UW opens as a 21 point favorite at UCLA.

Glasgow Seahawk":g6kpu3y6 said:

Big trap game. We suck at the Rose Bowl. UCLA will get their first win at some point. Not a good combination.

Click to expand...

Attyla the Hawk":2bnbxw54 said:

Not sure I see it as much of a trap game.

UCLA is bad at both sides of the ball. UW has a much better defense which usually travels well. They aren't explosive. UW can easily afford to load up the box and focus on stopping the run.

Defensively, they are not talented either. They are giving up almost 200 yards per game rushing and it's not as if they got gashed in one really bad game. They are consistently surrendering 170+. Teams that can run the ball can do so with impunity.

It's a very bad matchup for the Bruins. We can run the ball well. They can't stop it. Should be getting 5-8 yard chunks at a go with relative ease.

Trap games usually result in bad teams that somehow match up well to what the better team likes to do. This isn't that kind of game. 21 points sounds about right. Extreme misfortune with turnovers would be required to make this less than a 10 point win. Both teams are pretty decent at taking care of the ball.

Click to expand...

DomeHawk":10xcjc1c said:

Good analysis but I am somewhat confused over your definition of what a trap game is. It isn't a matchup between bad teams; popular usage has a trap game as a matchup between a good team and a bad team where the good team takes the other too lightly.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... rap%20game

Click to expand...

Attyla the Hawk":1qzjho82 said:

DomeHawk":1qzjho82 said:

Good analysis but I am somewhat confused over your definition of what a trap game is. It isn't a matchup between bad teams; popular usage has a trap game as a matchup between a good team and a bad team where the good team takes the other too lightly.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... rap%20game

Click to expand...

I understand it's good team versus bad.

But not all games with one good team versus a bad team are 'trap' games. Usually the unexpected outcome is a result that the worse team, despite being bad, happens to do one element well that the other team is not particularly good at either.

In this case, I see it as a bad team that is particularly bad at what the UW does well. It would take a multitude of failures on UW's part to lead to a loss. Now that could happen. But generally speaking good defense and good running games travel well. The Huskies are quite good at both. UCLA is quite bad at both. In my estimation, it would take a great deal more than just simply not respecting or playing well for UW to lose this game. Horrible injuries and massive turnover differential is likely going to factor in. Neither of those things I would consider elements of a trap game.

A trap game to me is one a team should win, but is outplayed/coached and loses. I think UW could be relatively outplayed and outcoached and still win fairly handily. To me it would require elements beyond UWs control which I don't consider a factor in trap games.

UCLA is pretty ok at running the ball. UW is pretty good at defending the run. Unlike the ASU game however, UCLA doesn't have a passing attack that the UW has to scheme to stop. In fact it's dreadful and the Huskies could actually sacrifice numbers in the secondary in order to stop their run. I'd be shocked if UCLA's offense puts up 14 points for the game.

To me it would take more than just taking this opponent lightly because we have Oregon next week.

Click to expand...

Glasgow Seahawk":2h08f9na said:

The defense was really sloppy, missed a lot of tackles. Was a decent first half but awful 3rd quarter.

I may be wrong though but I feel dual threat quarterbacks give us fits, like Khalil Tate and the UCLA QB tonight. I think Utah had one a couple of years ago too. Luckily some of them aren't great at throwing on the run.

Against more conventional QB's they do better.

UCLA are improving though.

If the Huskies win next week though, they are in the driving seat for the PAC 12.

Click to expand...

SeatownJay":1ycntpkp said:

Washington, for whatever reason, decided to spend most of Saturday playing a combination of blitzing five with a soft zone defense behind it. The blitz rarely got to the QB, and left holes in the zone behind it that the QB picked apart. Hopefully we don't try the same strategy against Oregon or they'll put up 50+ on UW.

Click to expand...

DomeHawk":2ecou5or said:

SeatownJay":2ecou5or said:

Washington, for whatever reason, decided to spend most of Saturday playing a combination of blitzing five with a soft zone defense behind it. The blitz rarely got to the QB, and left holes in the zone behind it that the QB picked apart. Hopefully we don't try the same strategy against Oregon or they'll put up 50+ on UW.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that was essentially the story of the second half. I haven't read the stats but i can't remember one single sack. Their receivers found vacant spaces in the zone and It also played against the DB's and LB's who got really winded running to those open spaces. BBK mentioned that it was as dusted as he had ever been in a game. The weather should not have been a factor, the weatherman said it was only 76 degrees but, being there, it felt much warmer in the stadium. There is also the fact that we don't practice or play on grass anymore and I know from experience that it will fatigue you much quicker than turf if you are sprinting a lot. We were actually playing quite a few backups in the second half, at least partially because of that.

And yeah, I don't think that strategy is what they expected at all. I go to every UW home game and watching UCLA in person they did NOT look like a 0 and 4 team. In fact they looked every bit as good as ASU and BYU did to me. They were fast, hit hard, and played with incredible emotion. I think they will get better and better.

Click to expand...