Season ticket sales are up.
Comments
-
Sorry, I meant the 2000 season. I was thinking of the RB game..ha! Yes Sark, is the first coach to have a RB rush for a 1,000 yards in 4 seasons. However, this year will feature a hybrid no huddle offense. He also got tremendous performances out of Polk. Polk had that monster game against WSU and Sark said this what I have envisioned all along for the program....cough, cough....What?
It was U$C's biggest complaint is that Sark had the keys to the Ferrari and stalled it before hitting 6th gear.
I am not trying to be funny or cute but I think Sark panics and it has cost him some big wins and huge steps forward.
-
I am loving the economy, my business is up and way up. Has been a great year thus far. All my clients have been busy all through the summer and fall is looking very good.tracker said:"As noted above, our running game has been mediocre at best under Sark, even compared to other teams in THIS ECONOMY."
Our running game will improve when Obama gets serious about THE ECONOMY.
When gets the run going wins and revenues will rise....yahooo.
-
Sark has been fortunate to have talented RB's not to mention like others say in key games Sark panics.jecornel said:Sorry, I meant the 2000 season. I was thinking of the RB game..ha! Yes Sark, is the first coach to have a RB rush for a 1,000 yards in 4 seasons. However, this year will feature a hybrid no huddle offense. He also got tremendous performances out of Polk. Polk had that monster game against WSU and Sark said this what I have envisioned all along for the program....cough, cough....What?
It was U$C's biggest complaint is that Sark had the keys to the Ferrari and stalled it before hitting 6th gear.
I am not trying to be funny or cute but I think Sark panics and it has cost him some big wins and huge steps forward.
With the Seahawks if they trail 10-0 they are still sticking with the run. If the Huskies sometimes even trial by just 7 points, Sark starts to panic and abandons the run game.
In college team rushing yards matter more than a thousand yard back. His QB's and backup RB's contribute zero to the rushing game.
While in 1991 or 2000 we didn't have a 1,000 yard rusher but were a great rushing team. -
You leave out 1 key component to our rushing numbers. We had a QB that was absolutely no threat while running the spread option. Add in a mobile QB (Miles) and you can add 500 yds into that number which would put us near the Top 30 to go with our passing attack.PurpleJ said:
Look at our national ranking in rushing yards per game under Sark:IrishDawg22 said:"Once Sark decides to get out of his own way and commit to the run" - jecornel
If you are going to bitch, at least pretend you know something about football. The Dawgs have had 4 straight 1,000+ rushers. 1st time in program history I believe, but I could be wrong.
In today's game, you cannot just RUN the ball without a threat of a decent passing game.
The problem is we cannot RECRUIT athletic Oline guys and we have a position coach who does not understand, or at least cannot develop guys to PASS protect. For some reason Sark has chose to stand behind Cozz, and that has been his biggest mistake.
2012: 86th
2011: 63rd
2010: 38th (peaked)
2009: 68th
In comparison, Oregon was in the top 10 every year he has been here.
Source: cfbstats.com/2012/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category01/sort01.html
You are right about one thing. Cozz has done a shitty job and Sark kept him here, and recruits know that.
My main concern is still the lack of TALENT up front and their ability to protect the passer.
As for Sark's play calling, we that speaks for itself. -
Because Sark never had a mobile quarterback before.IrishDawg22 said:
You leave out 1 key component to our rushing numbers. We had a QB that was absolutely no threat while running the spread option. Add in a mobile QB (Miles) and you can add 500 yds into that number which would put us near the Top 30 to go with our passing attack.PurpleJ said:
Look at our national ranking in rushing yards per game under Sark:IrishDawg22 said:"Once Sark decides to get out of his own way and commit to the run" - jecornel
If you are going to bitch, at least pretend you know something about football. The Dawgs have had 4 straight 1,000+ rushers. 1st time in program history I believe, but I could be wrong.
In today's game, you cannot just RUN the ball without a threat of a decent passing game.
The problem is we cannot RECRUIT athletic Oline guys and we have a position coach who does not understand, or at least cannot develop guys to PASS protect. For some reason Sark has chose to stand behind Cozz, and that has been his biggest mistake.
2012: 86th
2011: 63rd
2010: 38th (peaked)
2009: 68th
In comparison, Oregon was in the top 10 every year he has been here.
Source: cfbstats.com/2012/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category01/sort01.html
You are right about one thing. Cozz has done a shitty job and Sark kept him here, and recruits know that.
My main concern is still the lack of TALENT up front and their ability to protect the passer.
As for Sark's play calling, we that speaks for itself. -
Whooshjecornel said:
I am loving the economy, my business is up and way up. Has been a great year thus far. All my clients have been busy all through the summer and fall is looking very good.tracker said:"As noted above, our running game has been mediocre at best under Sark, even compared to other teams in THIS ECONOMY."
Our running game will improve when Obama gets serious about THE ECONOMY.
When gets the run going wins and revenues will rise....yahooo. -
Isn't it SARK'S job to recruit and develop that TALENT? Isn't it also his JOB to commit to having a solid GROUND game?IrishDawg22 said:
You leave out 1 key component to our rushing numbers. We had a QB that was absolutely no threat while running the spread option. Add in a mobile QB (Miles) and you can add 500 yds into that number which would put us near the Top 30 to go with our passing attack.PurpleJ said:
Look at our national ranking in rushing yards per game under Sark:IrishDawg22 said:"Once Sark decides to get out of his own way and commit to the run" - jecornel
If you are going to bitch, at least pretend you know something about football. The Dawgs have had 4 straight 1,000+ rushers. 1st time in program history I believe, but I could be wrong.
