Some of you may recall some discussion a while back about what color to wear to the game Saturday.  Our inimitable friend crazidawg suggested that we all wear gold to the game, on the assumption that LSU fans would be wearing purple, and something about motivational tactics, etc.  Well, it's a moot point - after browsing the LSU blog, I see that they are encouraging their fans to wear gold, so there you have it - purple is all ours!

Oh, and by the way - while I expect us to all enjoy what could be the most epic tailgate in Husky Stadium history, let's not forget what the siren means 20 minutes before the game - it means get off your butts and get into the stadium!  No more of this Dawg fans trickling in well after the game starts BS we've seen for the last several years.

Arrive early....Stay late....Be loud....Wear Purple!

Go Dawgs!

A pretty good article on ESPN.com today about the history and evolution of the spread offense.  Or, to be more accurate, the evolution of spread offenses, since there are many flavors of the spread.

Given all the debate on this blog about the spread (mainly fueled by crazidawg's dislike and dismissal of it), I thought this was an interesting read.

To me, it's pretty clear that spread offenses aren't really a fad, but an evolution.  It's not the only way to succeed offensively, but it can be a very effective one, and has been proven to be one that championships can be won with versions of the spread (Florida, Texas).

I'm not going to argue that spread offenses are the only way to go in modern college football - I think the variety of offenses that defenses have to face makes each of them more effective in their own right - but they certainly have a place in the game, and unless the rules are changed in a significant way, I think spread offenses (in various guises) will be continue to be successful.

It will be interesting to see how defenses evolve to solve the spread, and whether the number of teams utilizing spread offenses and defenses designed to stop them will help teams like the UW and USC that run pro-style attacks.

Here's the article:  Mark Schlabach on the history of the spread

Just reported by Bob Condotta that former Husky coach Jim Owens has passed away.  RIP coach, and thank you for your enduring contributions to Husky football - you are a Husky legend.  You helped turn the balance of power in the Rose Bowl away from the Big 10 and back to the West Coast with your dominating Husky teams from 1959-60 and established a long tradition to tough, physical Husky football and re-established the UW as a West Coast power.

Link to the Condotta article in the Seattle Times

Attended my first Husky practice today in several years.  Stood on the North sidelines close to the East end zone.

Overcast day today - the sun tried to poke out a couple times, but it was mostly a really windy day, with the wind making for chilly conditions.  Good practice for what the team will encounter in late Fall.

The sideline perspective was good for observing coaches, players & recruits, not as good for seeing all of the scrimmage action.

Overall, it seemed like the defense had the upper hand, especially the d-line vs. the o-line.  The QB's were frequently under a lot of pressure, with quite a few touch sacks (QB's aren't "live").  No real big runs, but I couldn't really tell how much yardage they were gaining so for all I know what looked like 2 yard runs may have been 6 yard runs.  I'll let others that were in the stands with a better view of the field chip in with more description of the scrimmage and who really stood out.

The coaches are as advertised - very active, always teaching, always hustling.  Cozzetto is a real perfectionist - I spent a few minutes just prior to the scrimmage starting watching the o-line drills.  I'd probably need to see them again 2-3 more times before I can really make any valuable observations about them.  I'll say this - it's interesting to see the variation in body types and shapes among them, from the tall and relatively skinny Terence Thomas, to the massive Morgan Rosborough, to the more squat Greg Christine.  Ben Ossai looks better, but I think he's still got more work to do to get into ideal condition.  Rosborough too.  And Habben still needs to work on his quickness - he got beat around the edge a few times.

Saw a number of recruits there, including (but not limited to):  Colin Porter (a big kid), Mike Marboe (looked relatively small standing next to Porter), Chris Young, Michael Hartvigson, Darius Waters and (of course) Jake Heaps.  Interesting to note that for pretty much the entire practice, Heaps was standing with a kid named Kyle Van Noy.  Van Noy is LDS and had committed to BYU last year, but got a DUI and so far as I can tell from the recruiting sites has delayed enrollment until next year.  I'm not sure what to read into his being at this practice with Jake, if anything, but I thought it was interesting.

Lots of former players there, including (but not limited to): Darin Harris, Caesar Rayford, Brock Huard, Hugh Millen, Tim Cowan and Greg Lewis.

Saw the Dawgman.com crew - Chris Fetters, Kim Grinolds, Scott Eklund, as well as Softy.

Interesting stuff.  If I'm not swamped with moving in to my new house next weekend, I'll try to make it out to that scrimmage as well, and am definitely planning on going to the Spring Game (should be pretty easy now that I'll be living just 2 blocks north of U-Village).

