Curry

I don't know if Aaron Curry is a top 5 pick, but I really like him as a football player.

Why? Because he can tackle.

You don't see a lot of arm tackles from this guy its form tackles, head across the bow and driving with the legs, feet spread apart for good balance.

He is exceptionally strong, he can get into the chest of an offensive tackle and drive him backward. You don't see that a lot from linebackers.

He has the ability to be very good in coverage.

From what I saw of him, Wake Forest used him as a spy on any action coming out of the backfield, be it the qb or the halfback leaking out, they didn't blitz him a lot by scheme, and played a lot of zone which is typical for college.

I don't know if he'll be a superstar, but he can be a very very good player, a pro bowler if nothing else, for me, that will be enough.

I really don't like to damn a season before its started, but I am not optimistic about the Seahawks next season. The last time I wasn't optimistic was 2005, where I took the offseason off from the Seahawks to rehab my health, both physically and mentally after 2004(By far the toughest Seahawks season of my life). They lost their first game in typical Seahawks fashion, went 2-2, losing to the Redskins in typical Seahawks fashion and didn't hit their stride till the legendary victory over Dallas.

I wish I could feel the same about the Seahawks this year, but I know success comes and goes in the NFL, the Seahawks had their run, they had three great teams 2003, 2005, 2007. (Believe me, 2003 could've easily been 13-3, I'm not kidding). Their horses are aging, the new "talent" is mediocre, the coaching staff is okay. Thats it. Yet the important thing is I can still talk myself into getting excited, however, the more I know about football, the more I know that a great season is a low possibility. The defense could be good, and I'm hoping the Seahawks draft Aaron Curry. I used to be on the draft an o linemen bandwagon, but hopped off that when I realized Locklear will replace Walt, Willis will move to tackle(this alone gives me wet dreams) and there isn't a guard or center worthy of a high pick.

I'm not on the D.D. Lewis bandwagon, he is servicable, but not starter material, if Curry is there, take him. That would give you Hill, Tatupu and Curry chasing ball carriers behind a revamped D line which, if nothing else, is very deep. I still think they have too many attackers and not enough stuffers on the d line. I want a d line that can get push, not run around guys. Gap control at all times, at all times gap control.

I can't possibly stress how happy I am that Torry Holt is no longer in the division, the man took years off my life.

The Apple Cup

Moving the Apple Cup to a neutral site, although economically beneficial for the schools, sucks. Proponents point to the Red River shootout, or the World's Greatest Cocktail party as proof that the neutral site idea works. The NFL has already done everything it can to debunk home field advantage, must college football, which is so reliant on passion, home stadiums and mystique do the same?

However, there is a deeper issue here, and for once, I will argue mostly on behalf of my crimson and gray bretherin instead of the purple and gold i was raised on. I've been to the Apple Cup at both stadiums, and both are great in their own right. It helped that the Apple Cup in Seattle was when both teams were ranked in the top 15(the last time this would happen I believe) and you had legit stars on both teams(Although Reggie Williams utterly abused Marcus Trufant). You had Mike Price doing what Mike Price does, infuriating 73,000 fans by getting a penalty called on the Huskies for carrying on too long with honoring their seniors, and doing what he does even better, and outthinking himself in a big game for the umpteenth time and his team getting shellacked because of it. This game also upheld the time honored tradition that the Huskies will ALWAYS be more physical than the Cougars.Cut the crowd in half, as well as the teams win totals, and you have the 2006 affair, a wildly entertaining contest under the lights in Pullman that the Huskies ultimately won because the Cougars safety play was terrible and they couldn't get off a punt(somehow Cougar fans blamed Alex Brink for this one, nice).

Anyways, long story short, the game means more in Pullman. Its the biggest crowd, its the biggest visiting crowd, which means more hotel rooms are booked, more restaurants are filled, more beer is bought, more money is spent. The economic effect means more than the couple hundred thousand the university makes on the game.

By moving the Apple Cup, the university is thinking about itself, not the fans, alums, students, who would all have to travel 4 and a half hours, spend the money, on food, lodging and the jacked up price for tickets every year instead of every other year. Not to mention all of the pissed of alums that will withhold donations(don't think this is possible? You think UW would have any trouble raising money to remodel their stadium and other programs if they hadn't lost 40 out of their last 50 games?). How is this the same athletic department that refuses to have home night games because the travelling fans might not get home till late at night? How can the university gripe about how they need the extra two million a year when they spent 20 million on a ridiculous stadium "enhancement"?Then again, this is the same school that sells individual tickets to the west endzone of martin stadium for the Apple Cup when its a student area for every other game so they can make more money and in turn, fewer students can attend(Great idea guys). Not to mention the apple cup ticket would be extra added onto the season tickets purchased, meaning that

A) a season ticket package would not include the Apple Cup gameand

B) assuming tickets are divied up evenly, 20,000 or so UW season ticket holders would not be able to go to the Apple Cup. Hardly fair.

C)Assuming the Cougars continue their one pilgrimmage to Qwest Field a year for a non conference game, that would be two "home games" taken out of Pullman.

