Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

A fair assessment of the state of Husky Football

2»

Comments

  • TailgaterTailgater Member Posts: 1,389
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes


    For the record, I was never on Dawgman. I don't know much about Kim and Fetters, other than they cover recruiting. The first time I saw Fetters I was like "who the hell is that fat ass dude standing in the background and what does he have to do with Husky Football?"
    What Fetters has to do with Husky Football is he's from Walla Walla, the Snitch's home base ( the Snitch being the Blethen family member and WSU grad who owns and operates The Seattle Times or used to at the time the Snitch was scourging Husky Football). There might be some truth in this.

  • DerekJohnsonDerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 59,711
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Founders Club
    I liked it when a doog argued with me after the 2010 Apple Cup, (paraphrasing) "if you take way Polk's touchdown runs of 76, 58 and 43 yards, he only gained about 100 yards."
  • HouhuskyHouhusky Member Posts: 5,537
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    edited June 2013

    I liked it when a doog argued with me after the 2010 Apple Cup, (paraphrasing) "if you take way Polk's touchdown runs of 76, 58 and 43 yards, he only gained about 100 yards."

    This line was repeated many times on doogman whenever someone brought up Sarks under utilization of one of the best RBs in UW history in big games...
  • DerekJohnsonDerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 59,711
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Founders Club
    Mad_Son said:

    Houhusky said:

    I liked it when a doog argued with me after the 2010 Apple Cup, (paraphrasing) "if you take way Polk's touchdown runs of 76, 58 and 43 yards, he only gained about 100 yards."

    This line was repeated many times on doogman whenever someone brought up Sarks under utilization of one of the best RBs in UW history in big games...
    Polk would have won a Heisman at Wisconsin, Stanford, or Alabama.
    don't forget that Polk originally verballed to USC
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,453
    5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment blah
    Mad_Son said:



    Polk would have won a Heisman at Wisconsin, Stanford, or Alabama. with a competent head coach like Jim L. Mora

    Fixed it up.
  • DeepSeaZDeepSeaZ Member Posts: 3,901
    5 Awesomes First Anniversary First Answer First Comment
    To answer this specific question, yes I think we have some good pieces. My question and my worry is can we develop them? Our biggest failure is not developing the talent we have to their fullest potential. Sark's first defensive staff failed miserably. The second defensive staff improved but failed miserably the last two games. The line play on both sides of the ball are subpar and have not shown improvement. And I really don't know what to think about Sark's ability to develop QBs. I want Sark to be the answer for multiple reasons but I haven't seen anything to show me he is. I hope Sark and his staff turn the corner for good this year. I hope they realize house money does not exist. I hope he realizes the shiny new cathedral known as Husky Stadium comes with a price. And all who enter better be willing and able to pay it.

    I didn't pay any attention to that adjusted score bs. I don't know what that was all about. But I understand if you are so sick of average Husky Football that you can no longer even bring yourself to read articles about the team. Personally, I enjoy reading anything about Husky FB. If you do happen to find the time to read it, the rest of the article seems pretty straight forward and honest to me.

    I don't think the author was being overly biased in favor of Sark. His shortcomings as a coach are clearly laid out, along with his accomplishments. And when the author says we are young, he is talking about the 19 returning starters who the majority of were freshmen or sophomores last season.

    So the question is whether or not you think these young guys can build upon their experience after being battle tested early in their college careers, and step up and play at a championship level, with consistency, in order to finish the close games and dominate the ones that we should be dominating. Can Sark grow with this team into a smarter, battle tested coach that can finally lift our program to the level that we all expect?

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,453
    5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment blah
    DeepSeaZ said:

    To answer this specific question, yes I think we have some good pieces. My question and my worry is can we develop them? Our biggest failure is not developing the talent we have to their fullest potential. Sark's first defensive staff failed miserably. The second defensive staff improved but failed miserably the last two games. The line play on both sides of the ball are subpar and have not shown improvement. And I really don't know what to think about Sark's ability to develop QBs. I want Sark to be the answer for multiple reasons but I haven't seen anything to show me he is. I hope Sark and his staff turn the corner for good this year. I hope they realize house money does not exist. I hope he realizes the shiny new cathedral known as Husky Stadium comes with a price. And all who enter better be willing and able to pay it.

    I didn't pay any attention to that adjusted score bs. I don't know what that was all about. But I understand if you are so sick of average Husky Football that you can no longer even bring yourself to read articles about the team. Personally, I enjoy reading anything about Husky FB. If you do happen to find the time to read it, the rest of the article seems pretty straight forward and honest to me.