It appears that the rumors about Tony Bennett leaving WSU for Virginia are true.  I'm surprised at the timing and the choice of Virginia when you consider the jobs he was linked to last year and the possible jobs he was being linked to this year.  It'll be interesting to hear his reasoning.

Cougars are predictably shocked and furious, and I guess I can't blame them.  Tough break for that program and the conference in general.

With the 2008 season in the books, I thought it would be a fun debate to rate the coaches in the Pac-10.

My criteria is as follows: I'm looking at the coach's entire career, weighted most towards recent years, and accounting for the degree of difficulty at each location (i.e. it's harder to win at WSU than it is USC).

With that in place, here's how I'd rate them (in alphabetical order of school):

Mike Stoops (Arizona): D+

Stoops has done only slightly above the bare minimum to keep his job at Arizona.  Yes, he inherited a messy situation from Mackovic, and Tuscon isn't quite as attractive to recruit to as Tempe, but good coaches can do well there (Larry Smith, Dick Tomey).  Adding Sonny Dykes was a smart move by Stoops, but I think he's not really out of the woods yet - losing Tuitama, Thomas and 3 OL will be tough, and the Wildcats could struggle next year.

Dennis Erickson (Arizona State): B+

This was a tough one to rate; love him or hate him, Erickson is one of the best college coaches of his generation when you look at his entire career, with the National Championships at Miami and the major revival he did at Oregon State (building off what Riley started).  But the disappointing season the Sun Devils just concluded clouds things a bit.  Still, I'd bet on it being a temporary lull, with improvement next season and the Sun Devils being legit conference contenders in 2-3 years.  It's possible though that Erickson is slipping some from his glory days.

Jeff Tedford (Cal): B

A few years ago Tedford would've rated an "A", but he seems to have plateaued.  And while nobody should undersell the remarkable turnaround he's engineered at Cal, inheriting an awful program and immediately turning them into an annual bowl team, it appears he missed his window of opportunity to snatch a conference title away from USC.  Cal fans are starting to get jaded, which is too bad given the history of the program prior to Tedford, but it's also true that Cal seems less certain every year to be a serious challenger to USC's supremacy.  Maybe this has just been a short lull and Tedford can get Cal to elite status; certainly, it will help his efforts when Cal's athletic facilities finally get a long-overdue upgrade.

Mike Bellotti (Oregon): B

I'm sure some would argue this is too low, but given all the advantages that Phil Knight's money has bought, I think Bellotti has done a good, but not outstanding job.  His conference record (77-47) is less impressive than his overall record, reflective of some of the patsies the Ducks have scheduled over the years.  I'll give him credit for hiring innovative offensive minds; if he'd shown the same flair for defensive coaches, he'd rank higher, and he might have more Pac-10 titles.  Was this year his swan-song?  Can Chip Kelly maintain the success Bellotti has had?

Mike Riley (Oregon State): A-

I struggled with this grade as well, i.e. how much extra credit to give Riley for winning in Corvallis.  Quite a bit I decided - this is probably the 2nd toughest place to recruit to in the Pac-10 behind Pullman.  What Riley has built there is remarkable, with 3 consecutive 9+ win seasons.  The Beavers are consistently one of the toughest, hardest-hitting teams in the conference, and in a lot of ways they resemble what the Huskies used to be under Don James.  While the choke job against the Ducks this year will haunt them, they have proven to be a major thorn in the side of the Trojans and I wouldn't rule out a Rose Bowl for the Beavers under Riley.

Jim Harbaugh (Stanford): B-

Harbaugh inherited a bad program and has quickly given them respectability, famously upsetting USC last year and turning the Cardinal into a tough, physical team.  Still, we're only 2 years into Harbaugh, and it's a bit early to get a really good feel for how he's building the program.  Next year will tell us a lot - can he get the Cardinal beyond just respectability and actually get a bowl berth and start challenging for the upper half of the conference?  Despite what some might have you think, recruiting to Stanford isn't an overly difficult task; while at a disadvantage due to academic requirements, they also fare far better in landing the guys on their list precisely because of their academics.

Rick Neuheisel (UCLA): C+

I'm sure some will say this is sour grapes as a Husky fan.  And while I thought he did a great job taking over Lambo's kids and winning the Rose Bowl after the 2000 season, there remain huge question marks over his ability to build a program long-term.  I'm actually willing to give him a mulligan for this past season given the horrible injury issues the Bruins suffered, but I'm not convinced yet that Neuheisel knows how to build a upper-echelon program.  He got very lucky in inheriting DeWayne Walker and having the opportunity to get Norm Chow; we'll see who he can get to replace Walker, and whether he and Chow can co-exist for long.

