This will be unpopular here, but you guys are putting too much blame on Sark. He's a shitty coach, but how he handled Price is pretty low on the list. Fielding undisciplined teams, the shit recruiting at OL were way bigger issues, and being dude brah were way bigger issues. Joey's, the recruiting bus, the rumor about girls on his boat the week of the Oregon game. This guy is a frat boy masquerading as a head football coach. However, the one thing he is competent at is coaching QB's. Hate it all you want, he's put more QB's in the NFL than just about any coach.
I'm surprised Price was cut this soon. I actually thought he had a fairly good chance at making the practice squad. Hopefully, he was cut this early because Carroll/Schneider are doing him a favor and letting him find a better opportunity because he didn't have a chance to make the Seahawks.
He's far from the first good college QB who wasn't NFL caliber. There are QB's who get great coaching who don't make it. It's not always the coach's fault a guy doesn't succeed in the NFL. The fact is, Price is pretty small and has limited mobility. Smaller QB's are getting more of a chance nowadays, but most of those guys are mobile.
1) How he handled Price is pretty high on the list. From shitty playcalling (especially in 2012), to the "trust issues" comment, to leaving a hobbled Price in games against shit opponents FAR longer than he shouldve been, all factors point to Sark being a fucking moron.
2) I'm unconvinced Sark is some ascendant QB guru. At USC, he was coaching 5 star QBs that you'd have to actually undermine in order for them to not have success. I was unimpressed with his work on Locker. You can argue that Price has good numbers in 2/3 seasons because of Sark's coaching, but then you also have to recognize all the flaws in Sark's tutelage discussed in poont 1.
3) Not having an O-Line fucked up Price more than any other factor. The dude got abused in 2012 and never had the same quickness. He was way more mobile at the start of his career than he was at the end. Go rewatch the 2011 Alamo Bowl. That is Sark's fault. You can have the best general ever (QB), but if the troops suck (O-Line), it's not going to matter and the general is going to get fucked up. A great QB "guru" like Sark should be able to recognize the importance of the fucking O-Line. Sark had an amazing O-Line at USC, and Locker was very mobile, so Sark was skating by on the talents of other individuals.
4) Yes, plenty of good college QB's don't have success in the NFL. The game has changed, and most QBs put up big numbers these days. Still, Price set the UW passing record for TDs in a season, and managed to put up solid numbers while playing behind the aforementioned dreckfest of an O-Line. He also had the "benefit" of playing for one of the most inept play-callers in the nation: Sark.
5) Fuck off
Sark was good at recruiting talented skill players and barely beating less talented teams. That's it. The dude is a fraud and got exposed by any coach with a pulse.
Wow man. This board would be so much better with you gone!!!11
Lol. Even race Bannon was on the sark bandwagon after the holiday bowl win.
Year 3 there were plenty of signs, but before that you were just bitter & miserable in your Mom's basement if you wanted Sark fired.
I wasn't a poaster back then, but i don't remember anyone being upset about a Holiday Bowl win after years of being shit. It was solid progress at the time. It should have been a stepping stone. Unfortunately, that was as good as it got under Sark.
Lol. Even race Bannon was on the sark bandwagon after the holiday bowl win.
Year 3 there were plenty of signs, but before that you were just bitter & miserable in your Mom's basement if you wanted Sark fired.
I wasn't a poaster back then, but i don't remember anyone being upset about a Holiday Bowl win after years of being shit. It was solid progress at the time. It should have been a stepping stone. Unfortunately, that was as good as it got under Sark.
Lol. Even race Bannon was on the sark bandwagon after the holiday bowl win.
Year 3 there were plenty of signs, but before that you were just bitter & miserable in your Mom's basement if you wanted Sark fired.
I wasn't a poaster back then, but i don't remember anyone being upset about a Holiday Bowl win after years of being shit. It was solid progress at the time. It should have been a stepping stone. Unfortunately, that was as good as it got under Sark.
Umm...upset, of course not. But many of us saw that holiday bowl game for what it was. Nebraska was thinking national championship and didn't want to be there. They mailed it in. Credit was given to sark for running Polk, but that game could not overcome the shit he put out that season. 41-0 to Stanford. Seriously?
Lol. Even race Bannon was on the sark bandwagon after the holiday bowl win.