    I don't think the author was being overly biased in favor of Sark. His shortcomings as a coach are clearly laid out, along with his accomplishments. And when the author says we are young, he is talking about the 19 returning starters who the majority of were freshmen or sophomores last season.

    So the question is whether or not you think these young guys can build upon their experience after being battle tested early in their college careers, and step up and play at a championship level, with consistency, in order to finish the close games and dominate the ones that we should be dominating. Can Sark grow with this team into a smarter, battle tested coach that can finally lift our program to the level that we all expect?

    This is year fucking five why are people still "hoping" Sark turns the corner? He is what he is as a coach. Put in a tape of UW football from 2009 vs a game from 2012 and you can't tell a difference.

    He is supposedly an "offensive genius" yet his offenses outside of 2011(more on that) have been pretty bad to average. While in 2011 the offense any time they faced a quality defense(Stanford, Oregon, USC) they shut down.

    He has shown time and time again he's a terrible coach on the road as well. Every year under his tenure UW has lost to a terrible team on the road(ASU/UCLA in 2009, BYU in 2010, Oregon State in 2011 and of course WSU in 2012), he's been blown out by an average team on the road(Oregon State in 2009, Arizona in 2010, Nebraska in 2011 and Arizona in 2012).

    His QB's so far both are Ty recruits by the way have gotten worse the longer he's been with them. Locker looked most comfortable with Sark his first three games with him after that he was flat terrible. Price looked good in 2011 but looked terrible in 2012.

    He isn't that great of a recruiter and he is terrible at player development. We are in year 5 and we still have no clear #2 WR, back up RB or a back up QB. We still don't have one OL that we can say with confidence will be all conference.

    So what are you waiting for? The evidence is there he's an average coach. I know we were 0-12 blah blah blah but who gives a fuck? Stanford was 1-10 and Harbaugh inherited a lot less talent than Sark did and he turned them into 12-1 by year fucking four!

    Let's stop waiting for Sark and hoping Sark turns the corner. He can't and won't. We'll go 7-6 again next year and that's with a win over Boise even.

    As everyone on here says Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
  • dhdawgdhdawg Member Posts: 13,326
    5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    Mad_Son said:

    Houhusky said:

    I liked it when a doog argued with me after the 2010 Apple Cup, (paraphrasing) "if you take way Polk's touchdown runs of 76, 58 and 43 yards, he only gained about 100 yards."

    This line was repeated many times on doogman whenever someone brought up Sarks under utilization of one of the best RBs in UW history in big games...
    Polk would have won a Heisman at Wisconsin, Stanford, or Alabama.
    he really watered down how bad the O-line was at times

  • DerekJohnsonDerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 59,711
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Founders Club
    dhdawg said:

    Mad_Son said:

    Houhusky said:

    I liked it when a doog argued with me after the 2010 Apple Cup, (paraphrasing) "if you take way Polk's touchdown runs of 76, 58 and 43 yards, he only gained about 100 yards."

    This line was repeated many times on doogman whenever someone brought up Sarks under utilization of one of the best RBs in UW history in big games...
    Polk would have won a Heisman at Wisconsin, Stanford, or Alabama.
    he really watered down how bad the O-line was at times

    Agreed. Polk was extraordinarily underappreciated. He should have received all the attention that Jake got.
  • TheKobeStopperTheKobeStopper Member Posts: 5,959
    5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes First Comment First Anniversary

    DeepSeaZ said:

    To answer this specific question, yes I think we have some good pieces. My question and my worry is can we develop them? Our biggest failure is not developing the talent we have to their fullest potential. Sark's first defensive staff failed miserably. The second defensive staff improved but failed miserably the last two games. The line play on both sides of the ball are subpar and have not shown improvement. And I really don't know what to think about Sark's ability to develop QBs. I want Sark to be the answer for multiple reasons but I haven't seen anything to show me he is. I hope Sark and his staff turn the corner for good this year. I hope they realize house money does not exist. I hope he realizes the shiny new cathedral known as Husky Stadium comes with a price. And all who enter better be willing and able to pay it.

    I didn't pay any attention to that adjusted score bs. I don't know what that was all about. But I understand if you are so sick of average Husky Football that you can no longer even bring yourself to read articles about the team. Personally, I enjoy reading anything about Husky FB. If you do happen to find the time to read it, the rest of the article seems pretty straight forward and honest to me.

    I don't think the author was being overly biased in favor of Sark. His shortcomings as a coach are clearly laid out, along with his accomplishments. And when the author says we are young, he is talking about the 19 returning starters who the majority of were freshmen or sophomores last season.

