Thank you to those of you that submitted questions for the "Ask Dawgman" column. Here are the answers to the some of the most recent questions. Washington is 4-1 looking to rebound from a tough loss against UCLA.

From Diego Dawg
Dear Dawgman:
What ever happened to Sean Sweat? I heard that he left school. Was it because of the depth at tailback or something else? He was a stud in high school. Hate to lose him. Again, your site rocks.

A: Sean just decided it was best that he attend a school closer to home at this time. He was very much a stud and it is tough to lose such a great kid and athlete. Sweat will be missed and the Husky family wishes him nothing but the best. That's a great family, the Sweats.

From TE3
Dear Dawgman:
I have been on your site for 2-3 years now. Sure wish I had had it a few years ago when we lived down in Arizona. You have a great site. I have been a Husky fan since the mid 50's. There is one thing I would like to know. What is the QB pointing at when he comes up to the line of scrimmage. Sometimes with one hand and sometimes with both?

A: The quarterback is making a hand-signal to his receivers so they know which play they are going to check into. Husky quarterbacks normally come to the line with two or three possible plays, one is the one they call in the huddle and the others are predicated on what the defense is doing. If the quarterback makes a signal, it usually means he is either going to do a sight adjust audible and go to an alternate play or that he is just playing with the defense (not going to an audible but making them think about it). Offenses respond to how many defenders are between the tackles and within five yards of the line of scrimmage so the WRs, TE, and QB must all see the same thing so they can do their site reads. Hope this helps.
From Jeff
Dear Dawgman:
I've always been a college football fan, but I didn't become a Husky fan until I became a UW student in the mid 90's. I generally remember the NCAA investigation of the early 90's and Don James' resignation, but I don't remember the details. Can you give me a quick recap of the sanctions and James' reason for stepping down? Did the Pac-10 really come in and impose the penalties after the NCAA was finished? Was it really as unfair as Husky fans make it sound? By the way, I'm glad those days are over and the Dawgs are back as a national power. Thanks. You do a great job with the site.

A: The Pac-10 slapped the UW with two-years of probation which included no bowls during that year, a reduction in scholarships to 15 per season for those two years, and reduced the number of days they could be on the road evaluating by 30%. Then the NCAA came through and slapped a few other minor penalties on the school much later, long after James had resigned. James told us that he stepped down in direct protest of the 2nd year of no bowl penalty that was added. As it was originally presented to James, there was only going to be a 1-year ban from bowls and James was willing to live with that and the scholarship reductions. When he heard that a 2nd year bowl ban would likely happen, he called Barbara Hedges and told her that he would resign if that extra year was piled on. Well, it happened, so James resigned in protest the next morning. At the time he felt extremely let down by the President of the University in all of this. His resignation was the one way he could see that would preserve the jobs of his staff. He admits that he could've stayed on for one more season perhaps, but he strongly feels that once he left, his staff would've been blown out. James very much wanted to protect his staff that he felt so loyal to. He shared all of these thoughts with us in an interview two years ago. Hope this helps, and thanks for visiting the site.
From Aloha Mike
Dear Dawgman:
Aloha Dawgman, What a relief, you are still answering Huskies questions. Two questions:1) What does the QB point at when he gets behind center? 2) Why does the U-DUB lose potential recruits to programs with losing records? USC and UCLA, until this year, come to mind.

A: The quarterback is establishing where the LBs and safeties are lining up so the receivers know which audibles are coming. They can then make their sight read adjustments and be on the same page as the QB. Washington loses potential recruits to losing programs for many reasons. The ones that most come to mind are:
1) Staying close to home – Some kids want to stay and play in front of family and friends. You can never knock someone for that, and many kids that grew up with the dream of playing for USC or UCLA. Regardless of record, a dream is a dream and if you can follow it, why not?
2) Early playing time – Some schools have shorter lines at some positions than others. This is especially the case at skill positions like QB, TB, and CB. With the scholarships now at 85 per school, some schools are going to have immediate need at certain places and with the limits on scholarships, it doesn't take as long to turn a program around.
3) Parental preference of school – some coaches are going to make better impressions with parents than others will. This cannot be underestimated. Some coaches will rub parents the wrong way while others will love them.
4) Limited number of hours – With schools starting out by writing over 2000 letters, there is a lot of "dwindling down" that must be done. Obviously some kids will be missed in that, and obviously a staff cannot possibly recruit everyone under the sun, they have to pick and chose their battles because you are only allowed a limited hours of evaluation and contact times. It cracks me up when people complain about the UW missing out on this kid or that kid. I don't think they realize just how few hours coaches are really allowed to do their thing in recruiting. It is the recruiting coordinator's thankless job to make sure that those hours are being put to good use and not going out on goose chases. Chuck Heater and Claudine Kimm are masters at this, and are a huge reason why Washington will get the great classes they will get under Neuheisel. Neuheisel has a real plumb in Heater and is the reason why he brought him from CU with him. Bottom line is that you must trust your evaluation process and go from there. Yes, they will miss on some kids, but take a look at the ones they do get. If one believes in this coaching staff's ability to evaluate talent, they should make Husky fans very happy.

