September 4, 2026 • 18 mins
Hugh Millen joins Dave Softy Mahler and Dick Fain to talk about his feeling about the Apple Cup on Sunday and the future of the rivalry game at all, Demond Williams and the weight on his shoulders to carry the Huskies offense in 2026, the non-conference schedule for UW, the playoff implications of the schedule, and changes to the playoff.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The guy that obviously has been watching the Apple Cup
is a long, long time, a former Husky quarterback, Hugh Millen,
a little live at 5 right here on 93.3 KJRFM.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
How are you, man?
Speaker 3 (00:10):
I'm doing great, guys. What's happening?
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Not much.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
You want to share your enthusiasm level, your juice level,
your intrigue level for this Apple Cup on Sunday?
Speaker 2 (00:20):
What do you make of what we're about to see
and the buildup to it on Sunday?
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Not much. I feel sorry for the Cougs. I think
that there was some built-in disadvantages that we all know
about prior to this conference realignment. When you consider, if
you consider the population, if you consider the politics, the
size of the cities, towns, the academic difference, like you
(00:48):
could argue that of all of the traditional rivalries, there
was more disparity in between Washington and Washington State than
any of the rivalries across the country. There's differences in others,
but think, you know, USC, UCLA, Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama, Auburn.
(01:09):
If you go and then you say, okay, what are
all the material ways that a school could be different?
There's a hell of an argument to be made in
an objective fashion that Washington and Washington State had the
most disparity And, you know, and differences. I don't just
mean to say high and low as if there's a hierarchy,
(01:29):
but just even the most differences remain neutral on it.
And so it was a unique rivalry. It's dissolving because
of of all of the changes. And so I'm I'm
just not terribly gripped by it personally. We had Pat
Chun on a couple hours ago.
Speaker 4 (01:49):
I don't know if you got a chance to hear that,
but one of his quotes was, there is an intent
to continue the game on both sides of this, end quote.
What do you make of those words, and how much
do you believe that?
Speaker 3 (02:02):
Well, I think I'm going to take his phrasing literally
because he's paid to speak with the right phraseology, and
there is an intent tells me almost nothing. because it
doesn't tell you how much intent, and it doesn't tell
you the conditions that need to be met to actually
realize the difference. So I think that he leaves himself
(02:26):
a wide canvas for how this could actually play out.
And I don't say that to levy any critique to
his comment. I think that that's the way he asked
to speak to it. But that could mean a shred,
very minimal. It could be moderate intent. It could be
(02:47):
significant intent. The fact that he doesn't disclose it just
doesn't tell me that that's much of a comment. Short
of him saying it's dead in the water, which you
would not expect him to say, then that's the next
best thing, but it really doesn't give us information.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Well, and it could mean, I mean, also, if we're
just going to speculate here, it could mean that that's
their intent from their perspective. You know, they're covering their side. Hey,
you know, we intend to play it, but we don't
know about Wazoo. I mean, if they bail out, that's
on them. But our intention is to play this thing.
I mean, how much of an intention, you don't know,
but who knows what Wazoo's perspective is going to be.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
But look, man, I mean, if.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
It's Dave, sorry to interrupt you, but that could mean
Washington's intent is, hey, every game is going to be
played in Seattle.
Speaker 4 (03:33):
Sure.
Speaker 3 (03:33):
Like you want to play in Lumen? Fine.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Right.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
You want to play in Husky Stadium? Fine.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Right.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
We're never going to Pullman again. Like and he could
he could that could fit under his terminology and he
could accurately have said it that that they have an
intent to continue this series.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
So I think he did say, by the way, just
just to be just to be fair here, I think
he did say intent to honor the terms of the
contract or something like that.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
We intend to honor our contractual obligations, I believe is
what he said.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
And when does that expire?
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Two years. Two years.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
27 and 28 with a game in Pullman next year
and a game in Seattle in 28. So just from
a standpoint of where those games are played, if he's
talking about contractually obligated, as of right now, they are
obligated to go to Pullman and come back here in 2028.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
And by the way, yes, exactly. And by the way,
There's always clauses in the contract that says, hey, if
we want to pull out.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Right.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
This is the remedy.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Right.
Speaker 3 (04:32):
You know, it's not a breach of contract. It's just
it's fulfilling the clause in the contract that states if
we if Washington pulls out, then then this is the restitution.
