Does anyone think the up-tempo offense will mask our O-line?

DerekJohnson

Quite right, ambitious people never suck up to their boss.

[Deleted User]

In Seattle I don't think Carroll has hired yes men. He retained Bradley, hired Bevell and Cable.

Cable sure as fuck isn't a yes man. I don't agree that Pete surrounded himself with yes men even at USC.

DerekJohnson

People that sat in coaches meetings at USC witnessed most of the staff sucking up to Carroll and not challenging him. According to those people, Carroll liked it that way. It was allegedly what drove a rift between Chow and Carroll.

[Deleted User]

DerekJohnson said:

People that sat in coaches meetings at USC witnessed most of the staff sucking up to Carroll and not challenging him. According to those people, Carroll liked it that way. It was allegedly what drove a rift between Chow and Carroll.

Chow has a rift with a lot of coaches though to be fair.

HillsboroDuck

DerekJohnson said:

People that sat in coaches meetings at USC witnessed most of the staff sucking up to Carroll and not challenging him. According to those people, Carroll liked it that way. It was allegedly what drove a rift between Chow and Carroll.

Sounds an awful lot like a whisper campaign. Seems someone has an agenda.

RoadDawg55

DerekJohnson said:

People that sat in coaches meetings at USC witnessed most of the staff sucking up to Carroll and not challenging him. According to those people, Carroll liked it that way. It was allegedly what drove a rift between Chow and Carroll.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/sports/ncaafootball/06ucla.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Good read about what went down with Carroll, Chow, Kiffin, and Sark. I'm sure it's not the whole story, but it seems like Sark and Kiffin had as much to do with nudging Chow out as a rift with Carroll.

DerekJohnson

RoadDawg55 said:

DerekJohnson said:

People that sat in coaches meetings at USC witnessed most of the staff sucking up to Carroll and not challenging him. According to those people, Carroll liked it that way. It was allegedly what drove a rift between Chow and Carroll.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/06/sports/ncaafootball/06ucla.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Good read about what went down with Carroll, Chow, Kiffin, and Sark. I'm sure it's not the whole story, but it seems like Sark and Kiffin had as much to do with nudging Chow out as a rift with Carroll.

I'll check that out later today. Thanks for posting it.

BAMAdawg10

IrishDawg22 said:

BAMAdawg10 said:

IrishDawg22 said:

He_Needs_More_Time said:

BAMAdawg10 said:

IrishDawg22 said:

He_Needs_More_Time said:

BTW

Jaydon Mickens career has 20 receptions for 190 yards(9.5 YPC)

Jordan Polk career had 16 receptions for 191 yards(11.9 YPC)

What a "horrible" comparison comparing those two 4* WR's who have eerily similar stats.

Sorry, I was laughing too hard to respond to your post.

1st - Jordan Polk was NOT a 4* guy (Scout 3*, Rivals 2*, ESPN 3*)

2nd - Mickens stats = 1 season Polk = career

Stick to calling me a Doog, etc. It is obvious facts are not your friend.

Fact - you accuse HeNeedsMoreTime of calling you president of the Jordan Polk fan club.
Fact - he never did.

Fact - you accuse HeNeedsMoreTime of saying that you claimed Jordan Polk was the second coming of Mario Bailey.
Fact - he never did.

Fact - you took implications made by HeNeedsMoreTime to create your own "spin," all the while discrediting everything he said by claiming that he is "spinning".

He just trolls it's what he did on dawgboard. He will never give up an argument and just continue to spin more shit to make his point. Just read his spin job on how the Seahawks aren't a run first team despite every statistic showing that they are.

Another classic screenshot.

Can you link where I said the Hawks are not a run 1st team?

Clean the shit off you keyboard before you post.

Can you link where he claimed you said Jordan Polk was the second coming of Mario Bailey?

If you're going to accuse posters of making shit up, it's probably a good idea that you don't do it yourself.

Did you miss the exaggeration post?

Step 1 - he compares Mickens to Polk

Step 2 - I point out Mickens did more in 1 yr than Polk did in his entire career

Step 3 - he changes argument to 20 catches in a year is not good. I use a dash of sarcasm combined with a splash of exaggeration to point out I never claimed 20 catches was good, just better than Polk's entire career.

HTH

I think I understand. When making arguments, all other posters must be 100% factual, otherwise it's Noog (ROFTLMAO!) spin. When you make arguments, you can exaggerate and be sarcastic.

And think a little bit longer about what his argument REALLY is. Everyone else seems to get it except you...as usual.

Tailgater

Passion said:

I'll be curious to see if this year's sack totals are reduced as a result of the no-huddle. My sense is that it doesn't matter how quickly we run plays, the issue is how fast Price is able to get rid of the ball. As Emtman famously said, "no huddle for three plays isn't that big of a deal."

Let us not forget the Palouse Puke Spread offense that Mike Price utilized at WSU to eventually lead his coogs to a couple of Rose Bowl losses. With up to five receivers split wide and in gaps to dilute pass rush pressure, the obvious purpose of such risky offensive strategy was to compensate for WSU's traditional lack of OL talent and pass-protection blocking ability. It also opened up gaps in the defensive front for the occasional running play,...... providing pass completions were sufficient to get opposing defenders back on their heals. This style of offense is called the Palouse Puke Spread because there's really no way it can protect the QB other than everybody puking on him in the huddle so that he'll always be more difficult to sack.

The strategy of the hurry-up no huddle offense of course can't without the huddle facilitate puking on the QB, but it's purpose is the same: the use of a gimmick which if successful will compensate for the lack of OL talent and it's inabilities for protecting their QB. The question is will Sark's version of this gimmick utilize the option run or pass as the ducks do so affectively? I don't see how it can since KP is not a running threat and as we all should know by now, Sark is a habitual over-the-top pass happy OC when calling plays on the sideline. Opposing defenses can simply focus on stopping or limiting Sankey on the ground while gambling that KP under an all-out pass rush can't beat them with a quick-short passing attack. Without the option of a QB running threat, Sark will be unable to keep KP upright when he typically loses patience and attempts to go long to his gaggle of WR's who can't seem to get open or make the tough catch when they do get open.

It will be interesting to see what if anything Sark tries to accomplish with his hurry-up no huddle attack if such actually exists. Chip Kelly likes Sark so much (and vice versa), I've wondered if Chip before going to the NFL didn't give Sark some help or hints on what might work or not work to fit Sark's offensive personality. Whatever....... it seems obvious to me that any new offensive gimmick attempted by Sark and staff will have the primary purpose of masking sodbuster style the lack of a good Husky quality OL. To do otherwise may just be too much hard work for these guys in recruiting and coaching. But we'll see soon enough........

CuntWaffle

I could care less about stars and rankings. I look at the offer list. This is why I have a little bit more hope for Ross than Mickens. Oregon, Michigan, Wisconsin, Miami all wanted him whereas Mickens was basically Oklahoma State and thats it.