Also, as great as Qwest Field is for Seahawks games, its roll as a neutral site venue sucks. It is like all new NFL stadiums, huge, impersonal and lacking in the charm that stadiums like the Cotton Bowl(one of the reasons Oklahoma/Texas works so well) have. It screams the NFL, which means it screams money. College football is supposed to scream passion, thats not helped by the sterile environment of an NFL Stadium. The lesson, as always, is that the administration at WSU will chase the money, and then use that money to dress up a university that needs an academic makeover more than new dorms, a new stadium entryway, a new CUB, a new videoboard and all those other bells and whistles they are adding instead of adding new, quality faculty.

I'm buying what shark is selling

I am not one to blindly believe in a coach, or a team until I actually have seen them play a time or two, I still have my reservations about what Sarkisian is doing at UW, but I see nothing but good things in the future.

I like the enthusiasm, I like the open practice(Come August I'll be there as much as humanely possible), I like Nick Holt, a ferocious defensive coordinator, I like the physical attitude, the perfectionist streak and the speed that they are trying to build this team around. I like the athletes they are putting on the o line. I don't know about moving Ossai to guard, but I'll try to make it out there Saturday to see how he looks. Senio Kelemente switching to guard could work wonders, he's got good feet and was so raw technique wise at D tackle, he's not losing much switching to offense(*EDIT* I've watched a couple games on film and now I think moving Kelemente to guard is the absolute right idea, he was the worst DT i've ever seen, I'm shocked I didn't notice this during the season, he was literally getting destroyed every play).
The linebackers, with Savannah back, are good, probably the best part of the team. The tight ends have scary potential, Kavario Middleton, although not a big blocker, has the talent to play on Sundays. Chris Polk has me excited as well. There are some very good pieces on this team. I'm not saying they are winning 6 games next year, I hope for 4, but there is a good base with the underclassmen.

Last years UW team was the poorest coach and worst prepared college football team I've ever seen. I am not exaggerating. The lack of recruiting the first three years left the defense, young and utterly overmatched. The front 7 actually wasn't that terrible, it was the secondary that was truly a disaster and the fact that the offense would leave the defense with no support and in terrible position most of the season.
The offense was a mess. If you have a running quarterback and a huge offensive line and no receivers, why would you try and run the spread offense? Doesn't it require a line with good lateral movement? Receivers that can block, find spots in the zone and run good routes? I know the spread option is the sexy thing these days, but a power option game, however outdated, ran out of the I(the Huskies did have a legit fullback), would've controlled the clock better, kept the receivers from taking too much on themselves. Who would've wanted a piece of jake locker swinging around the end on offense? Granted, part of the 0-12 season was the fact locker was hurt, but I still think he was misused before he went down, they were losing to stanford when he was hurt. Stanford.

My one complaint, Sark is trying to turn Locker into a pocket passer, thats all and good, but he made his name with his legs, Sark has never dealt with a qb that can move like him, don't pigeonhole him. I've always felt that you recruit players who fit your system or if you have to take what you have, then build the system around the players. Tim Lappano tried to do that here, he was just an idiot. Its fine to make him more of a pocket passer, but I hope to see plenty of qb draws also next year, he's best when barrelling down hill, let him play.
Here's a prediction for you, by Locker's senior season, the Huskies will be an 8 win team.

Peterson for Redding, a wash at best.

My first reaction to the trade of Julian Peterson was "Are you fucking kidding me?" Upon further reflection, this trade is understandable, but I don't see it as an improvement one way or the other.
The Seahawks were changing to a base tampa two where the pressure was to be generated by the front four, Peterson is poor against the run and struggles mightily in coverage(Such a change from his younger years), he has poor gap control, poor play recognition and poor tackling. However, the whole defense couldn't tackle or stick to their gaps last year. He's still a capable pass rusher with the perfect build and uses his hands extremely well. He was also horribly used. I don't understand the stunts to the inside that had him pushing in the middle and a DT containing the outside. Doesn't make sense in so many fundamental ways I can't even list them here, but I'll address it later, because that exact philosophy is why this trade was made in the first place.
Cory Redding is going to be used at defensive end the first two downs and moved inside on passing downs(As Kearney was occasionally last year).