If there if you, you know, I mean, that's laid
out the consequences. So even even that. phraseology gives a
(04:54):
wide latitude for what can even happen in the next
two years. That doesn't, that doesn't certify that it's going
to be, I mean, I would, I would anticipate that
it'll be played.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
We could be here all night. We could be here
all night debating the definition of the word intent. Unfortunately,
we only have two hours left in the radio show.
Are you mocking me in the words of Buzz Lightyear?
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Slightly. Yeah, that's okay. See, I can do that to
you because you're my boy, all right? And you can
do it.
Speaker 3 (05:19):
To me, by the way.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
If Washington intends to play in the CFP, they're going
to need, number one, to play really well. Do you
feel like we are going to see a solid season,
a bounce-back season in some ways?
Speaker 2 (05:39):
What are you expecting, honestly, man, from DeMond Williams this year?
Speaker 3 (05:43):
Well, I think that he has kind of stepped up
his leadership game since his gaffe.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Right.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
I call it a gaffe. I mean, it was just
an honest, you know, he followed where his heart led him.
And then when he got bent over a legal barrel,
he then reversed course in a manner where he had
no choice. Let's be honest about that. Anything other than
that I'm going to argue pretty aggressively with you. He
(06:12):
had an intent to leave, but he couldn't. So here
he is, and since that time, I think he's been
more engaged with the team than he had been. He's
taken his leadership role more seriously, so that's a good thing.
He's got a better offensive line. That's going to help him. Now,
arguably the targets, until somebody steps up and plays at
(06:36):
the level of Denzel Boston, And obviously the receiver core
that Pennix had, we're used to seeing some pretty good
receivers here. I think there's some questions about whether or
not DeMond is going to enjoy that kind of battery
mates with its targets. But here's the challenge. If you
go back to a year ago, Washington played four games
(06:56):
against teams that had top 25 defense. By the way,
I booted this this morning like a Jason Myers preseason PAT.
So let's see if I can get this better. So
I was a wide right or a wide left. It was,
it was everything. It was, it was a, I basically
topped it, you know, like I, I would be, I
(07:17):
would be having to play the rest of the hole
with my wiener out. Wow. If we're being honest here,
like that's how bad I am.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
Did he just say what I thought he just said,
by the way, Jackson, that's a drop.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
If I can get that for 6 PM, that'd be phenomenal.
Go ahead.
Speaker 3 (07:32):
So, so the Huskies averaged 9.3 points per game in
those four games. against teams in the top 25 defense. Oh,
you've set them off the edge.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
I'm sorry.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
You know what I'm talking about, right? If you whiff
a ball, if you don't like it, what is it, 10,
20 yards?
Speaker 2 (07:49):
No, it's the ladies' tees. The ladies' tees. Yes, the
ladies tee.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Well, I'm glad to know that I don't know the
details of that, David.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Hugh, Hugh, Hugh, you may know the details.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
If I had to play with my wiener on top
of the ball, I'd play 18 holes buck naked. Indeed.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Get out of here.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
Indeed.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Go ahead.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
So the Huskies offensively a year ago, they were 9.3
points per game against teams that had a top 25 D.
That's Oregon, Ohio State, Michigan, and Wisconsin. in their non-conference,
they were 55.7 points. Remember, they hung 59 on Wazoo
and 70 on UC Davis. Here, Don James, when his
(08:29):
entire career had exactly 20 games where he scored 50 points,
but zero that he scored 60. Like he knew, hey,
we made our point. Let's put on the brakes. But
Washington hung 70 on UC Davis. So the gap between
those two numbers, which is 46.4 points, was the biggest
gap in all power four not only was it the
(08:50):
biggest gap, the gap between one and two is greater
than the gap between two and 15. So all of
the barking that we're doing about Washington's offense in many,
many categories were built on teams out of conference and
in the lesser, actually bottom 20 of the Big Ten.
And by the way, then you go yards, the difference
(09:12):
in yards was 282. That was also number one, the
biggest gap. So what does that tell us? that tell
us the Huskies' offense. And then I won't cite the stats,
but when you go passer rating and you go EPA,
the new stat, EPA, that everybody's talking about, DeMond Williams
was the number one quarterback for how the gap between
(09:35):
his performance against top 25 versus non-top 25. So that
is the challenge. I'm just going to be rolling my eyes.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
I expect.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
that Jed Fish will probably try and hang a lot
of points on the Cougars. Hell, a year ago, with
two minutes and 40 seconds to go, DeMond was still
in the game. He throws a deep corner out for
a touchdown. What is it? touchdown, to make it 59-24.
