Another Stellar Incoming OLine Class
Comments
-
I'm not big on Wilcox like everyone else. If he was a great DC/future HC material he doesn't give up 50+ TWICE and blow an 18 point lead. Not to mention giving up 41 points to a not so great LSU offense.section8 said:He_Needs_More_Time said:
Let's hire Wilcox as head coach. Cause hiring first time head coaches with no head coaching offers worked so well with Sark.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
If you want stability, the option is obvious. Promote Wilcox and keep the D coaches on board. Keisau coached with Wilcox and Tosh at Cal. Jim Michalzek was the OL coach at Cal at the time. I'm sure you could pull him away from Arizona. Then all you really need is to hire a new OC. Out- Sark, Nansen, Cozetto. In-Michalzek, & new OC. This staff would be able to make huge inroads in the bay area. With Sark & Nansen's frat-boy mentality gone, you'd be able to rebuild in state behind Sirmon. Go out and get the best OC available. Almost any OC would be an upgrade over Sark.Global said:
Very true. The writing is on the wall.RoadDawg55 said:Cozzetto sucks, and it's not even a debate. The last good OL he coached was at ASU in the late 90's. High school recruits were infants and toddlers the last time Cozzetto coached a good OL. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Having said that, he is not the reason we don't get good OL recruits, Sark is.
Of course, Sark would like to get good OL recruits, but is there any doubt he enjoys recruiting a good QB or WR more than the OL? Don't you think we would have more good OL if Sark personally recruited them and made them know how badly we needed them? Instead, he pawns off the in state guys from 2012 on Cox who fucks it up, and becomes the scapegoat for who is actually responsible for fucking up, the guy in charge, Sark.
As SouthernDawg notes, I am big proponent of coaching stability, and against the "coaching carousel" mentality. Coaching stability was a factor in DJ's success, and more recently in Oregon's success. But it depends on having good coaches in place to begin with. In response to SouthernDawg, it is true that for years I have argued in favor of coaching stability, and that lead to me being supportive of coaches who did not deserve support. What i have said also is that (as in the case of Sark and as became the case with Willingham), they should be judged by teams composed of their own recruits who have been coached through their system. I know that there are times when a new coach will have success with the previous team's recruits, but the measure of whether a coach is suitable for longer term -- i.e., whether he can be the guy for coaching stability -- is how his teams do in year's 4-5 when his recruits become upperclassmen trained in his system. I was wrong to support a last year for Willingham, and I said so at the time, but I did support him for the reasons I state above. I should have discarded those reasons, but I did not in favor of stability.
I have learned from that experience, and in fact have been critical of Sark from the time of his hiring. His failure to fire Cozzetto last year was the last straw for me, so Sark deserves firing. Not only because of Cozzetto, but because of play calling, recruiting that does not build the core of the team (OL and DL), weak attitudes across the team, and the obvious: three 7-6 records. The first two were more understandable considering the schedules we inherited. The 2012 season was a mess from the beginning. I could see it in the spring practices of 2012 and again in fall practice, and in the opening game against San Diego State, the wheels went off the Husky team after the first two series. They never came back on, even though we had an amazing win against Stanford that somehow blurred the issues once again.
Sark should have been fired after the Apple Cup last year.
Whatever the case, the sooner Sark is gone the better.
I'm pretty sure that after an exhaustive and unrealistic (Nick Saban, Urban Meyer) nation wide coaching search Woody will announce just that. Maybe Wilcox will work out, he's at least smart enough to realize the defensive players aren't all that great and change the scheme but in the end I feel like that as a HC he's just another Sark minus Erin Andrews and Joey's waitresses. Allegedly.
He had the worst defense in the SEC as well and was about to get shit canned along with the rest of that staff had he stayed. That's why he was so quick to leave.
