The Whole Sark is Learning On The Job Bullshit
It's not like Sark doesn't know football or how to recruit. He was actively involved in game planning, calling plays, and recruiting at USC. He has been involved in football since 1993, and coaching since 2000. Was he not training for a head coach job during that time? He has been a part of championship level teams. Sure, there are new aspects of the job that come with being a head coach, but to say he is still learning on the job after year 1 is some of the dumbest shit I have ever heard. It's another doog myth used to try and justify Sark's coaching.
Comments
-
the hope is that he's learning... the fear is that he's not a good coach.
-
I just hope we can keep him after he learns
-
If he actually was learning, we'd have seen some progression in wins. Thats the problem. He's no better than he was the first season.
-
"Learning on the job" is a nice way of saying we never should have hired him.
-
What do you call going from 7 wins to 9?HeretoBeatmyChest said:If he actually was learning, we'd have seen some progression in wins. Thats the problem. He's no better than he was the first season.
-
Sark's resume is the weakest in the conference. He was an OC for only two years and at a school with top notch talent. He didnt have to teach fundamentals or the basics. Stoops, Muschamp and Kelly had experience as well as a track record. (Maybe only one year for Kelly but Oregon knew how good he might be after 1 year).
Not to get into a Wilcox debate but just compare him with Sark. Sark was an OC for 2 years. Wilcox 7. Sark had 5* talent. Wilcox did not and had to get by on fundamentals and execution. Sark's resume is weaker than his own DC.
And to my first point, Sark is not learning. He just thinks the offense will be better this year because of a healthy & experienced OL, ASJ, Kasen, Sankey and an influx of talent and depth at the skill spots. Its his Jimmy and Joes bullshit.
Sark is a worse OC than HC. -
Muschamp was my guy.
He had a little road bump in the bowl against Louisville, but I think his teams are going to be a defensive force in the SEC for years to come. -
I agree with all that. I'm not a believer in Wilcox as a head coach....for now but his resume is much better than Sark's.HeretoBeatmyChest said:Sark's resume is the weakest in the conference. He was an OC for only two years and at a school with top notch talent. He didnt have to teach fundamentals or the basics. Stoops, Muschamp and Kelly had experience as well as a track record. (Maybe only one year for Kelly but Oregon knew how good he might be after 1 year).
Not to get into a Wilcox debate but just compare him with Sark. Sark was an OC for 2 years. Wilcox 7. Sark had 5* talent. Wilcox did not and had to get by on fundamentals and execution. Sark's resume is weaker than his own DC.
And to my first point, Sark is not learning. He just thinks the offense will be better this year because of a healthy & experienced OL, ASJ, Kasen, Sankey and an influx of talent and depth at the skill spots. Its his Jimmy and Joes bullshit.
Sark is a worse OC than HC.
Kelly was a former DC then turned to OC so he has experience on both sides of the ball before becoming head coach.
Sark I would say is a good recruiter given that he's had four straight ranked recruiting classes but player development which IMO is more important is still lacking.
As a coach he hasn't shown any improvements from year one at all. His teams win more close games than year one but they also tend to get plunger rape more too.
Like I pointed out his offense in his four years has ranged from above average(2011) to just terrible(2012) with the other two years being bad. This was supposedly his strength yet I feel better with our defense going forward than our offense. -
If we like him, can we keep him?RaceBannon said:I just hope we can keep him after he learns
-
I disagree on the recruiting. Other than being able to recruit QB's and WR's I'm not impressed at all with Sark's recruiting.He_Needs_More_Time said:
I agree with all that. I'm not a believer in Wilcox as a head coach....for now but his resume is much better than Sark's.HeretoBeatmyChest said:Sark's resume is the weakest in the conference. He was an OC for only two years and at a school with top notch talent. He didnt have to teach fundamentals or the basics. Stoops, Muschamp and Kelly had experience as well as a track record. (Maybe only one year for Kelly but Oregon knew how good he might be after 1 year).
Not to get into a Wilcox debate but just compare him with Sark. Sark was an OC for 2 years. Wilcox 7. Sark had 5* talent. Wilcox did not and had to get by on fundamentals and execution. Sark's resume is weaker than his own DC.
And to my first point, Sark is not learning. He just thinks the offense will be better this year because of a healthy & experienced OL, ASJ, Kasen, Sankey and an influx of talent and depth at the skill spots. Its his Jimmy and Joes bullshit.
Sark is a worse OC than HC.
Kelly was a former DC then turned to OC so he has experience on both sides of the ball before becoming head coach.
Sark I would say is a good recruiter given that he's had four straight ranked recruiting classes but player development which IMO is more important is still lacking.
As a coach he hasn't shown any improvements from year one at all. His teams win more close games than year one but they also tend to get plunger rape more too.
Like I pointed out his offense in his four years has ranged from above average(2011) to just terrible(2012) with the other two years being bad. This was supposedly his strength yet I feel better with our defense going forward than our offense.
The last class in my opinion was WAY better than 2011 and 2012 and better than 2010 which was a good class. Most of the three star guys in the 2013 class are much closer to being 4 star guys. I think the bottom half of the class will end being way better than the bottom half of the other classes. If they'd got a few good OL, I'd give the class an A. It was strong and well-balanced aside from the OL.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)