Year 3 there were plenty of signs, but before that you were just bitter & miserable in your Mom's basement if you wanted Sark fired.
I wasn't a poaster back then, but i don't remember anyone being upset about a Holiday Bowl win after years of being shit. It was solid progress at the time. It should have been a stepping stone. Unfortunately, that was as good as it got under Sark.
Umm...upset, of course not. But many of us saw that holiday bowl game for what it was. Nebraska was thinking national championship and didn't want to be there. They mailed it in. Credit was given to sark for running Polk, but that game could not overcome the shit he put out that season. 41-0 to Stanford. Seriously?
I went to the Holiday Bowl and it was obvious Nebraska mailed it in. Everyone knew they didn't want to be there while the UW players were pumped to finally be in a bowl. It was still cool that they blew us out and we beat them to end the season. I honestly thought we were going to get plungered walking into the game.
I fully understand what you are saying and the Stanford game was shit. I was still cool with 7-6 and a bowl win. I saw some stuff that made me optimistic, especially Ta'Amu and Jamora. Ta'Amu looked like an All American that day and I was pumped he was returning the next season. Also liked Sark's commitment to the run that he showed not only in that game, but the last 3-4 games of 2011.
In hindsight you are right, but I hoped and expected Sark to turn 7-6 into 9 or 10, to contending for a Rose Bowl. That's what should have happened. He fell well short of that, not only record wise, but getting plungered multiple times every season. I've already said the Arizona and Stanford games were bad signs, but the end of the season made me a little bit optimistic. I certainly didn't want him fired at the time.
Lol. Even race Bannon was on the sark bandwagon after the holiday bowl win.
Year 3 there were plenty of signs, but before that you were just bitter & miserable in your Mom's basement if you wanted Sark fired.
I wasn't a poaster back then, but i don't remember anyone being upset about a Holiday Bowl win after years of being shit. It was solid progress at the time. It should have been a stepping stone. Unfortunately, that was as good as it got under Sark.
Umm...upset, of course not. But many of us saw that holiday bowl game for what it was. Nebraska was thinking national championship and didn't want to be there. They mailed it in. Credit was given to sark for running Polk, but that game could not overcome the shit he put out that season. 41-0 to Stanford. Seriously?
Lol. Even race Bannon was on the sark bandwagon after the holiday bowl win.
Year 3 there were plenty of signs, but before that you were just bitter & miserable in your Mom's basement if you wanted Sark fired.
I wasn't a poaster back then, but i don't remember anyone being upset about a Holiday Bowl win after years of being shit. It was solid progress at the time. It should have been a stepping stone. Unfortunately, that was as good as it got under Sark.
Umm...upset, of course not. But many of us saw that holiday bowl game for what it was. Nebraska was thinking national championship and didn't want to be there. They mailed it in. Credit was given to sark for running Polk, but that game could not overcome the shit he put out that season. 41-0 to Stanford. Seriously?
I was still cool with 7-6 and a bowl win.
Doogs gonna Doog.
If you can't see the difference between 7-6 in 2010 vs 7-6 in 2011 and 2012, I can't help you. 5-7-9-10 would have been cool. A Rose Bowl or BCS bowl in year 5. 5-7-7-7-8 sucks.
Lol. Even race Bannon was on the sark bandwagon after the holiday bowl win.
Year 3 there were plenty of signs, but before that you were just bitter & miserable in your Mom's basement if you wanted Sark fired.
I wasn't a poaster back then, but i don't remember anyone being upset about a Holiday Bowl win after years of being shit. It was solid progress at the time. It should have been a stepping stone. Unfortunately, that was as good as it got under Sark.
Umm...upset, of course not. But many of us saw that holiday bowl game for what it was. Nebraska was thinking national championship and didn't want to be there. They mailed it in. Credit was given to sark for running Polk, but that game could not overcome the shit he put out that season. 41-0 to Stanford. Seriously?
I was still cool with 7-6 and a bowl win.
Doogs gonna Doog.
If you can't see the difference between 7-6 in 2010 vs 7-6 in 2011 and 2012, I can't help you.
So you're saying that 7-6 to 7-6 is incremental decline?
Lol. Even race Bannon was on the sark bandwagon after the holiday bowl win.
Year 3 there were plenty of signs, but before that you were just bitter & miserable in your Mom's basement if you wanted Sark fired.