He's a solid DC but he's not a DC that is so great I'm afraid of losing him or we must promote him as HC before he is stolen(like Chip Kelly was as an OC). -
The stupidest things you've ever heard on this board huh? Says the guy who thinks PLSS is actually a good poster.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
Trying to equate hiring Wilcox with Sark is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard on this bored. Yeah...the 2 are the same...Except for the fact that Wilcox has improved defenses at three different schools and worked with mediocre and marginal talent while Sark was an OC for 2 years working with 5* talent.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Let's hire Wilcox as head coach. Cause hiring first time head coaches with no head coaching offers worked so well with Sark.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
If you want stability, the option is obvious. Promote Wilcox and keep the D coaches on board. Keisau coached with Wilcox and Tosh at Cal. Jim Michalzek was the OL coach at Cal at the time. I'm sure you could pull him away from Arizona. Then all you really need is to hire a new OC. Out- Sark, Nansen, Cozetto. In-Michalzek, & new OC. This staff would be able to make huge inroads in the bay area. With Sark & Nansen's frat-boy mentality gone, you'd be able to rebuild in state behind Sirmon. Go out and get the best OC available. Almost any OC would be an upgrade over Sark.Global said:
Very true. The writing is on the wall.RoadDawg55 said:Cozzetto sucks, and it's not even a debate. The last good OL he coached was at ASU in the late 90's. High school recruits were infants and toddlers the last time Cozzetto coached a good OL. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Having said that, he is not the reason we don't get good OL recruits, Sark is.
Of course, Sark would like to get good OL recruits, but is there any doubt he enjoys recruiting a good QB or WR more than the OL? Don't you think we would have more good OL if Sark personally recruited them and made them know how badly we needed them? Instead, he pawns off the in state guys from 2012 on Cox who fucks it up, and becomes the scapegoat for who is actually responsible for fucking up, the guy in charge, Sark.
As SouthernDawg notes, I am big proponent of coaching stability, and against the "coaching carousel" mentality. Coaching stability was a factor in DJ's success, and more recently in Oregon's success. But it depends on having good coaches in place to begin with. In response to SouthernDawg, it is true that for years I have argued in favor of coaching stability, and that lead to me being supportive of coaches who did not deserve support. What i have said also is that (as in the case of Sark and as became the case with Willingham), they should be judged by teams composed of their own recruits who have been coached through their system. I know that there are times when a new coach will have success with the previous team's recruits, but the measure of whether a coach is suitable for longer term -- i.e., whether he can be the guy for coaching stability -- is how his teams do in year's 4-5 when his recruits become upperclassmen trained in his system. I was wrong to support a last year for Willingham, and I said so at the time, but I did support him for the reasons I state above. I should have discarded those reasons, but I did not in favor of stability.
I have learned from that experience, and in fact have been critical of Sark from the time of his hiring. His failure to fire Cozzetto last year was the last straw for me, so Sark deserves firing. Not only because of Cozzetto, but because of play calling, recruiting that does not build the core of the team (OL and DL), weak attitudes across the team, and the obvious: three 7-6 records. The first two were more understandable considering the schedules we inherited. The 2012 season was a mess from the beginning. I could see it in the spring practices of 2012 and again in fall practice, and in the opening game against San Diego State, the wheels went off the Husky team after the first two series. They never came back on, even though we had an amazing win against Stanford that somehow blurred the issues once again.
Sark should have been fired after the Apple Cup last year.
Whatever the case, the sooner Sark is gone the better.
Wilcox had the worst defenses in the SEC while he was there. He did well at Boise but the myth is Boise doesn't have talent. Sure among the big boys they don't but Boise has a huge talent gap over their opponents in conference in recruiting. When they play those big games it's typically first game of the year or a bowl game so they have plenty of time to prepare. He also had a great head coach in Chris Peterson.
Only one big Boise win was cause of the defense in the Wilcox era which was the Blount punch game.
At Tennessee he sucked. They had the worst defense in the SEC and had he stayed another year there he was going to get fired.
Not one team considered him to be a head coach. Like I said he's a solid DC but he's not so good that I'd want to hire him as a HC.
If and when UW fires Sark they have to get an established head coach you can't make the same mistake again. I'd say the fact you still don't get it with Sark, our assistants is pretty damning for yourself. -
We can agree to disagree, at least you can make some cogent points.
You are one of the few who now disagrees that puppy is a good poster.
Wilcox improved the D at Tennessee who wasn't very good at the time. Their national rankings went up while he was there and then the D got much worse when he left. Texas wanted him. Google it.
