Follow us:

Husky Football Blog

The latest news and analysis on the Montlake Dawgs.

July 19, 2010 at 9:23 AM

July answers, volume five

Time to knock out a few more. …
Q: Here’s one for the slow football days of summer. You have posted about which trios of quarterback, running back and receiver are the best, and the Huskies do well. I was thinking it would be interesting to do something similar with stadiums. I would argue that the state of Washington probably has the best trio of professional, college and high school stadiums in the country with Qwest Field, Husky Stadium, and Stadium Bowl at Stadium High School. (Aesthetically speaking, at the very least.) What high school has a larger, more dramatic and picturesque stadium than Stadium High School — a stadium so cool they named the school after it?!! Here’s the item that got me thinking about this: Any thoughts?
A: My thought would be that unfortunately, I haven’t seen enough stadiums in enough other states to really give an eductated and objective answer. Thinking just of the Pac-10, I’d imagine those in the Bay Area would put up an arguement — Candlestick may be a dump now, but it’s a cool setting, and Stanford and Cal are each nestled in picturesque areas, as well. A lot of other areas with cool college stadiums don’t have NFL teams, so obviously an awful lot of candidates would be eliminated off the bat. What I can’t really answer is if there are some neat high school stadiums in some of those areas. I’m sure there are, but I haven’t gotten to too many HS stadiums outside of this state and California.
But I’m happy to post the question here and see what readers have to say. Anybody else have thoughts on this?
Q: Why is (UW AD Scott) Woodward being so secreative about the whole stadium thing? He knows we are all hanging on this and quietly extends the deadline for proposals by a couple weeks without offering anything but the vaguest of reasons why. he hasn’t or won’t say how much money has been raised. they are suggesting that work won’t begin this year without saying why. we haven’t heard a peep about naming rights?

A: Not to come off as a defender of Woodward on the stadium —- I know I get accused of that on here at times — but I thought he was pretty open when he held a series of media appearances on this in May to announce that the school was now soliciting requests for proposals. As for something like naming rights, he said it’s an option. I think until they have an agreement there isn’t that much to say. As anyone who has done business in this state knows, it’s pretty complicated to get public projects done. As for the money raised, I think that, too, is a complicated process that doesn’t lend itself to a clean answer — and I think he’d rather be cautious in what he says on certain while the process is ongoing.
And reality is there are no answers to most of the questions until they pick a design and a developer — that should happen in the next few months. But on the important question — the only one that should really matter to the casual fan — he can’t have been more explicit. Woodward has said it will get done, and that construction will begin either after this season or next season.
Q: Other than QB, what positions should a UW fan be concerned about in 2011? Same question for 2012 please. I plan on attending the UW vs. LSU game that year. Should I be concerned that UW will be slaughtered in Baton Rouge?
A: For starters, I’d always be concerned about a slaughter in Baton Rouge. That can happen to even really good teams — one of Don James’ worst losses was a 40-14 defeat there in 1983 with a UW team that almost went to the Rose Bowl.
But as to your specific question, UW could start just three seniors on each side of the ball this year, so the Huskies should be in good shape to keep progressing as long as one of the young quarterbacks steps up to play at least adequately. In 2011, there will be no other position that will be as much of a concern as quarterback. On offense, all UW could lose in terms of starters are OT Cody Habben and OG Ryan Tolar. On defense, the only senior starters could be DL Cameron Elisara, LB Mason Foster and SS Nate Williams. There are young players in line at all of those spots, so while all will no doubt be missed to a certain extent, there’s nothing that looms as a huge hole in 2011 other than QB.
As for 2012, the one position on paper that would be hit heavily due to graduation is WR (both Devin Aguilar and Jermaine Kearse will be seniors in 2011). But WRs are adapt pretty quickly and UW has been hitting that position hard in recruiting and I’m sure there will be the adequate numbers there when 2012 rolls around.
Because UW has been so young the last few years, they won’t be real senior heavy for the next few years, so losing just mammoth amounts of players to graduation at one specific position isn’t really going to happn for a while.
In general, I still think the lines on both sides of the ball need to improve, and that will be even more of a necessity on offense in 2011 with the breaking in of a new QB. But for the most part, UW looks to be pretty well set for the next few seasons as long as a QB develops.
All for now.



No personal attacks or insults, no hate speech, no profanity. Please keep the conversation civil and help us moderate this thread by reporting any abuse. See our Commenting FAQ.

The opinions expressed in reader comments are those of the author only, and do not reflect the opinions of The Seattle Times.

The Seattle Times

The door is closed, but it's not locked.

Take a minute to subscribe and continue to enjoy The Seattle Times for as little as 99 cents a week.

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited content access is included with most subscriptions.

Subscriber login ►
The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription upgrade.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. For unlimited access, please upgrade your digital subscription.

Call customer service at 1.800.542.0820 for assistance with your upgrade or questions about your subscriber status.

The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. Subscribe now for unlimited access!

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited content access is included with most subscriptions.

Activate Subscriber Account ►