    So the question is whether or not you think these young guys can build upon their experience after being battle tested early in their college careers, and step up and play at a championship level, with consistency, in order to finish the close games and dominate the ones that we should be dominating. Can Sark grow with this team into a smarter, battle tested coach that can finally lift our program to the level that we all expect?

    This is year fucking five why are people still "hoping" Sark turns the corner? He is what he is as a coach. Put in a tape of UW football from 2009 vs a game from 2012 and you can't tell a difference.

    He is supposedly an "offensive genius" yet his offenses outside of 2011(more on that) have been pretty bad to average. While in 2011 the offense any time they faced a quality defense(Stanford, Oregon, USC) they shut down.

    He has shown time and time again he's a terrible coach on the road as well. Every year under his tenure UW has lost to a terrible team on the road(ASU/UCLA in 2009, BYU in 2010, Oregon State in 2011 and of course WSU in 2012), he's been blown out by an average team on the road(Oregon State in 2009, Arizona in 2010, Nebraska in 2011 and Arizona in 2012).

    His QB's so far both are Ty recruits by the way have gotten worse the longer he's been with them. Locker looked most comfortable with Sark his first three games with him after that he was flat terrible. Price looked good in 2011 but looked terrible in 2012.

    He isn't that great of a recruiter and he is terrible at player development. We are in year 5 and we still have no clear #2 WR, back up RB or a back up QB. We still don't have one OL that we can say with confidence will be all conference.

    So what are you waiting for? The evidence is there he's an average coach. I know we were 0-12 blah blah blah but who gives a fuck? Stanford was 1-10 and Harbaugh inherited a lot less talent than Sark did and he turned them into 12-1 by year fucking four!

    Let's stop waiting for Sark and hoping Sark turns the corner. He can't and won't. We'll go 7-6 again next year and that's with a win over Boise even.

    As everyone on here says Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
    Oh my god. Stop complaining about the back up quarterback. It's pretty normal for even the top recruiting teams to not have a proven back up QB.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,453
    5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment blah

    DeepSeaZ said:

    To answer this specific question, yes I think we have some good pieces. My question and my worry is can we develop them? Our biggest failure is not developing the talent we have to their fullest potential. Sark's first defensive staff failed miserably. The second defensive staff improved but failed miserably the last two games. The line play on both sides of the ball are subpar and have not shown improvement. And I really don't know what to think about Sark's ability to develop QBs. I want Sark to be the answer for multiple reasons but I haven't seen anything to show me he is. I hope Sark and his staff turn the corner for good this year. I hope they realize house money does not exist. I hope he realizes the shiny new cathedral known as Husky Stadium comes with a price. And all who enter better be willing and able to pay it.

    I didn't pay any attention to that adjusted score bs. I don't know what that was all about. But I understand if you are so sick of average Husky Football that you can no longer even bring yourself to read articles about the team. Personally, I enjoy reading anything about Husky FB. If you do happen to find the time to read it, the rest of the article seems pretty straight forward and honest to me.

    I don't think the author was being overly biased in favor of Sark. His shortcomings as a coach are clearly laid out, along with his accomplishments. And when the author says we are young, he is talking about the 19 returning starters who the majority of were freshmen or sophomores last season.

    So the question is whether or not you think these young guys can build upon their experience after being battle tested early in their college careers, and step up and play at a championship level, with consistency, in order to finish the close games and dominate the ones that we should be dominating. Can Sark grow with this team into a smarter, battle tested coach that can finally lift our program to the level that we all expect?

    This is year fucking five why are people still "hoping" Sark turns the corner? He is what he is as a coach. Put in a tape of UW football from 2009 vs a game from 2012 and you can't tell a difference.

    He is supposedly an "offensive genius" yet his offenses outside of 2011(more on that) have been pretty bad to average. While in 2011 the offense any time they faced a quality defense(Stanford, Oregon, USC) they shut down.

    He has shown time and time again he's a terrible coach on the road as well. Every year under his tenure UW has lost to a terrible team on the road(ASU/UCLA in 2009, BYU in 2010, Oregon State in 2011 and of course WSU in 2012), he's been blown out by an average team on the road(Oregon State in 2009, Arizona in 2010, Nebraska in 2011 and Arizona in 2012).

    His QB's so far both are Ty recruits by the way have gotten worse the longer he's been with them. Locker looked most comfortable with Sark his first three games with him after that he was flat terrible. Price looked good in 2011 but looked terrible in 2012.