The UW D improved about 70 spots in the first year. Combine that with the strong recruiting led by Tosh and Sirmon and you have a recipe for a top 10 defense. Even Sventard admitted it would be top 20 which is earth-shattering for a guy who lives on 0-12 and lemon party and nothing else. Several players under Tosh went to the NFL, Sirmon is a big-time recruiter and LB play improved greatly and Heyward is also good. Its a very good defensive staff and anyone who can't admit that should be placed in a lemon party with Ecklund & Fetters and simultaneously lit on fire.
If Mora were anyone else, most here would point out the mediocre defense, easy schedule (no Oregon) and shellacking to a mediocre team in the bowl game. UCLA without Fauria and Franklin could take a step back on offense and we'll see how good the defense is in year 2.
Not saying Wilcox should be promoted yet....you basically have 3 candidates...Mora, DeRuyter and Wilcox. This year will give you more of a sample on all of them. DeRuyter has done enough already to be hired. -
Yes, indeed. I watched the OL development in spring camp last year, and already knew 2012 would be a mess from that experience. The OL would have been bad even without injuries, but once the injuries continues, plus Porter's retirement, it spun out of control.puppylove_sugarsteel said:
Did you watch Cozz's Oline last year? By the way, Sean Harlow looks really good at OSU. HUGE FUCKING loss for Sark. Worse than the skinny bball player, unless your SarkGlobal said:OL is low priority for Sark even though he would never admit it. And fundamentally he made his first mistake by hiring Dan Cozzetto when his first choice from Cal reversed and turned Sark down. Cozzetto is a mean-spirited screamer who cannot teach. None of these talented OL prospects want to play for him, since word of his style has got out. Of course other teams use Cozzetto against us in recruiting. But Sark has kept Cozzetto despite the most inept years of OL recruiting and development in UW football history.
Unacceptable.
And on recruiting, the list of good in state OL recruits who signed elsewhere is sickening. I sort of understand when a top OL kid from anywhere signs at Stanford, just because of the outstanding eduction and network Stanford offers, and if a kid is smart enough to get in, then 99 times out of 100 it is smart for him to do so. But leaving out Stanford, the list of kids signed elsewhere is a huge indictment on Sark and Cozzetto.
-
Your life is sorely lacking abundance.HeretoBeatmyChest said:We can agree to disagree, at least you can make some cogent points.
You are one of the few who now disagrees that puppy is a good poster.
Wilcox improved the D at Tennessee who wasn't very good at the time. Their national rankings went up while he was there and then the D got much worse when he left. Texas wanted him. Google it.
The UW D improved about 70 spots in the first year. Combine that with the strong recruiting led by Tosh and Sirmon and you have a recipe for a top 10 defense. Even Sventard admitted it would be top 20 which is earth-shattering for a guy who lives on 0-12 and lemon party and nothing else. Several players under Tosh went to the NFL, Sirmon is a big-time recruiter and LB play improved greatly and Heyward is also good. Its a very good defensive staff and anyone who can't admit that should be placed in a lemon party with Ecklund & Fetters and simultaneously lit on fire.
If Mora were anyone else, most here would point out the mediocre defense, easy schedule (no Oregon) and shellacking to a mediocre team in the bowl game. UCLA without Fauria and Franklin could take a step back on offense and we'll see how good the defense is in year 2.
Not saying Wilcox should be promoted yet....you basically have 3 candidates...Mora, DeRuyter and Wilcox. This year will give you more of a sample on all of them. DeRuyter has done enough already to be hired.
-
He_Needs_More_Time said:
The stupidest things you've ever heard on this board huh? Says the guy who thinks PLSS is actually a good poster.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
Trying to equate hiring Wilcox with Sark is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard on this bored. Yeah...the 2 are the same...Except for the fact that Wilcox has improved defenses at three different schools and worked with mediocre and marginal talent while Sark was an OC for 2 years working with 5* talent.He_Needs_More_Time said:
Let's hire Wilcox as head coach. Cause hiring first time head coaches with no head coaching offers worked so well with Sark.HeretoBeatmyChest said:
If you want stability, the option is obvious. Promote Wilcox and keep the D coaches on board. Keisau coached with Wilcox and Tosh at Cal. Jim Michalzek was the OL coach at Cal at the time. I'm sure you could pull him away from Arizona. Then all you really need is to hire a new OC. Out- Sark, Nansen, Cozetto. In-Michalzek, & new OC. This staff would be able to make huge inroads in the bay area. With Sark & Nansen's frat-boy mentality gone, you'd be able to rebuild in state behind Sirmon. Go out and get the best OC available. Almost any OC would be an upgrade over Sark.Global said:
Very true. The writing is on the wall.RoadDawg55 said:Cozzetto sucks, and it's not even a debate. The last good OL he coached was at ASU in the late 90's. High school recruits were infants and toddlers the last time Cozzetto coached a good OL. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Having said that, he is not the reason we don't get good OL recruits, Sark is.