I expect Jed Fish to want to put some fireworks up,
(10:10):
not just Sunday against the Cougars, but the remainder of
this feeble non-conference and to rack up these offensive numbers
and maybe start a bid for DeMond to be a
Heisman Trophy winner. But I'm going to be rolling my
eyes until they prove that they are not the worst
team in Power 4 in terms of the gap between
non-top 25 defenses and top 25.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (10:33):
So what can we learn, if anything, about DeMond Williams'
development as a quarterback over the next month when he's
playing Wazoo, Utah State and Eastern?
Speaker 3 (10:43):
Yeah, I'd like to see his timing, put his back
foot in the ground, get rid of the ball when
the primary is open, throw it to the primary early.
I'd like to see him a little bit closer to
the line of scrimmage. He's so athletic and bouncy that
when he takes a five-step drop from shotgun, he lands
(11:05):
at 11 yards deep, and then he wants to stay there. Well,
then on so many of the passes, when he puts
the ball in the air, the defense has a better
time to react. I studied extensively some of the top
college quarterbacks. Take Fernando Mendoza last year. I mean, he
(11:27):
was parked right there at 8 1⁄2 yards. And so
when he went to throw the ball, the ball's in
the air less. So defenders can break on the ball less.
And you get more run after the catch because the
ball gets to the receiver's face. Like every yard matters.
And if you're giving up two yards because you want
to be behind the line of scrimmage too much, maybe
that's because he's short. That would be the inference. But
(11:49):
I don't know if we're going to see any difference
in that regard. But that would be an element that
if he wants to be a better quarterback, I think
he needs to be closer to the line of scrimmage
from his launch. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
Hugh, you mentioned non-conference there, and I want to ask
you about that real quick. Maybe we can sneak into
the Hawk topic or two. We're going to have you
on again Monday. And then, by the way, just so
you know, pencil in Wednesday before the Patriot game. We
want to have you join us as well. So, yeah,
we're going to lock you in for that. So we'll
talk a lot of Hawks, obviously, next week. But Pat
Chun came on. You'll hear that coming up 6 p.m.
(12:22):
hour and said that, you know, look, their non-conference schedule
the next two years is not going to change. Fresno,
Portland State next year, Eastern, UNLV in 28. They do
have a series with Tennessee starting in 29, I believe,
with the Vols. But their focus is on 2030 and beyond.
So next two years won't look great from a non-conference schedule,
(12:46):
but the next few years after that could look drastically different.
Speaker 3 (12:50):
Well, there was always the model that Don James favored,
the ABC model. right uh however that constituted so that
that when you look through the history of washington and
many can remember these games but you know there's there
was a michigan there was a notre dame there was
a nebraska you know there was a miami hurricanes you
know that there was always the idea hey let's try
(13:10):
and get a marquee game and and uh i'm i'm
somewhat uh sympathetic to the argument that and open to
the argument that that you've kind of upped your your
conference game, but you know, cause now the big 10
and you're going to have a lot of competitive games.
I think that there's, there's some dregs of the big
(13:31):
10 as well.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
Right.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
I mean, not everybody is Ohio state and Michigan, you know,
a lot of the, you know, Purdue you know, well,
Illinois got, was better last year, but, but you know,
Michigan state, there's a lot of, you know, UCLA a
year ago was God awful. So at any given time,
you're going to have the dregs. But I think it's
(13:52):
unfortunate that Washington doesn't do the ABC and getting Tennessee
on the schedule, to me, is a step in the
right direction. I think it's a good thing. And that
may be alongside something. There's been talk that the SEC
and the Big Ten are going to have some type
of series where they're almost mandated to match and pair.
(14:14):
And so I think that'd be a good thing because
I think one of the worst things about college football,
which is a great enterprise, I love it like everybody else,
but September scheduling, Dave, you know my feeling about that.
You know, there's just this dearth of competitive games. And,
you know, you got September 12th. Ohio State's going to
(14:35):
go to Texas. All eyes are going to be in Austin.
But there's just too few of those type of matchups.
Speaker 4 (14:41):
Well, that to me is the only reason why I'm
starting to lean towards a 2014 playoff, just to get
more of those matchups in September that we want. So
what is a better scenario for the brand of Washington?
Washington is about 50% finishing in the top 12. of
the final regular season CFP poll since it started. About 50%
(15:02):
of the time, if we would have had a 12-team
playoff the last 10-plus years, they would have made it.
Is it better for the brand of Washington to go
to an exclusive club one out of every two years
or a much less exclusive club of 24 almost every year?
Speaker 3 (15:25):
I think that I'd rather have them in the 12.
I mean, 24 is getting pretty watered down. Are you
talking about four? the end of the season and, and
just for.
Speaker 4 (15:35):
The brand of the, just to the brand of the
Washington Husky football programs, it better to be an exclusive
12 team club, like every other year, which is what
they've averaged or, you know, expands to 24. They're going
to get in far more times than they aren't going
to get it.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
I think the former, I think the former and, and,
you know, we'll see, I, I, I'm not crazy about
the extension expansion. I think a 12 team playoff is,
is just fine. I think it, it still puts enough, uh,
primacy on the regular season, Each time you go from
12 to 16 or 16 to 24, whatever they're proposing,
(16:11):
then we can all agree on this, that that waters
down the regular season for the better teams. Now, you
could say, wait a minute, what about teams 18 through 28?
If you have a 24, there's a lot of eyes
on that. Well, I'm sorry, but those teams don't interest
me as much. I want more interest in the Ohio
(16:31):
State-Michigan game. I want that to have consequences, like real consequences.
You have 24 teams. The Michigan-Ohio State game becomes a
scrimmage because they're both getting in. It would resemble the
top levels of ACC basketball. North Carolina-Duke is a nice rivalry,
but in the regular season, does it really matter? Not
(16:52):
in the ways that football games have mattered.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
Right.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Well, you start thinking about, let's say you've got two teams,
two Husky teams, that make a 24-team playoff. versus one
Husky team, Dick, is what you're saying, that make a
12-team playoff. That one team that makes the 12-team playoff,
you could potentially assume, would be more of a national
title threat than either one of those teams that made
the 24-team playoff, especially if they're near the back end
(17:18):
of the rankings.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
I've got to be honest with you guys.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
I don't know if you can just go get a
drive-through lobotomy somewhere over the weekend. I would like to
find somebody to do that for me and get this
damn thought I have in my head of you playing
golf with your pants.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
Off, by the way.
Speaker 1 (17:34):
Because ever since you threw that on the air, I
can't get the damn thing stuck out of my freaking head, okay?
And it's gross to me to be honest with you,
all right?
Speaker 2 (17:42):
Gross to me. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
I just said, you know, you can play by the rules,
you know, that Johnson might have to... Flop around a
little bit.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
See, now it's back. Now it's back.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
It was just about to get out of my head.
Now it's returned again.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
You got another drop there, Jackson. You're giving me a shovel.
Give me a ladder. This is a family show. You
know that, right? This is a family show. Let's keep
it clean. All right, pal?
Speaker 1 (18:03):
All right, we'll talk Monday about some Hawks. The Hawks
go on Wednesday, five days from the freaking opener.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
Yeah, it's here.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Man, unbelievable, dude. So ready for that.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
You're relieved from your misery of the preseason, David. So
from here on, we got real football.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
Thank God. Thank God. All right, boys, enjoy it. We'll
talk on Monday. See you, man. Humilin' with us. Holy moly.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
Holy smokes. Like a phrase that I didn't think. You
see the drops on me?
Speaker 2 (18:29):
I have not. Where is it?
Speaker 1 (18:31):
Oh, yeah.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
He sent you a picture. I sent the picture. Oh,
you did? Well, I'm using my phone.
Speaker 3 (18:34):
Color-coded and everything.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
I'm using my phone for something else right now. Oh, wow. Okay.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
That's all right.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Play it. Play it. That's why I put it on
your wall.
Speaker 4 (18:41):
I have my own things I have to play.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
You have the drops.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
Well, I'll get to it next. I got to cleanse
my brain. We'll get to it next on 93.3 KJRFM.
The guy that obviously has been watching the Apple Cup
is a long, long time, a former Husky quarterback, Hugh Millen,
a little live at 5 right here on 93.3 KJRFM.
Speaker 2 (00:09):
How are you, man?
Speaker 3 (00:10):
I'm doing great, guys. What's happening?