    He isn't that great of a recruiter and he is terrible at player development. We are in year 5 and we still have no clear #2 WR, back up RB or a back up QB. We still don't have one OL that we can say with confidence will be all conference.

    So what are you waiting for? The evidence is there he's an average coach. I know we were 0-12 blah blah blah but who gives a fuck? Stanford was 1-10 and Harbaugh inherited a lot less talent than Sark did and he turned them into 12-1 by year fucking four!

    Let's stop waiting for Sark and hoping Sark turns the corner. He can't and won't. We'll go 7-6 again next year and that's with a win over Boise even.

    As everyone on here says Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
    Oh my god. Stop complaining about the back up quarterback. It's pretty normal for even the top recruiting teams to not have a proven back up QB.
    Out of all my TL;DR you point out my one line about no clear back up QB? Good gawd man.

    FWIW, this will be the 4th straight year under Sark our back up QB is a freshman. UW has also lost 10 straight games started by their back up QB. Since 2006 the Huskies are 2-14 when they need a start from their backup QB. I'm going to guess our record was pretty decent in the 1990's and 1980's when we needed a spot start or two.
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 100,717
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    If you're just here to talk about the back up QB then you won't last long
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,453
    5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment blah

    If you're just here to talk about the back up QB then you won't last long

    What if I'm here to beat to my chest?
  • TheKobeStopperTheKobeStopper Member Posts: 5,959
    5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes First Comment First Anniversary

    DeepSeaZ said:

    To answer this specific question, yes I think we have some good pieces. My question and my worry is can we develop them? Our biggest failure is not developing the talent we have to their fullest potential. Sark's first defensive staff failed miserably. The second defensive staff improved but failed miserably the last two games. The line play on both sides of the ball are subpar and have not shown improvement. And I really don't know what to think about Sark's ability to develop QBs. I want Sark to be the answer for multiple reasons but I haven't seen anything to show me he is. I hope Sark and his staff turn the corner for good this year. I hope they realize house money does not exist. I hope he realizes the shiny new cathedral known as Husky Stadium comes with a price. And all who enter better be willing and able to pay it.

    I didn't pay any attention to that adjusted score bs. I don't know what that was all about. But I understand if you are so sick of average Husky Football that you can no longer even bring yourself to read articles about the team. Personally, I enjoy reading anything about Husky FB. If you do happen to find the time to read it, the rest of the article seems pretty straight forward and honest to me.

    I don't think the author was being overly biased in favor of Sark. His shortcomings as a coach are clearly laid out, along with his accomplishments. And when the author says we are young, he is talking about the 19 returning starters who the majority of were freshmen or sophomores last season.

    So the question is whether or not you think these young guys can build upon their experience after being battle tested early in their college careers, and step up and play at a championship level, with consistency, in order to finish the close games and dominate the ones that we should be dominating. Can Sark grow with this team into a smarter, battle tested coach that can finally lift our program to the level that we all expect?

    This is year fucking five why are people still "hoping" Sark turns the corner? He is what he is as a coach. Put in a tape of UW football from 2009 vs a game from 2012 and you can't tell a difference.

    He is supposedly an "offensive genius" yet his offenses outside of 2011(more on that) have been pretty bad to average. While in 2011 the offense any time they faced a quality defense(Stanford, Oregon, USC) they shut down.

    He has shown time and time again he's a terrible coach on the road as well. Every year under his tenure UW has lost to a terrible team on the road(ASU/UCLA in 2009, BYU in 2010, Oregon State in 2011 and of course WSU in 2012), he's been blown out by an average team on the road(Oregon State in 2009, Arizona in 2010, Nebraska in 2011 and Arizona in 2012).

    His QB's so far both are Ty recruits by the way have gotten worse the longer he's been with them. Locker looked most comfortable with Sark his first three games with him after that he was flat terrible. Price looked good in 2011 but looked terrible in 2012.

    He isn't that great of a recruiter and he is terrible at player development. We are in year 5 and we still have no clear #2 WR, back up RB or a back up QB. We still don't have one OL that we can say with confidence will be all conference.

    So what are you waiting for? The evidence is there he's an average coach. I know we were 0-12 blah blah blah but who gives a fuck? Stanford was 1-10 and Harbaugh inherited a lot less talent than Sark did and he turned them into 12-1 by year fucking four!

    Let's stop waiting for Sark and hoping Sark turns the corner. He can't and won't. We'll go 7-6 again next year and that's with a win over Boise even.

    As everyone on here says Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
    Oh my god. Stop complaining about the back up quarterback. It's pretty normal for even the top recruiting teams to not have a proven back up QB.
    Out of all my TL;DR you point out my one line about no clear back up QB? Good gawd man.