Pete Carroll (USC): A

Yes, USC is the easiest place in the conference to recruit to, but you have to go back to 1924 to find a coach at USC that has a higher winning percentage.  The run the Trojans have been on since 2002 is the greatest run of domination in the last 50 years of the conference, surpassing anything John McKay or John Robinson did.  Carroll is the real deal, a perfect fit for USC.  But he'd win at any university with his positive personality and obsession with the spirit of competition.  The only thing keeping him from an "A+" grade are his slip-ups the last 3 years that have kept the Trojans out of the BCS Championship game.

Steve Sarkisian (UW): N/A

Can't rate a guy that has never before been a head coach.  Let's revisit him in a couple years.

Paul Wulff (WSU): Incomplete

Last season was an absolute disaster for the Cougs, but Wulff inherited a bad team with major academic and behavior issues.  I think it's too soon to give him a grade; I want to see what happens next year.  He does seem to be doing a pretty good job of recruiting given the circumstances, but I'm also not convinced he and his coaches are up to Pac-10 standards - I doubt Dennis Erickson would've struggled as much with this team as Wulff did.

Thoughts?  I'm sure there will be a variety of differing opinions, especially from non Husky fans...

With Jim L. Mora and Brian Kelly out, and no indications yet that Chris Peterson or Kyle Whittingham are interested in the job, it appears that Mike Leach is the guy with the biggest "name" that is interested in the UW job.  Let's take a look at what his teams are like:

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> </xml><![endif]--> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif]-->

As expected, his offenses are outstanding, based off his highly effective and prolific passing attack.  Leach is all about throwing the football, and running it is just something they do periodically to keep defenses honest.  After 7 straight years of his offenses ranking in the top 6 in the country, it seems a bit disingenuous to describe his offense as a "gimmick" or "trendy".  If defenses are going to catch on to it, wouldn't you think they'd have done so already?

It's his defensive numbers that are of interest.  His run defenses have been mediocre to bad, but his passing defenses have been mediocre to quite good.  Overall, while he's had a few bad defenses, he's also had some pretty good ones, and in general the defensive numbers are better than I expected to find.

Obviously, a UW team under Leach wouldn't be like the classic DJ style teams many Husky fans remember fondly; they'd be much more like the throw it around the yard team from 2002 with Cody Pickett setting Husky passing records.

Gary Patterson has said that he's not going anywhere, but it's worth checking out the numbers his TCU teams have posted under his watch for the sake of comparing Patterson to other hot coaching prospects.

In a word - wow.  Even when you take into account the lesser conference that TCU plays in, those defensive numbers are amazing.  Simply put, you don't run the ball on the Horned Frogs, and in most years you can't pass on them either.  Twice they've been #1 in the country in overall defense, twice they've been #2.  That's impressive stuff.  And the offense isn't bad either, with a particular emphasis on a strong running game.

Simply put, if Patterson were available, he'd have to be at the top of the list for Washington.

To continue a series, I'm presenting the numbers posted by another potential UW coaching target - Chris Peterson.  Here's what the Broncos have done in the 3 seasons Peterson has been head coach:

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> </xml><![endif]--> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;} </style> <![endif]-->

Pretty impressive stuff, even when you consider their conference.  Peterson is known for his offense, and rightfully so - but the defensive numbers are quite good as well.  And while the passing game is big in the Bronco offense, the rushing attack is potent as well.

Peterson is someone the UW needs to pursue before they start settling for a Pat Hill.  And his style of play would go over better with most UW fans than what Mike Leach brings to the table.

Someone who hasn't gotten enough attention from Washington fans (IMO) is Kyle Whittingham.  The guy has a really impressive track record.  Whether or not he would truly be interested in the UW (as he said in a radio interview a few weeks ago) or if it's just contract leverage with Utah, who knows (I suspect it's more leverage than anything), but as long as we're entertaining thoughts of guys like Brian Kelly and Mike Leach, we should talk about Whittingham too.

He was the defensive coordinator at Utah for 10 years (including under Urban Meyer) before getting the head coaching job.  Here's how Utah did under Meyer:

Obviously the stats are quite good, especially offensively.  Not a surprise given Meyer's involvement.  Note that the defense was pretty good too under Whittingham's coordination.

Here's how Utah has done since Meyer left and Whittingham was promoted:

The offense hasn't been as good, but has remained good overall with a pretty good running game.  The defense has gone from good to outstanding over the last 2 seasons.

Given the success of Whittingham's defenses and his good running game numbers, he would seem to be an optimal choice for Husky fans who long for the days of Don James.

Again, I'm not sure if we could pry Whittingham away (he's LDS, which also puts pressure on him to stay at Utah), but he'd be a great get IMO and should be right up there with Brian Kelly, Jim Mora and Jeff Tedford in our dream lists, and probably ahead of Mike Leach.