Hope this helps.

From Darrin
Dear Dawgman:
Looking at next year's d-line recruits, what are the chances of landing both Mateaki and Mapu and where would each play? Both are DE's, and the DT position already has verbals from Milsten and Murray and we are going after Ngata. I would love to see Mapu at the DE and Mateaki at the REB (which is really a DE). Also, does the UW have strong interest in Fred Baisey of Rainer Beach? His numbers are off the charts, but I wonder about his football talent. I just do not hear that much on his play.

A: Mapu and Mateaki would be a pretty amazing one-two, huh? I would project both to be on the DL, most likely on the perimeter as you suggest. Milsten could be an inside or outside guy and I think Reffett will play outside as well, he even moves well enough to play OLB perhaps. Murray, if he makes it in (Student Sports reports that he has some work to do), would definitely be an interior player. Solomona (asked us to call him a soft commit) would probably play inside but is having a very strong year at DE for El Camino. Randy Hart has to be pleased with what's about to come his way, huh? As for Fred Baisy, Washington had him in camp and liked him this summer but didn't offer. They appear to like other LB prospects a little better at this point. Washington coaches are being extremely thorough and selective this year in recruiting, and that's exciting. These guys can evaluate talent incredibly and the longer the recruiting process goes, the longer they have to evaluate and close the deal. It's going to be a great recruiting year, every UW staff member I've spoken with is very excited about it so far. Of course they cannot talk in specifics but all are pleased with the way things are going as they head into the visits.
From William
Dear Dawgman:
I've missed your column. Please don't take so long between. I have two questions. Do you have any figures on knee injuries since the Huskies got field turf? Also, how many offensive linemen do you think the Huskies will end up taking? It seems to me that they are pretty well stocked up, particularly if Tipoti makes it for 2002. Thanks for your usual thorough answers.

A: Washington has had zero knee injuries that have occurred due to field turf. Kai Ellis' problem knees weren't caused by the surface. I believe Washington will take 4-5 OL types, including ‘Cisco and Jim Rains from Anacortes. They will have a very strong OL in the younger classes, which bodes very well in a year or two. I think an OL class of Tipoti, Rains, Nathan Rhodes, David Beall or Keith Grennan, and Kyle Williams would be an outstanding class. Tipoti and Rains would be "bounce backs" that would count against this year's class and not next year's, so perhaps you could even squeeze another OL/DL type into the class.
From JSM
Dear Dawgman:
Dawgman, just read your latest ask Dawgman. You answered my question about Stevens much differently than I thought you would have! Do you really see a scenario where Stevens returns for his 5th year? I will tell you one thing if he does come back the 2002 will be a very good one and one that he could really use. Man I would love to see him come back one more year. Not counting the true freshmen but just the vets whom is the UW going to or trying to RS this year and will they succeed at getting them their RS? I just feel go for it and RS as many as possible and try to get the best out of the season as you can because like I said I think from 2002 and beyond if this staff is here or most of it - watch out! And with the vets there going to RS do you get the sense that Cleman and Jafar Williams at this point in time will come for the 5th year to play football? And is Kelley still planning on coming back for his sr season? I would love to see him come back also. Are Kelley and Terry Johnson both on track to graduate on time? Thanks Dawgman and it would be great to see Stevens come back and you are the first to point out that he might come back.

A: Stevens could return next year if it's in his best interest. Definitely. I know his parents would prefer that he finish his degree. If he can make more money and improve his draft status next year, he just may come back. However, I'm not kidding myself – I realize that one great game against Miami, a great bowl game, and then an outstanding personal workout in Husky Stadium in front of scouts will make a 5th year at Washington a moot point. Cleman and Williams will both return next year. Braxton has already asked Neuheisel about returning for a 5th year and so has Williams. Expect both to be back in 2002. As for Kelley, I think he'll come back but you never know. He's on track to graduate in four years and he might want to start his life in the real world. That trip he made to South Africa last year really made an impact on his life and he may wish to pursue that sooner. Just speculation on my part. He may very well wish to pursue graduate studies and if he does, he would do it likely at Washington. Kelley was really touched by his sojourn to South Africa, and I think he may have a very bright future in helping the situation over there. Anthony is quite a young man, it's been fun to see the changes he's made over the four years he's been here. As for Terry Johnson being on track, this is only his third quarter at the UW so it's too early to tell.

Link to past columns of Ask Dawgman

Click the button above to ask dawgman a question. You'll need to have your browser's e-mail capability enabled for this button to work.

[ more Ask Dawgman columns ] Top Stories