Week three of the post-Isaiah Stanback Husky era is upon us, and one thing has become clear: Without Stanback, Washington’s offense just isn’t that exciting.
That’s not to say there aren’t good things about it. Sonny Shackelford and Anthony Russo are a solid duo at receiver. We’ve seen some likeable things from Carl Bonnell, who has shown a good arm and an ability to run the ball.
But there just isn’t that “Wow” factor that Stanback provided. With him on the field, you were interested in every play because something spectacular could happen. Sure, something confusing, maddening and frustrating could also happen, but it was never boring. Now, it seems there’s just not that kind of electricity on the field.
Losing Stanback has also exposed some things that weren’t quite as apparent when he was playing.
The Husky offensive line is really not that strong. Not that we believed that it was a great group before, but without Stanback’s ability to make plays despite poor protection, it’s really apparent that this is a struggling group. Bonnell can escape a rush and get down field, but he doesn’t have the poise that Stanback had against a rush, and Stanback seemed to be quicker to get away from a rush than Bonnell.
Now, we see that there really is a lot of pressure on the quarterback, and that was masked a little when Stanback was back there.
The Husky running game also has problems. Stanback’s speed allowed him to get around the outside and nearly no linebacker could keep up with him. He was fast enough to make up for the fact that the blocking on those plays isn’t really there. He was also quick enough to get up the middle on draw plays. Without him, there isn’t a running back fast enough – even Louis Rankin – to spring outside and get up field, and there isn’t enough of a power game to push up field and control the clock. Stanback averaged 50 yards rushing a game, which is a huge reason why the Huskies were among the league leaders in rushing offense.
What’s missing most from the team without Stanback is the sparkle and swagger that was there when he was leading the Huskies. Stanback wasn’t always the most charismatic, engaging personality (at least around the media), but he had a clear air of confidence that carried over to the rest of the team. There was never any question that the team would be in a game, because Stanback would make sure they’d be in the game. And not just be in the game, but have a chance to win the game.
Washington has had a chance to win the two games without Stanback, but it hasn’t felt the same. It almost feels like the Huskies are just trying to hang around and claw their way to stay in a game rather than being the aggressors and getting the opponent on its heels. There isn’t that excitement and belief that no matter what, Washington is going to make plays and move the ball.
That’s less an indictment on Bonnell or the rest of the team than a testament to Stanback. It shows that a great athlete can lift a team to a higher level than it would be without them. They do it with their physical gifts, sure, but they also do it with their confidence and with the confidence they instill in their teammates.
It’s clear that the loss of Stanback is still being felt by Washington, judging by the comments from other players and the aura that surrounds the team. Things have changed. This isn’t the same team we saw in September, on the field and off.
That doesn’t mean this still isn’t a team that can make a bowl game. It won’t be easy, but it can still happen. It’s just that now, if the Huskies do make a bowl, they’ll be slipping through the back door rather than – if Stanback was around – slamming through the front door.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