Of course, Sark would like to get good OL recruits, but is there any doubt he enjoys recruiting a good QB or WR more than the OL? Don't you think we would have more good OL if Sark personally recruited them and made them know how badly we needed them? Instead, he pawns off the in state guys from 2012 on Cox who fucks it up, and becomes the scapegoat for who is actually responsible for fucking up, the guy in charge, Sark.
As SouthernDawg notes, I am big proponent of coaching stability, and against the "coaching carousel" mentality. Coaching stability was a factor in DJ's success, and more recently in Oregon's success. But it depends on having good coaches in place to begin with. In response to SouthernDawg, it is true that for years I have argued in favor of coaching stability, and that lead to me being supportive of coaches who did not deserve support. What i have said also is that (as in the case of Sark and as became the case with Willingham), they should be judged by teams composed of their own recruits who have been coached through their system. I know that there are times when a new coach will have success with the pruevious team's recruits, but the measure of whether a coach is suitable for longer term -- i.e., whether he can be the guy for coaching stability -- is how his teams do in year's 4-5 when his recruits become upperclassmen trained in his system. I was wrong to support a last year for Willingham, and I said so at the time, but I did support him for the reasons I state above. I should have discarded those reasons, but I did not in favor of stability.
I have learned from that experience, and in fact have been critical of Sark from the time of his hiring. His failure to fire Cozzetto last year was the last straw for me, so Sark deserves firing. Not only because of Cozzetto, but because of play calling, recruiting that does not build the core of the team (OL and DL), weak attitudes across the team, and the obvious: three 7-6 records. The first two were more understandable considering the schedules we inherited. The 2012 season was a mess from the beginning. I could see it in the spring practices of 2012 and again in fall practice, and in the opening game against San Diego State, the wheels went off the Husky team after the first two series. They never came back on, even though we had an amazing win against Stanford that somehow blurred the issues once again.
Sark should have been fired after the Apple Cup last year.
Whatever the case, the sooner Sark is gone the better.
Wilcox had the worst defenses in the SEC while he was there. He did well at Boise but the myth is Boise doesn't have talent. Sure among the big boys they don't but Boise has a huge talent gap over their opponents in conference in recruiting. When they play those big games it's typically first game of the year or a bowl game so they have plenty of time to prepare. He also had a great head coach in Chris Peterson.
Only one big Boise win was cause of the defense in the Wilcox era which was the Blount punch game.
At Tennessee he sucked. They had the worst defense in the SEC and had he stayed another year there he was going to get fired.
Not one team considered him to be a head coach. Like I said he's a solid DC but he's not so good that I'd want to hire him as a HC.
If and when UW fires Sark they have to get an established head coach you can't make the same mistake again. I'd say the fact you still don't get it with Sark, our assistants is pretty damning for yourself.
Horrible post. You did a great job making shit up. Wilcox did not have the worst defense in the SEC during his time there. In fact, from year one to year two, Tennessee made a big improvement. What happened last year without Wilcox? Oh yeah, Tennessee did actually have the worst defense in the SEC. If you look at all of the evidence, I would say Wilcox actually did a good job at Tennessee. Not great, but good. Take a look for yourself.
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/stats/byteam?cat1=defense&cat2=Total&sort=1137&conference=I-A_SEC&year=2011
I agree with you guys that the Apple Cup and the Arizona game were bad, but was it realistic to expect a dominant defense? You gotta look at the big picture, which is we made a pretty fucking big improvement with Wilcox. We should expect more improvement this year. He's proven to be a good defensive coordinator at three stops.