In today's game, you cannot just RUN the ball without a threat of a decent passing game.
The problem is we cannot RECRUIT athletic Oline guys and we have a position coach who does not understand, or at least cannot develop guys to PASS protect. For some reason Sark has chose to stand behind Cozz, and that has been his biggest mistake.
2012: 86th
2011: 63rd
2010: 38th (peaked)
2009: 68th
In comparison, Oregon was in the top 10 every year he has been here.
Source: cfbstats.com/2012/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category01/sort01.html
You are right about one thing. Cozz has done a shitty job and Sark kept him here, and recruits know that.
My main concern is still the lack of TALENT up front and their ability to protect the passer.
As for Sark's play calling, we that speaks for itself.
I can CAPITALIZE words in my POSTS, too. -
W. JW. I didn't think you could doog it up this badly but somehow you did.IrishDawg22 said:
You leave out 1 key component to our rushing numbers. We had a QB that was absolutely no threat while running the spread option. Add in a mobile QB (Miles) and you can add 500 yds into that number which would put us near the Top 30 to go with our passing attack.PurpleJ said:
Look at our national ranking in rushing yards per game under Sark:IrishDawg22 said:"Once Sark decides to get out of his own way and commit to the run" - jecornel
If you are going to bitch, at least pretend you know something about football. The Dawgs have had 4 straight 1,000+ rushers. 1st time in program history I believe, but I could be wrong.
In today's game, you cannot just RUN the ball without a threat of a decent passing game.
The problem is we cannot RECRUIT athletic Oline guys and we have a position coach who does not understand, or at least cannot develop guys to PASS protect. For some reason Sark has chose to stand behind Cozz, and that has been his biggest mistake.
2012: 86th
2011: 63rd
2010: 38th (peaked)
2009: 68th
In comparison, Oregon was in the top 10 every year he has been here.
Source: cfbstats.com/2012/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category01/sort01.html
You are right about one thing. Cozz has done a shitty job and Sark kept him here, and recruits know that.
My main concern is still the lack of TALENT up front and their ability to protect the passer.
As for Sark's play calling, we that speaks for itself. -
Your right, KP was so mobile last year.He_Needs_More_Time said:
W. JW. I didn't think you could doog it up this badly but somehow you did.IrishDawg22 said:
You leave out 1 key component to our rushing numbers. We had a QB that was absolutely no threat while running the spread option. Add in a mobile QB (Miles) and you can add 500 yds into that number which would put us near the Top 30 to go with our passing attack.PurpleJ said:
Look at our national ranking in rushing yards per game under Sark:IrishDawg22 said:"Once Sark decides to get out of his own way and commit to the run" - jecornel
If you are going to bitch, at least pretend you know something about football. The Dawgs have had 4 straight 1,000+ rushers. 1st time in program history I believe, but I could be wrong.
In today's game, you cannot just RUN the ball without a threat of a decent passing game.
The problem is we cannot RECRUIT athletic Oline guys and we have a position coach who does not understand, or at least cannot develop guys to PASS protect. For some reason Sark has chose to stand behind Cozz, and that has been his biggest mistake.
2012: 86th
2011: 63rd
2010: 38th (peaked)
2009: 68th
In comparison, Oregon was in the top 10 every year he has been here.
Source: cfbstats.com/2012/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category01/sort01.html
You are right about one thing. Cozz has done a shitty job and Sark kept him here, and recruits know that.
My main concern is still the lack of TALENT up front and their ability to protect the passer.
As for Sark's play calling, we that speaks for itself.
Have you ever watched a game???
Maybe I will add pics next time.
-
And when was I defending Sark???? The discussion was about the lack of running game, when in fact it is our inability to protect the passer that was our main issue on offense.PurpleJ said:
Isn't it SARK'S job to recruit and develop that TALENT? Isn't it also his JOB to commit to having a solid GROUND game?IrishDawg22 said:
You leave out 1 key component to our rushing numbers. We had a QB that was absolutely no threat while running the spread option. Add in a mobile QB (Miles) and you can add 500 yds into that number which would put us near the Top 30 to go with our passing attack.PurpleJ said:
Look at our national ranking in rushing yards per game under Sark:IrishDawg22 said:"Once Sark decides to get out of his own way and commit to the run" - jecornel
If you are going to bitch, at least pretend you know something about football. The Dawgs have had 4 straight 1,000+ rushers. 1st time in program history I believe, but I could be wrong.
In today's game, you cannot just RUN the ball without a threat of a decent passing game.
The problem is we cannot RECRUIT athletic Oline guys and we have a position coach who does not understand, or at least cannot develop guys to PASS protect. For some reason Sark has chose to stand behind Cozz, and that has been his biggest mistake.
2012: 86th
2011: 63rd
2010: 38th (peaked)
2009: 68th
In comparison, Oregon was in the top 10 every year he has been here.
Source: cfbstats.com/2012/leader/national/team/offense/split01/category01/sort01.html
You are right about one thing. Cozz has done a shitty job and Sark kept him here, and recruits know that.
My main concern is still the lack of TALENT up front and their ability to protect the passer.
As for Sark's play calling, we that speaks for itself.
I can CAPITALIZE words in my POSTS, too.
Sorry that is a TOUGH concept for some IDIOTS to grasp.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