    FWIW, this will be the 4th straight year under Sark our back up QB is a freshman. UW has also lost 10 straight games started by their back up QB. Since 2006 the Huskies are 2-14 when they need a start from their backup QB. I'm going to guess our record was pretty decent in the 1990's and 1980's when we needed a spot start or two.
    Of the 10 straight losses with a back up QB how many came in Tys 0-12 masterpiece?
  • HouhuskyHouhusky Member Posts: 5,537
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes

    DeepSeaZ said:

    To answer this specific question, yes I think we have some good pieces. My question and my worry is can we develop them? Our biggest failure is not developing the talent we have to their fullest potential. Sark's first defensive staff failed miserably. The second defensive staff improved but failed miserably the last two games. The line play on both sides of the ball are subpar and have not shown improvement. And I really don't know what to think about Sark's ability to develop QBs. I want Sark to be the answer for multiple reasons but I haven't seen anything to show me he is. I hope Sark and his staff turn the corner for good this year. I hope they realize house money does not exist. I hope he realizes the shiny new cathedral known as Husky Stadium comes with a price. And all who enter better be willing and able to pay it.

    I didn't pay any attention to that adjusted score bs. I don't know what that was all about. But I understand if you are so sick of average Husky Football that you can no longer even bring yourself to read articles about the team. Personally, I enjoy reading anything about Husky FB. If you do happen to find the time to read it, the rest of the article seems pretty straight forward and honest to me.

    I don't think the author was being overly biased in favor of Sark. His shortcomings as a coach are clearly laid out, along with his accomplishments. And when the author says we are young, he is talking about the 19 returning starters who the majority of were freshmen or sophomores last season.

    So the question is whether or not you think these young guys can build upon their experience after being battle tested early in their college careers, and step up and play at a championship level, with consistency, in order to finish the close games and dominate the ones that we should be dominating. Can Sark grow with this team into a smarter, battle tested coach that can finally lift our program to the level that we all expect?

    This is year fucking five why are people still "hoping" Sark turns the corner? He is what he is as a coach. Put in a tape of UW football from 2009 vs a game from 2012 and you can't tell a difference.

    He is supposedly an "offensive genius" yet his offenses outside of 2011(more on that) have been pretty bad to average. While in 2011 the offense any time they faced a quality defense(Stanford, Oregon, USC) they shut down.

    He has shown time and time again he's a terrible coach on the road as well. Every year under his tenure UW has lost to a terrible team on the road(ASU/UCLA in 2009, BYU in 2010, Oregon State in 2011 and of course WSU in 2012), he's been blown out by an average team on the road(Oregon State in 2009, Arizona in 2010, Nebraska in 2011 and Arizona in 2012).

    His QB's so far both are Ty recruits by the way have gotten worse the longer he's been with them. Locker looked most comfortable with Sark his first three games with him after that he was flat terrible. Price looked good in 2011 but looked terrible in 2012.

    He isn't that great of a recruiter and he is terrible at player development. We are in year 5 and we still have no clear #2 WR, back up RB or a back up QB. We still don't have one OL that we can say with confidence will be all conference.

    So what are you waiting for? The evidence is there he's an average coach. I know we were 0-12 blah blah blah but who gives a fuck? Stanford was 1-10 and Harbaugh inherited a lot less talent than Sark did and he turned them into 12-1 by year fucking four!

    Let's stop waiting for Sark and hoping Sark turns the corner. He can't and won't. We'll go 7-6 again next year and that's with a win over Boise even.

    As everyone on here says Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
    Oh my god. Stop complaining about the back up quarterback. It's pretty normal for even the top recruiting teams to not have a proven back up QB.
    Out of all my TL;DR you point out my one line about no clear back up QB? Good gawd man.

    FWIW, this will be the 4th straight year under Sark our back up QB is a freshman. UW has also lost 10 straight games started by their back up QB. Since 2006 the Huskies are 2-14 when they need a start from their backup QB. I'm going to guess our record was pretty decent in the 1990's and 1980's when we needed a spot start or two.
    Backup QBs dont mean shit... the reason why the backup qb record is so shitty is because the team as a whole was shitty. Great teams with great defenses and great offensive lines or great coaches dont take a step back when the new QB has to play
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 11,453
    5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment blah
    Houhusky said:

    DeepSeaZ said:

    To answer this specific question, yes I think we have some good pieces. My question and my worry is can we develop them? Our biggest failure is not developing the talent we have to their fullest potential. Sark's first defensive staff failed miserably. The second defensive staff improved but failed miserably the last two games. The line play on both sides of the ball are subpar and have not shown improvement. And I really don't know what to think about Sark's ability to develop QBs. I want Sark to be the answer for multiple reasons but I haven't seen anything to show me he is. I hope Sark and his staff turn the corner for good this year. I hope they realize house money does not exist. I hope he realizes the shiny new cathedral known as Husky Stadium comes with a price. And all who enter better be willing and able to pay it.

    I didn't pay any attention to that adjusted score bs. I don't know what that was all about. But I understand if you are so sick of average Husky Football that you can no longer even bring yourself to read articles about the team. Personally, I enjoy reading anything about Husky FB. If you do happen to find the time to read it, the rest of the article seems pretty straight forward and honest to me.

    I don't think the author was being overly biased in favor of Sark. His shortcomings as a coach are clearly laid out, along with his accomplishments. And when the author says we are young, he is talking about the 19 returning starters who the majority of were freshmen or sophomores last season.

    So the question is whether or not you think these young guys can build upon their experience after being battle tested early in their college careers, and step up and play at a championship level, with consistency, in order to finish the close games and dominate the ones that we should be dominating. Can Sark grow with this team into a smarter, battle tested coach that can finally lift our program to the level that we all expect?

    This is year fucking five why are people still "hoping" Sark turns the corner? He is what he is as a coach. Put in a tape of UW football from 2009 vs a game from 2012 and you can't tell a difference.

    He is supposedly an "offensive genius" yet his offenses outside of 2011(more on that) have been pretty bad to average. While in 2011 the offense any time they faced a quality defense(Stanford, Oregon, USC) they shut down.

    He has shown time and time again he's a terrible coach on the road as well. Every year under his tenure UW has lost to a terrible team on the road(ASU/UCLA in 2009, BYU in 2010, Oregon State in 2011 and of course WSU in 2012), he's been blown out by an average team on the road(Oregon State in 2009, Arizona in 2010, Nebraska in 2011 and Arizona in 2012).

    His QB's so far both are Ty recruits by the way have gotten worse the longer he's been with them. Locker looked most comfortable with Sark his first three games with him after that he was flat terrible. Price looked good in 2011 but looked terrible in 2012.

    He isn't that great of a recruiter and he is terrible at player development. We are in year 5 and we still have no clear #2 WR, back up RB or a back up QB. We still don't have one OL that we can say with confidence will be all conference.

    So what are you waiting for? The evidence is there he's an average coach. I know we were 0-12 blah blah blah but who gives a fuck? Stanford was 1-10 and Harbaugh inherited a lot less talent than Sark did and he turned them into 12-1 by year fucking four!

    Let's stop waiting for Sark and hoping Sark turns the corner. He can't and won't. We'll go 7-6 again next year and that's with a win over Boise even.

    As everyone on here says Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
    Oh my god. Stop complaining about the back up quarterback. It's pretty normal for even the top recruiting teams to not have a proven back up QB.
    Out of all my TL;DR you point out my one line about no clear back up QB? Good gawd man.

    FWIW, this will be the 4th straight year under Sark our back up QB is a freshman. UW has also lost 10 straight games started by their back up QB. Since 2006 the Huskies are 2-14 when they need a start from their backup QB. I'm going to guess our record was pretty decent in the 1990's and 1980's when we needed a spot start or two.
    Backup QBs dont mean shit... the reason why the backup qb record is so shitty is because the team as a whole was shitty. Great teams with great defenses and great offensive lines or great coaches dont take a step back when the new QB has to play
    That was a big picture point I was making. This board has been pretty slow today I noticed.

    Anyways my back up QB point was literally two words in the tequila like essay I wrote.
  • MikeDamoneMikeDamone Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 37,781
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Awesomes 5 Up Votes
    Swaye's Wigwam
    I like to see the backup QB get in a couple of series every game. That's what I like to see.
  • DeepSeaZDeepSeaZ Member Posts: 3,901
    5 Awesomes First Anniversary First Answer First Comment
    I'll keep it short. I want to win now. Sark is still the coach. Therefore I want Sark to do whatever he needs to do (within reason) to be successful and win now.

    DeepSeaZ said:

    To answer this specific question, yes I think we have some good pieces. My question and my worry is can we develop them? Our biggest failure is not developing the talent we have to their fullest potential. Sark's first defensive staff failed miserably. The second defensive staff improved but failed miserably the last two games. The line play on both sides of the ball are subpar and have not shown improvement. And I really don't know what to think about Sark's ability to develop QBs. I want Sark to be the answer for multiple reasons but I haven't seen anything to show me he is. I hope Sark and his staff turn the corner for good this year. I hope they realize house money does not exist. I hope he realizes the shiny new cathedral known as Husky Stadium comes with a price. And all who enter better be willing and able to pay it.