I wasn't a poaster back then, but i don't remember anyone being upset about a Holiday Bowl win after years of being shit. It was solid progress at the time. It should have been a stepping stone. Unfortunately, that was as good as it got under Sark.
Umm...upset, of course not. But many of us saw that holiday bowl game for what it was. Nebraska was thinking national championship and didn't want to be there. They mailed it in. Credit was given to sark for running Polk, but that game could not overcome the shit he put out that season. 41-0 to Stanford. Seriously?
I was still cool with 7-6 and a bowl win.
Doogs gonna Doog.
If you can't see the difference between 7-6 in 2010 vs 7-6 in 2011 and 2012, I can't help you. 5-7-9-10 would have been cool. A Rose Bowl or BCS bowl in year 5. 5-7-7-7-8 sucks.
Lol. Even race Bannon was on the sark bandwagon after the holiday bowl win.
Year 3 there were plenty of signs, but before that you were just bitter & miserable in your Mom's basement if you wanted Sark fired.
I wasn't a poaster back then, but i don't remember anyone being upset about a Holiday Bowl win after years of being shit. It was solid progress at the time. It should have been a stepping stone. Unfortunately, that was as good as it got under Sark.
Umm...upset, of course not. But many of us saw that holiday bowl game for what it was. Nebraska was thinking national championship and didn't want to be there. They mailed it in. Credit was given to sark for running Polk, but that game could not overcome the shit he put out that season. 41-0 to Stanford. Seriously?
I was still cool with 7-6 and a bowl win.
Doogs gonna Doog.
If you can't see the difference between 7-6 in 2010 vs 7-6 in 2011 and 2012, I can't help you. 5-7-9-10 would have been cool. A Rose Bowl or BCS bowl in year 5. 5-7-7-7-8 sucks.
We should have never seen the 7 and 8 at the end.
Couldn't agree more. That's been my point the whole time. I should have made the post awhile ago.
Lol. Even race Bannon was on the sark bandwagon after the holiday bowl win.
Year 3 there were plenty of signs, but before that you were just bitter & miserable in your Mom's basement if you wanted Sark fired.
I wasn't a poaster back then, but i don't remember anyone being upset about a Holiday Bowl win after years of being shit. It was solid progress at the time. It should have been a stepping stone. Unfortunately, that was as good as it got under Sark.
Umm...upset, of course not. But many of us saw that holiday bowl game for what it was. Nebraska was thinking national championship and didn't want to be there. They mailed it in. Credit was given to sark for running Polk, but that game could not overcome the shit he put out that season. 41-0 to Stanford. Seriously?
I was still cool with 7-6 and a bowl win.
Doogs gonna Doog.
If you can't see the difference between 7-6 in 2010 vs 7-6 in 2011 and 2012, I can't help you. 5-7-9-10 would have been cool. A Rose Bowl or BCS bowl in year 5. 5-7-7-7-8 sucks.
We should have never seen the 7 and 8 at the end.
Couldn't agree more. That's been my point the whole time. I should have made the post awhile ago.
Yea you are usually pretty good about getting to the point. Instead you decided to reach Tequilla territory. I kept expecting you to tell Damone to take the gloves off and get down in a pissing match.
Comments
Learn the fucking difference
Year 3 there were plenty of signs, but before that you were just bitter & miserable in your Mom's basement if you wanted Sark fired.
Also show some respect for the dead next time and put an RIP around his name.
56, 7 and 51 on Sark/Holt. Pretty fucking obvious which game they weren't very fucking interested in.
I would have fired Sark for not getting to fucking work the day he was hired, but I wouldn't have hired him in the first place.
I fully understand what you are saying and the Stanford game was shit. I was still cool with 7-6 and a bowl win. I saw some stuff that made me optimistic, especially Ta'Amu and Jamora. Ta'Amu looked like an All American that day and I was pumped he was returning the next season. Also liked Sark's commitment to the run that he showed not only in that game, but the last 3-4 games of 2011.
In hindsight you are right, but I hoped and expected Sark to turn 7-6 into 9 or 10, to contending for a Rose Bowl. That's what should have happened. He fell well short of that, not only record wise, but getting plungered multiple times every season. I've already said the Arizona and Stanford games were bad signs, but the end of the season made me a little bit optimistic. I certainly didn't want him fired at the time.