I think this is inanely stupid but Redding is a better fit for it than Kearney, he is better built for rushing on the inside and has more experience. However, I don't get the idea of having smaller guys rushing in the inside lanes on 3rd down.
Defensive ends use a variety of different things to get to the quarterback. They use speed to get the offensive lineman off balance, if they use their speed to get to the edge and he turns his hips, they can rip to the inside. If they don't pop out quick enough, they can swim around the end around the end, or they can use their speed to generate explosiveness and power through the lineman with the bull rush. Part of the reason defensive ends can get pressure on the quarterback is that they can work in space, aside from a back helping out or a tight end chipping, its one on one. Inside rushers have to rely on technique and strength. There isn't as much space to work and the center or guard is there to help out. Guards and centers are typically shorter than tackles and have shorter arms so that they can get to the defenders chest, they don't need great reach because of the lack of space they are protecting. If you get pressure up the middle from your defensive tackles, its typically a bull rush and they are collapsing the pocket. That way the tackle is getting pressure and still maintaining his gap integrity. If the tackle tries to skirt around the outside, unless the guard or center has a failure of technique and is caught leaning forward, the offensive linemen can push the rusher up and to the side, clearing out the middle of the field for the quarterback to step up. Ideally you want a push up the middle causing the quarterback to glide backwards in the pocket into the ends coming around the edge. Even if a pass is thrown, the quarterback is unable to fully step into the throw and in most cases these days, the quarterback is throwing off his back foot. Placing ends on the inside means that you won't have that push, instead you have them trying to get upfield, leaving their gaps open and allowing the quarterback to step up in the pocket with now a multitude of new options, A) The quarterback can run, if in man coverage this is the best bet, if in zone, he can still gain 3 or 4 yards at minimum or B) the quarterback now has a clear view of the field and doesn't have to rely on passing lanes, his throwing angles are different but when the quarterback moves, coverage typically breaks down and holes will open up behind the linebackers, who move up thinking the quarterback might run.
In philosophy, putting all your ends out there to rush the passer seems like a logical idea. But it simply doesn't work. They either get stonewalled or run themselves out of the play. It sounds like something you'd try in a video game.
I think this strategy will work with marginal success at best, the Seahawks are doing what they've been doing the last couple years on defense, they are failing to maximize the talent of their players and use them where they have the highest chances of success.

I think the Seahawks defense will be more disciplined against the run next year, Peterson was a liability in that regard and their are putting a defensive line together that will keep the linemen and fullbacks off the backers, but on third down, the ultimate thorn in the side of the Seahawks last year, I doubt we will see a significant improvement. Due to changes in the secondary scheme, it will be improved, but the scheme is still flawed and the talent lacking.

Rumblings

Count me in as one guy who wouldn't be surprised at all if the Cougars won the Pac 10 tournament and went dancing.
Count me in as another guy who thinks the Huskies will have their hands full today. It pains me to say both things.

I hate conference tournaments, goes in line with my last post. I don't see the point in penalizing teams that win their conference by not even giving them a tourney birth.

As much as I loved Daryl Tapp at VaTech, he's disappointed me. He's shoddy against the run, both in technique and containment, he plays selfishly. The Seahawks don't have any ends that are good against the run. Kearney even gets washed every now and then. Thats why you see so many stretch plays against them, they get these light ends on their shoulders and drive them. I'd do the exact same thing. I'll never understand why they let go of Bryce Fisher in 2007. The oft injured Wistrom held down the fort as well, they struggled on interior runs back then, traps, powers, pulls. Thats why the Niners would beat them in 2006, they'd wear them down. I want a thick end with a fat ass in there, your push is coming in the middle anyway with Mebane, just contain the outsides, funnel the qb in the pocket. I don't like these slim defenses.

The Case Against Cinderella

Take this for what it is, I am a fan of the BCS, and I think the only feasible change would be a Plus 1 format. I hate the notion of BCS Busters and I hate how the regular season is deemed irrelevant. I hate how a body of work throughout the season is thrown out the window and one game is the judge.
If Utah had to play in the SEC, they wouldn't have been a BCS team, Utah knows this, everyone who watches College Football knows this, but we dance around this like other issues, ignoring it, living in a fantasy world where everyone is equal.
But I digress, the NCAA Tournament nears and the search for the next Cinderella, the next Gonzaga, George Mason, or Davidson, the next Valparioso. Let me say this, I am growing sick of Cinderella. Sure, upsets in the tournament are part of what makes the tournament the tournament. How can I forget Hampton beating Iowa State, or Gonzaga's inexplicable runs through the tournament? Yet when it comes to the Final Four, I want the best teams in, I want the 1's and the 2's fighting it out. I don't want George Mason taking the spot of UCONN, I want to see the titans, who have dominated all year sharing the same battlefield. There isn't any glory for the late arriver who shows up to the battlefield after everyone is bloodied and beaten and lands the kill shot.

I believe in excellence, I prefer to see excellence in sports. I want to see the two teams that have sustained excellence for the longest period of time over a team that is 16-14 in a no name conference who won their conference title game on a buzzer beater in front of 150 people.

As great as the tournament is, the format, the four games going on at once, the live look ins, the increased presence of Cinderella is growing tiresome. College Basketball is weaker, there is more parity, and its been occuring since players started jumping to the NBA in the mid 90's. Gone were the great teams of players playing together for four years. The Duke teams of the early 90's were replaced by the UNC teams of the mid 90's, uber talented teams with no chemistry and a constantly rotating roster every year.
Great players are what creates the difference between the great teams, and everyone else. Now all great players jump to the NBA after one or two seasons. The media is left to create legends of mediocre players in Adam Morrison, Tyler Hansborough and J.J. Reddick. If you think Blake Griffin is staying another year, your insane. He's going to chase the money, like everyone before him.
I like to see the great matchups, I like great games, I like sports played at the highest level possible. In order for any upset to happen, thats all that has to happen(Exception the near miss of St. Josephs vs Stanford years ago), in order for an upset to happen, the quality of play has to decrease. Its poor basketball.

Argue with me on this, I welcome it.