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

13

Comments

  • Tailgater
    Tailgater Member Posts: 1,389
    NorthLakeDub said:

    HeretoBeatmyChest said:

    DUCKSareOVERRATED said:


    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.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • DerekJohnson
    DerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 70,481 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."
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Houhusky
    Houhusky Member Posts: 5,537
    edited June 2013
    DerekJohnson 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...
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • DerekJohnson
    DerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 70,481 Founders Club
    Mad_Son said:

    Houhusky said:

    DerekJohnson 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
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 11,453
    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • DeepSeaZ
    DeepSeaZ Member Posts: 3,901
    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.
    NorthLakeDub said:

    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?

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 11,453
    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.

    NorthLakeDub said:

    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dhdawg
    dhdawg Member Posts: 13,326
    Mad_Son said:

    Houhusky said:

    DerekJohnson 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

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • DerekJohnson
    DerekJohnson Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 70,481 Founders Club
    dhdawg said:

    Mad_Son said:

    Houhusky said:

    DerekJohnson 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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter