From: behzad@mdd.comm.mot.com (Behzad Khamneian)
Subject: Re: Who do you think will win
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 16:34:23 GMT

In article <2457.382.uupcb@brent.uucp> al.sorhaindo.jr.@brent.uucp (Al Sorhaindo Jr.)  writes:
>BP>1) Washington
>
>
>
>Isn't Washington without the services of 4/7 of last years defensive
>front seven, including Emtmann, and a top draft pick at safety?
>

Emtman, LB Donald Jones, LB Bret Collins, and CB Dana Hall were the major 
losses from the defense.  However, due to the number of blow-outs last season,
a lot of the younger players got experience.  In many games, the likes of 
Emtman would be yanked out at the end of the third quarter. 

Look out for Andy Mason, D'marco Farr, Dave Hoffmann, James Clifford (leading
PAC-10 tackler in 89), Walter Bailey, Josh Moore, Shane Pahukoa, and Tommy
Smith to lead one of the best defenses in the nation.

>Sure, their offense will be strong, but IMHO the defensive front is the
>most important part of a team. 
>

Actually, the offense is the weak point.  Six starters were lost from that
unit.  The defense still looks great.  Hopefully, the defense can really
crank it during the first 2 games, to give the offense some time to mature.
Joe Kralik looks great at WR.  He was the high school team-mate of Billy Joe
Hobert and they can connect on almost every single passing situation.

>How does the Huskies schedule shape up? Do they manage to avoid their
>nemesis UCLA again? 
>

No UCLA until next season.  The Huskies would have loved to have played UCLA
in 91 to pay them back.

>I do not see Washington as being as devastating as they were last year,
>They will be weaker than the '90 edition which lost two games.
>(Admittedly they were only one play away from being #1 in 1990, so that
> is not too strong a statement.)

The Huskies were many plays away from being #1.  That team was still young and
lost its nerves under pressure.

>The running up of the score that Washington perpetrated last year will
>come back to haunt them especially once their opponents see that
>Washington is good, but not unbeatable and revenge is obtainable.

The Huskies did not run up scores.  The could have had 1 more TD against 
Michigan and whole bunch more against Oregon St. and coupla other low-caliber
teams, but didn't run up the score.  I stand defenseless on the game against
Arizona.  
Maybe Don James should have scored one more TD against Michigan.  That might
have been able to get him a few more votes.  Who knows?

>Last year Washington had only one game decided by fewer than ten points.
>They can expect closer contests this season, and they have a very poor
>record in close games over the last five years.

True, but nothing to worry about.
>
>If they play UCLA, and a non-conference foe tougher than Nebraska I
>predict an 8-3 regular season for Washington. Without UCLA, and

8-3 is a record that you won't see from the 92 Huskies.

>non conference games versus the likes of Akron could lead to a record
>of 10-1, cosmetically almost as good as last season. Washington's
>athletic department feels the same way, that is why they avoided
>Miami in the Kickoff classic.

Washington doesn't have teams like Toledo and Kansas St. this year.  The only
mild team they play is Wisconsin at home.  BTW, the Toledo game last year
was meant to be FSU, but FSU didn't have the money to travel out to Seattle
when the schedule was being made 3-5 years ago.  So, they were replaced by
Toledo.  Too bad.  It would have been a GREAT game!!

Avoiding Miami -->  Now, this has been discussed on rsfc extensively and the
issue was dropped about 1.5 month ago, because "Washington avoided Miami"
is not a true statement.  

Someone has the thorough explanation of why these two teams didn't play in 
the Kickoff Classic.  Could someone please post it again?


**  We'll just have to wait until they start playing to find out how good they
    are.
>                                              Al  
>---
> . DeLuxe. 1.21 #11688 . Al.Sorhaindo@Execnet.com
>                                                                           

With regards,

Behzad