I don't think Wilcox should be our next coach. Even the best coordinators are iffy hires, and we can't afford that. I like Wilcox and the defensive staff, but I don't like them enough to justify passing over a proven head coach just so we can keep them. We would be much better off hiring a proven coach like Mora or Petrino. The Fresno State guy is another guy to keep an eye on.
-
@RoadDawg
Nice...I was just going to call that out. He actually improved the D from year 1 to 2. And what people do not take into consideration is that the Vols offense was horrid both years leaving that D out on the field against those massive SEC Olines.
And the year after he left they dropped to dead last.
Facts can get in the way of a good argument.
Not saying he is head coach material, but I think he has potential to be a very good D cord. Now if he can figure out the damn spread. -
Wilcox is not head coach material. Harv was right about you guys and you can't seem to hide your inner doog.
Wilcox in 2011 at Tennessee saw his defense ranked 8th in the SEC in points allowed. I guess that's head coach material guys. He was 7th in the SEC in yards.
Also in 2009 Tennessee allowed 308.8 yards per game which was ranked 4th in the SEC, then Wilcox arrived and they allowed 381.9 and was ranked 10th in the SEC.
In 2009 Tennessee allowed 21 points per game which was good for 6th in the SEC. In 2010 Wilcox allowed 24.7 PPG which was good for 9th in the SEC.
So I guess I should add this to the Doog myth of "Wilcox improves defenses everywhere he goes" because in reality they took a step back. -
Maybe I need to start typing SLLLLLOOOOOOOWWWWWWEEEEEERRRRR for you. You must have missed the part about "not saying he is head coach material".He_Needs_More_Time said:Wilcox is not head coach material. Harv was right about you guys and you can't seem to hide your inner doog.
Wilcox in 2011 at Tennessee saw his defense ranked 8th in the SEC in points allowed. I guess that's head coach material guys. He was 7th in the SEC in yards.
Also in 2009 Tennessee allowed 308.8 yards per game which was ranked 4th in the SEC, then Wilcox arrived and they allowed 381.9 and was ranked 10th in the SEC.
In 2009 Tennessee allowed 21 points per game which was good for 6th in the SEC. In 2010 Wilcox allowed 24.7 PPG which was good for 9th in the SEC.
So I guess I should add this to the Doog myth of "Wilcox improves defenses everywhere he goes" because in reality they took a step back.
And I love how your facts are incorrect, so you scramble back and try and save your argument.
So let me get this straight, Wilcox sucks, but DeRuyter's team gives up 42 points to freakin' SMU in their bowl game and he is already good to go.
You are such a Noog. -
I wasn't responding to you as I generally don't waste my time with your posts. Beatmychest and Road Doog seem to think Wilcox is head coach material.IrishDawg22 said:
Maybe I need to start typing SLLLLLOOOOOOOWWWWWWEEEEEERRRRR for you. You must have missed the part about "not saying he is head coach material".He_Needs_More_Time said:Wilcox is not head coach material. Harv was right about you guys and you can't seem to hide your inner doog.
Wilcox in 2011 at Tennessee saw his defense ranked 8th in the SEC in points allowed. I guess that's head coach material guys. He was 7th in the SEC in yards.
Also in 2009 Tennessee allowed 308.8 yards per game which was ranked 4th in the SEC, then Wilcox arrived and they allowed 381.9 and was ranked 10th in the SEC.
In 2009 Tennessee allowed 21 points per game which was good for 6th in the SEC. In 2010 Wilcox allowed 24.7 PPG which was good for 9th in the SEC.
So I guess I should add this to the Doog myth of "Wilcox improves defenses everywhere he goes" because in reality they took a step back.
And I love how your facts are incorrect, so you scramble back and try and save your argument.
So let me get this straight, Wilcox sucks, but DeRuyter's team gives up 42 points to freakin' SMU in their bowl game and he is already good to go.
You are such a Noog.
As for DeRuyter he's produced an 11th ranked defense in the nation with Air Force and as a head coach won 9 games.
I'd say I'm open to hiring him especially if he has another 9-10 win season. If UW doesn't some big program will.
As for Wilcox despite some moron lying saying Texas interviewed him for being a head coach nobody has contacted Wilcox to be a head coach.
I've said before I think Wilcox is a fine DC but he's not so good where I fear about losing him.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