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Not much.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
You want to share your enthusiasm level, your juice level,
your intrigue level for this Apple Cup on Sunday?
Speaker 2 (00:20):
What do you make of what we're about to see
and the buildup to it on Sunday?
Speaker 3 (00:25):
Not much. I feel sorry for the Cougs. I think
that there was some built-in disadvantages that we all know
about prior to this conference realignment. When you consider, if
you consider the population, if you consider the politics, the
size of the cities, towns, the academic difference, like you
(00:48):
could argue that of all of the traditional rivalries, there
was more disparity in between Washington and Washington State than
any of the rivalries across the country. There's differences in others,
but think, you know, USC, UCLA, Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama, Auburn.
(01:09):
If you go and then you say, okay, what are
all the material ways that a school could be different?
There's a hell of an argument to be made in
an objective fashion that Washington and Washington State had the
most disparity And, you know, and differences. I don't just
mean to say high and low as if there's a hierarchy,
(01:29):
but just even the most differences remain neutral on it.
And so it was a unique rivalry. It's dissolving because
of of all of the changes. And so I'm I'm
just not terribly gripped by it personally. We had Pat
Chun on a couple hours ago.
Speaker 4 (01:49):
I don't know if you got a chance to hear that,
but one of his quotes was, there is an intent
to continue the game on both sides of this, end quote.
What do you make of those words, and how much
do you believe that?
Speaker 3 (02:02):
Well, I think I'm going to take his phrasing literally
because he's paid to speak with the right phraseology, and
there is an intent tells me almost nothing. because it
doesn't tell you how much intent, and it doesn't tell
you the conditions that need to be met to actually
realize the difference. So I think that he leaves himself
(02:26):
a wide canvas for how this could actually play out.
And I don't say that to levy any critique to
his comment. I think that that's the way he asked
to speak to it. But that could mean a shred,
very minimal. It could be moderate intent. It could be
(02:47):
significant intent. The fact that he doesn't disclose it just
doesn't tell me that that's much of a comment. Short
of him saying it's dead in the water, which you
would not expect him to say, then that's the next
best thing, but it really doesn't give us information.
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Well, and it could mean, I mean, also, if we're
just going to speculate here, it could mean that that's
their intent from their perspective. You know, they're covering their side. Hey,
you know, we intend to play it, but we don't
know about Wazoo. I mean, if they bail out, that's
on them. But our intention is to play this thing.
I mean, how much of an intention, you don't know,
but who knows what Wazoo's perspective is going to be.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
But look, man, I mean, if.
Speaker 3 (03:25):
It's Dave, sorry to interrupt you, but that could mean
Washington's intent is, hey, every game is going to be
played in Seattle.
Speaker 4 (03:33):
Sure.
Speaker 3 (03:33):
Like you want to play in Lumen? Fine.
Speaker 2 (03:36):
Right.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
You want to play in Husky Stadium? Fine.
Speaker 2 (03:38):
Right.
Speaker 3 (03:39):
We're never going to Pullman again. Like and he could
he could that could fit under his terminology and he
could accurately have said it that that they have an
intent to continue this series.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
So I think he did say, by the way, just
just to be just to be fair here, I think
he did say intent to honor the terms of the
contract or something like that.
Speaker 2 (04:00):
We intend to honor our contractual obligations, I believe is
what he said.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
And when does that expire?
Speaker 2 (04:06):
Two years. Two years.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
27 and 28 with a game in Pullman next year
and a game in Seattle in 28. So just from
a standpoint of where those games are played, if he's
talking about contractually obligated, as of right now, they are
obligated to go to Pullman and come back here in 2028.
Speaker 3 (04:21):
And by the way, yes, exactly. And by the way,
There's always clauses in the contract that says, hey, if
we want to pull out.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
Right.
Speaker 3 (04:31):
This is the remedy.
Speaker 2 (04:32):
Right.
Speaker 3 (04:32):
You know, it's not a breach of contract. It's just
it's fulfilling the clause in the contract that states if
we if Washington pulls out, then then this is the restitution.
If there if you, you know, I mean, that's laid
out the consequences. So even even that. phraseology gives a
(04:54):
wide latitude for what can even happen in the next
two years. That doesn't, that doesn't certify that it's going
to be, I mean, I would, I would anticipate that
it'll be played.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
We could be here all night. We could be here
all night debating the definition of the word intent. Unfortunately,
we only have two hours left in the radio show.