    I didn't pay any attention to that adjusted score bs. I don't know what that was all about. But I understand if you are so sick of average Husky Football that you can no longer even bring yourself to read articles about the team. Personally, I enjoy reading anything about Husky FB. If you do happen to find the time to read it, the rest of the article seems pretty straight forward and honest to me.

    I don't think the author was being overly biased in favor of Sark. His shortcomings as a coach are clearly laid out, along with his accomplishments. And when the author says we are young, he is talking about the 19 returning starters who the majority of were freshmen or sophomores last season.

    So the question is whether or not you think these young guys can build upon their experience after being battle tested early in their college careers, and step up and play at a championship level, with consistency, in order to finish the close games and dominate the ones that we should be dominating. Can Sark grow with this team into a smarter, battle tested coach that can finally lift our program to the level that we all expect?

    This is year fucking five why are people still "hoping" Sark turns the corner? He is what he is as a coach. Put in a tape of UW football from 2009 vs a game from 2012 and you can't tell a difference.

    He is supposedly an "offensive genius" yet his offenses outside of 2011(more on that) have been pretty bad to average. While in 2011 the offense any time they faced a quality defense(Stanford, Oregon, USC) they shut down.

    He has shown time and time again he's a terrible coach on the road as well. Every year under his tenure UW has lost to a terrible team on the road(ASU/UCLA in 2009, BYU in 2010, Oregon State in 2011 and of course WSU in 2012), he's been blown out by an average team on the road(Oregon State in 2009, Arizona in 2010, Nebraska in 2011 and Arizona in 2012).

    His QB's so far both are Ty recruits by the way have gotten worse the longer he's been with them. Locker looked most comfortable with Sark his first three games with him after that he was flat terrible. Price looked good in 2011 but looked terrible in 2012.

    He isn't that great of a recruiter and he is terrible at player development. We are in year 5 and we still have no clear #2 WR, back up RB or a back up QB. We still don't have one OL that we can say with confidence will be all conference.

    So what are you waiting for? The evidence is there he's an average coach. I know we were 0-12 blah blah blah but who gives a fuck? Stanford was 1-10 and Harbaugh inherited a lot less talent than Sark did and he turned them into 12-1 by year fucking four!

    Let's stop waiting for Sark and hoping Sark turns the corner. He can't and won't. We'll go 7-6 again next year and that's with a win over Boise even.

    As everyone on here says Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

    DeepSeaZ said:

    To answer this specific question, yes I think we have some good pieces. My question and my worry is can we develop them? Our biggest failure is not developing the talent we have to their fullest potential. Sark's first defensive staff failed miserably. The second defensive staff improved but failed miserably the last two games. The line play on both sides of the ball are subpar and have not shown improvement. And I really don't know what to think about Sark's ability to develop QBs. I want Sark to be the answer for multiple reasons but I haven't seen anything to show me he is. I hope Sark and his staff turn the corner for good this year. I hope they realize house money does not exist. I hope he realizes the shiny new cathedral known as Husky Stadium comes with a price. And all who enter better be willing and able to pay it.

    I didn't pay any attention to that adjusted score bs. I don't know what that was all about. But I understand if you are so sick of average Husky Football that you can no longer even bring yourself to read articles about the team. Personally, I enjoy reading anything about Husky FB. If you do happen to find the time to read it, the rest of the article seems pretty straight forward and honest to me.

    I don't think the author was being overly biased in favor of Sark. His shortcomings as a coach are clearly laid out, along with his accomplishments. And when the author says we are young, he is talking about the 19 returning starters who the majority of were freshmen or sophomores last season.

    So the question is whether or not you think these young guys can build upon their experience after being battle tested early in their college careers, and step up and play at a championship level, with consistency, in order to finish the close games and dominate the ones that we should be dominating. Can Sark grow with this team into a smarter, battle tested coach that can finally lift our program to the level that we all expect?

    This is year fucking five why are people still "hoping" Sark turns the corner? He is what he is as a coach. Put in a tape of UW football from 2009 vs a game from 2012 and you can't tell a difference.

    He is supposedly an "offensive genius" yet his offenses outside of 2011(more on that) have been pretty bad to average. While in 2011 the offense any time they faced a quality defense(Stanford, Oregon, USC) they shut down.

