USC. Again, all of those are tall orders and I doubt they win every one of them, but do so and you are for sure in the conversation. Doesn't mean a lock the are in by any means, but you are on the table at least.

 

[Jamo]

Yeah, if this was Stanford they lost like this to I'd say it's pretty much 100% lock they have no path because of the loss of meat off that bone.

Losing to ASU and not really being blown out, even if you looked bad to a bad team doesn't kill you when you have time to make up for it.

Jamo, sure they dropped quite a bit. I think they did last year after the USC loss as well and that was worse because they didn't have a lot of meat left to make up for after that and STILL got in because of the chaos in the top 10.

Oklahoma lost to crap team AT HOME and are still in the hunt. Clemson lost to a bad team and of course will still be in it. Those aren't the points. It's that those kids of losses do happen and likely still will.

Do we really think PSU or OSU will come out without losing any down the stretch? Can Wisky gain any cred with having only the CCG against a ranked opponent for the entire season? Are we sure Georgia can be a threat to have two come from the SEC? No chance at all Oklahoma loses again?

Chaos and upsets the rule. Every single year.

There is way too much time left to rule anyone in or out. Bama is probably in no matter what and that's about it. All else is up in the air.

UW has to find some fucking balls on offense and fix that side of the ball or any talk of playoffs is entirely moot. That's really my only focus right now.

You're right about our offense. Not up to par at all. Yes there is room for chaos, but we won't be the team that benefits from it. The Big 12 is going to have a representative this season I can promise you that. That's one of the major differences this season that we didn't see last year and I think helped us get in

 

[TheDayMan]

Since when do bad losses help a team? Yeah we still have the opportunity to go and beat ranked teams but nothing wipes away that shitty loss to an under-500 team that allows 36 points a game. Even in the best case scenario we won't have enough quality wins to make up for that fact

All losses are bad, the idea that some are good depending on the opponent is made up media bullshit that has sadly worked it's way into the minds of voters and committee members. Good teams can play shitty games. It happens all the time, and is forgivable depending on how they recover. If they come back and look great, beat the piss out of the Stanford and Utah types, it's pretty clear to everyone they are a top team who had a bad weekend, if they took care of their shit last weekend, and went on to lose a close game to Stanford, then they look like a team who lost to a better team, instead of a good team who had a bad week against a lesser opponent.

 

[WizardHawk]

You're right about our offense. Not up to par at all. Yes there is room for chaos, but we won't be the team that benefits from it. The Big 12 is going to have a representative this season I can promise you that. That's one of the major differences this season that we didn't see last year and I think helped us get in

The Big 12 adding that CCG now might give them one more peg, but also another chance to fall on their face and entirely derail a run.

 

[WizardHawk]

All losses are bad, the idea that some are good depending on the opponent is made up media bullshit. Good teams can play shitty games. It happens all the time, and is forgivable depending on how they recover. If they come back and look great, beat the piss out of the Stanford and Utah types, it's pretty clear to everyone they are a top team who had a bad weekend, if they took care of their shit last weekend, and went on to lose a close game to Stanford, then they look like a team who lost to a better team, instead of a good team who had a bad week against a lesser opponent.

I'll add that WHEN you lose also is kind of more important than to whom it is lost to.

Lose early in the season and you can entirely overcome it.

Lose mid season and finish strong and you can mostly overcome it.

Lose quite late and you are really up against it.

This was probably about as late as they could go and still kind of have a mostly recovered outcome. They have 5 straight weeks plus the CCG to stake their claim.

I do honestly feel for UCLA. Bad time for any team to want to face the dogs. They will be chomping at the bit these next two weeks to go get that taste out of their mouths and the Bruins are going to take the brunt of that.

 

[Jamo]

I'll add that WHEN you lose also is kind of more important than to whom it is lost to.

Lose early in the season and you can entirely overcome it.

Lose mid season and finish strong and you can mostly overcome it.

Lose quite late and you are really up against it.

This was probably about as late as they could go and still kind of have a mostly recovered outcome. They have 5 straight weeks plus the CCG to stake their claim.

I do honestly feel for UCLA. Bad time for any team to want to face the dogs. They will be chomping at the bit these next two weeks to go get that taste out of their mouths and the Bruins are going to take the brunt of that.

Timing of loss matters but what is going to end up killing us is strength of schedule. It's total bullshit because blue blood teams like Bama won titles off bludgeoning talentless teams to death in years past but we don't get that courtesy. It almost edged us out last year and losing to one of the supposed "cupcakes" on our schedule is the nail in the coffin. We need every team in front of us to basically lose twice to make up for how we look on paper to the rest of the country