Are you mocking me in the words of Buzz Lightyear?
Speaker 2 (05:14):
Slightly. Yeah, that's okay. See, I can do that to
you because you're my boy, all right? And you can
do it.
Speaker 3 (05:19):
To me, by the way.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
If Washington intends to play in the CFP, they're going
to need, number one, to play really well. Do you
feel like we are going to see a solid season,
a bounce-back season in some ways?
Speaker 2 (05:39):
What are you expecting, honestly, man, from DeMond Williams this year?
Speaker 3 (05:43):
Well, I think that he has kind of stepped up
his leadership game since his gaffe.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
Right.
Speaker 3 (05:52):
I call it a gaffe. I mean, it was just
an honest, you know, he followed where his heart led him.
And then when he got bent over a legal barrel,
he then reversed course in a manner where he had
no choice. Let's be honest about that. Anything other than
that I'm going to argue pretty aggressively with you. He
(06:12):
had an intent to leave, but he couldn't. So here
he is, and since that time, I think he's been
more engaged with the team than he had been. He's
taken his leadership role more seriously, so that's a good thing.
He's got a better offensive line. That's going to help him. Now,
arguably the targets, until somebody steps up and plays at
(06:36):
the level of Denzel Boston, And obviously the receiver core
that Pennix had, we're used to seeing some pretty good
receivers here. I think there's some questions about whether or
not DeMond is going to enjoy that kind of battery
mates with its targets. But here's the challenge. If you
go back to a year ago, Washington played four games
(06:56):
against teams that had top 25 defense. By the way,
I booted this this morning like a Jason Myers preseason PAT.
So let's see if I can get this better. So
I was a wide right or a wide left. It was,
it was everything. It was, it was a, I basically
topped it, you know, like I, I would be, I
(07:17):
would be having to play the rest of the hole
with my wiener out. Wow. If we're being honest here,
like that's how bad I am.
Speaker 1 (07:23):
Did he just say what I thought he just said,
by the way, Jackson, that's a drop.
Speaker 2 (07:28):
If I can get that for 6 PM, that'd be phenomenal.
Go ahead.
Speaker 3 (07:32):
So, so the Huskies averaged 9.3 points per game in
those four games. against teams in the top 25 defense. Oh,
you've set them off the edge.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
I'm sorry.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
You know what I'm talking about, right? If you whiff
a ball, if you don't like it, what is it, 10,
20 yards?
Speaker 2 (07:49):
No, it's the ladies' tees. The ladies' tees. Yes, the
ladies tee.
Speaker 3 (07:55):
Well, I'm glad to know that I don't know the
details of that, David.
Speaker 2 (07:58):
Hugh, Hugh, Hugh, you may know the details.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
If I had to play with my wiener on top
of the ball, I'd play 18 holes buck naked. Indeed.
Speaker 2 (08:06):
Get out of here.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
Indeed.
Speaker 2 (08:07):
Go ahead.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
So the Huskies offensively a year ago, they were 9.3
points per game against teams that had a top 25 D.
That's Oregon, Ohio State, Michigan, and Wisconsin. in their non-conference,
they were 55.7 points. Remember, they hung 59 on Wazoo
and 70 on UC Davis. Here, Don James, when his
(08:29):
entire career had exactly 20 games where he scored 50 points,
but zero that he scored 60. Like he knew, hey,
we made our point. Let's put on the brakes. But
Washington hung 70 on UC Davis. So the gap between
those two numbers, which is 46.4 points, was the biggest
gap in all power four not only was it the
(08:50):
biggest gap, the gap between one and two is greater
than the gap between two and 15. So all of
the barking that we're doing about Washington's offense in many,
many categories were built on teams out of conference and
in the lesser, actually bottom 20 of the Big Ten.
And by the way, then you go yards, the difference
(09:12):
in yards was 282. That was also number one, the
biggest gap. So what does that tell us? that tell
us the Huskies' offense. And then I won't cite the stats,
but when you go passer rating and you go EPA,
the new stat, EPA, that everybody's talking about, DeMond Williams
was the number one quarterback for how the gap between
(09:35):
his performance against top 25 versus non-top 25. So that
is the challenge. I'm just going to be rolling my eyes.
Speaker 2 (09:46):
I expect.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
that Jed Fish will probably try and hang a lot
of points on the Cougars. Hell, a year ago, with
two minutes and 40 seconds to go, DeMond was still
in the game. He throws a deep corner out for
a touchdown. What is it? touchdown, to make it 59-24.