    He has shown time and time again he's a terrible coach on the road as well. Every year under his tenure UW has lost to a terrible team on the road(ASU/UCLA in 2009, BYU in 2010, Oregon State in 2011 and of course WSU in 2012), he's been blown out by an average team on the road(Oregon State in 2009, Arizona in 2010, Nebraska in 2011 and Arizona in 2012).

    His QB's so far both are Ty recruits by the way have gotten worse the longer he's been with them. Locker looked most comfortable with Sark his first three games with him after that he was flat terrible. Price looked good in 2011 but looked terrible in 2012.

    He isn't that great of a recruiter and he is terrible at player development. We are in year 5 and we still have no clear #2 WR, back up RB or a back up QB. We still don't have one OL that we can say with confidence will be all conference.

    So what are you waiting for? The evidence is there he's an average coach. I know we were 0-12 blah blah blah but who gives a fuck? Stanford was 1-10 and Harbaugh inherited a lot less talent than Sark did and he turned them into 12-1 by year fucking four!

    Let's stop waiting for Sark and hoping Sark turns the corner. He can't and won't. We'll go 7-6 again next year and that's with a win over Boise even.

    As everyone on here says Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

    DeepSeaZ said:

    To answer this specific question, yes I think we have some good pieces. My question and my worry is can we develop them? Our biggest failure is not developing the talent we have to their fullest potential. Sark's first defensive staff failed miserably. The second defensive staff improved but failed miserably the last two games. The line play on both sides of the ball are subpar and have not shown improvement. And I really don't know what to think about Sark's ability to develop QBs. I want Sark to be the answer for multiple reasons but I haven't seen anything to show me he is. I hope Sark and his staff turn the corner for good this year. I hope they realize house money does not exist. I hope he realizes the shiny new cathedral known as Husky Stadium comes with a price. And all who enter better be willing and able to pay it.

    I didn't pay any attention to that adjusted score bs. I don't know what that was all about. But I understand if you are so sick of average Husky Football that you can no longer even bring yourself to read articles about the team. Personally, I enjoy reading anything about Husky FB. If you do happen to find the time to read it, the rest of the article seems pretty straight forward and honest to me.

    I don't think the author was being overly biased in favor of Sark. His shortcomings as a coach are clearly laid out, along with his accomplishments. And when the author says we are young, he is talking about the 19 returning starters who the majority of were freshmen or sophomores last season.

    So the question is whether or not you think these young guys can build upon their experience after being battle tested early in their college careers, and step up and play at a championship level, with consistency, in order to finish the close games and dominate the ones that we should be dominating. Can Sark grow with this team into a smarter, battle tested coach that can finally lift our program to the level that we all expect?

    This is year fucking five why are people still "hoping" Sark turns the corner? He is what he is as a coach. Put in a tape of UW football from 2009 vs a game from 2012 and you can't tell a difference.

    He is supposedly an "offensive genius" yet his offenses outside of 2011(more on that) have been pretty bad to average. While in 2011 the offense any time they faced a quality defense(Stanford, Oregon, USC) they shut down.

    He has shown time and time again he's a terrible coach on the road as well. Every year under his tenure UW has lost to a terrible team on the road(ASU/UCLA in 2009, BYU in 2010, Oregon State in 2011 and of course WSU in 2012), he's been blown out by an average team on the road(Oregon State in 2009, Arizona in 2010, Nebraska in 2011 and Arizona in 2012).

    His QB's so far both are Ty recruits by the way have gotten worse the longer he's been with them. Locker looked most comfortable with Sark his first three games with him after that he was flat terrible. Price looked good in 2011 but looked terrible in 2012.

    He isn't that great of a recruiter and he is terrible at player development. We are in year 5 and we still have no clear #2 WR, back up RB or a back up QB. We still don't have one OL that we can say with confidence will be all conference.

    So what are you waiting for? The evidence is there he's an average coach. I know we were 0-12 blah blah blah but who gives a fuck? Stanford was 1-10 and Harbaugh inherited a lot less talent than Sark did and he turned them into 12-1 by year fucking four!

    Let's stop waiting for Sark and hoping Sark turns the corner. He can't and won't. We'll go 7-6 again next year and that's with a win over Boise even.

    As everyone on here says Lather, Rinse, Repeat.
  • Mad_SonMad_Son Member Posts: 10,075
    First Anniversary 5 Up Votes 5 Awesomes First Comment

    I like to see the backup QB get in a couple of series every game. That's what I like to see.

    I do like that too. I just wish it was garbage time because we were thrashing instead of being thrashed.

Sign In or Register to comment.