I expect Jed Fish to want to put some fireworks up,
(10:10):
not just Sunday against the Cougars, but the remainder of
this feeble non-conference and to rack up these offensive numbers
and maybe start a bid for DeMond to be a
Heisman Trophy winner. But I'm going to be rolling my
eyes until they prove that they are not the worst
team in Power 4 in terms of the gap between
non-top 25 defenses and top 25.
Speaker 2 (10:31):
Okay.
Speaker 4 (10:33):
So what can we learn, if anything, about DeMond Williams'
development as a quarterback over the next month when he's
playing Wazoo, Utah State and Eastern?
Speaker 3 (10:43):
Yeah, I'd like to see his timing, put his back
foot in the ground, get rid of the ball when
the primary is open, throw it to the primary early.
I'd like to see him a little bit closer to
the line of scrimmage. He's so athletic and bouncy that
when he takes a five-step drop from shotgun, he lands
(11:05):
at 11 yards deep, and then he wants to stay there. Well,
then on so many of the passes, when he puts
the ball in the air, the defense has a better
time to react. I studied extensively some of the top
college quarterbacks. Take Fernando Mendoza last year. I mean, he
(11:27):
was parked right there at 8 1⁄2 yards. And so
when he went to throw the ball, the ball's in
the air less. So defenders can break on the ball less.
And you get more run after the catch because the
ball gets to the receiver's face. Like every yard matters.
And if you're giving up two yards because you want
to be behind the line of scrimmage too much, maybe
that's because he's short. That would be the inference. But
(11:49):
I don't know if we're going to see any difference
in that regard. But that would be an element that
if he wants to be a better quarterback, I think
he needs to be closer to the line of scrimmage
from his launch. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
Hugh, you mentioned non-conference there, and I want to ask
you about that real quick. Maybe we can sneak into
the Hawk topic or two. We're going to have you
on again Monday. And then, by the way, just so
you know, pencil in Wednesday before the Patriot game. We
want to have you join us as well. So, yeah,
we're going to lock you in for that. So we'll
talk a lot of Hawks, obviously, next week. But Pat
Chun came on. You'll hear that coming up 6 p.m.
(12:22):
hour and said that, you know, look, their non-conference schedule
the next two years is not going to change. Fresno,
Portland State next year, Eastern, UNLV in 28. They do
have a series with Tennessee starting in 29, I believe,
with the Vols. But their focus is on 2030 and beyond.
So next two years won't look great from a non-conference schedule,
(12:46):
but the next few years after that could look drastically different.
Speaker 3 (12:50):
Well, there was always the model that Don James favored,
the ABC model. right uh however that constituted so that
that when you look through the history of washington and
many can remember these games but you know there's there
was a michigan there was a notre dame there was
a nebraska you know there was a miami hurricanes you
know that there was always the idea hey let's try
(13:10):
and get a marquee game and and uh i'm i'm
somewhat uh sympathetic to the argument that and open to
the argument that that you've kind of upped your your
conference game, but you know, cause now the big 10
and you're going to have a lot of competitive games.
I think that there's, there's some dregs of the big
(13:31):
10 as well.
Speaker 2 (13:32):
Right.
Speaker 3 (13:32):
I mean, not everybody is Ohio state and Michigan, you know,
a lot of the, you know, Purdue you know, well,
Illinois got, was better last year, but, but you know,
Michigan state, there's a lot of, you know, UCLA a
year ago was God awful. So at any given time,
you're going to have the dregs. But I think it's
(13:52):
unfortunate that Washington doesn't do the ABC and getting Tennessee
on the schedule, to me, is a step in the
right direction. I think it's a good thing. And that
may be alongside something. There's been talk that the SEC
and the Big Ten are going to have some type
of series where they're almost mandated to match and pair.
(14:14):
And so I think that'd be a good thing because
I think one of the worst things about college football,
which is a great enterprise, I love it like everybody else,
but September scheduling, Dave, you know my feeling about that.
You know, there's just this dearth of competitive games. And,
you know, you got September 12th. Ohio State's going to
(14:35):
go to Texas. All eyes are going to be in Austin.
But there's just too few of those type of matchups.
Speaker 4 (14:41):
Well, that to me is the only reason why I'm
starting to lean towards a 2014 playoff, just to get
more of those matchups in September that we want. So
what is a better scenario for the brand of Washington?
Washington is about 50% finishing in the top 12. of
the final regular season CFP poll since it started. About 50%
(15:02):
of the time, if we would have had a 12-team
playoff the last 10-plus years, they would have made it.
Is it better for the brand of Washington to go
to an exclusive club one out of every two years
or a much less exclusive club of 24 almost every year?
Speaker 3 (15:25):
I think that I'd rather have them in the 12.
I mean, 24 is getting pretty watered down. Are you
talking about four? the end of the season and, and
just for.
Speaker 4 (15:35):
The brand of the, just to the brand of the
Washington Husky football programs, it better to be an exclusive
12 team club, like every other year, which is what
they've averaged or, you know, expands to 24. They're going
to get in far more times than they aren't going
to get it.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
I think the former, I think the former and, and,
you know, we'll see, I, I, I'm not crazy about
the extension expansion. I think a 12 team playoff is,
is just fine. I think it, it still puts enough, uh,
primacy on the regular season, Each time you go from
12 to 16 or 16 to 24, whatever they're proposing,
(16:11):
then we can all agree on this, that that waters
down the regular season for the better teams. Now, you
could say, wait a minute, what about teams 18 through 28?
If you have a 24, there's a lot of eyes
on that. Well, I'm sorry, but those teams don't interest
me as much. I want more interest in the Ohio
(16:31):
State-Michigan game. I want that to have consequences, like real consequences.
You have 24 teams. The Michigan-Ohio State game becomes a
scrimmage because they're both getting in. It would resemble the
top levels of ACC basketball. North Carolina-Duke is a nice rivalry,
but in the regular season, does it really matter? Not
(16:52):
in the ways that football games have mattered.
Speaker 2 (16:55):
Right.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Well, you start thinking about, let's say you've got two teams,
two Husky teams, that make a 24-team playoff. versus one
Husky team, Dick, is what you're saying, that make a
12-team playoff. That one team that makes the 12-team playoff,
you could potentially assume, would be more of a national
title threat than either one of those teams that made
the 24-team playoff, especially if they're near the back end
(17:18):
of the rankings.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
I've got to be honest with you guys.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
I don't know if you can just go get a
drive-through lobotomy somewhere over the weekend. I would like to
find somebody to do that for me and get this
damn thought I have in my head of you playing
golf with your pants.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
Off, by the way.
Speaker 1 (17:34):
Because ever since you threw that on the air, I
can't get the damn thing stuck out of my freaking head, okay?
And it's gross to me to be honest with you,
all right?
Speaker 2 (17:42):
Gross to me. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3 (17:44):
I just said, you know, you can play by the rules,
you know, that Johnson might have to... Flop around a
little bit.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
See, now it's back. Now it's back.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
It was just about to get out of my head.
Now it's returned again.
Speaker 2 (17:54):
You got another drop there, Jackson. You're giving me a shovel.
Give me a ladder. This is a family show. You
know that, right? This is a family show. Let's keep
it clean. All right, pal?
Speaker 1 (18:03):
All right, we'll talk Monday about some Hawks. The Hawks
go on Wednesday, five days from the freaking opener.
Speaker 3 (18:09):
Yeah, it's here.
Speaker 2 (18:10):
Man, unbelievable, dude. So ready for that.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
You're relieved from your misery of the preseason, David. So
from here on, we got real football.
Speaker 2 (18:18):
Thank God. Thank God. All right, boys, enjoy it. We'll
talk on Monday. See you, man. Humilin' with us. Holy moly.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
Holy smokes. Like a phrase that I didn't think. You
see the drops on me?
Speaker 2 (18:29):
I have not. Where is it?
Speaker 1 (18:31):
Oh, yeah.
Speaker 2 (18:31):
He sent you a picture. I sent the picture. Oh,
you did? Well, I'm using my phone.
Speaker 3 (18:34):
Color-coded and everything.
Speaker 2 (18:35):
I'm using my phone for something else right now. Oh, wow. Okay.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
That's all right.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
Play it. Play it. That's why I put it on
your wall.
Speaker 4 (18:41):
I have my own things I have to play.
Speaker 3 (18:43):
You have the drops.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
Well, I'll get to it next. I got to cleanse
my brain. We'll get to it next on 93.3 KJRFM.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.