So when did you career negas decide Sark needed to be fired? Just curious.
He put Price in when UW was down 17 which was mind boggling. At that point you are getting blown out why put in your injured QB? That is what pissed me off.
That game was fucked up from the get go. Nick Montana's debut should have been a rout, but he was never able to establish rhythm and gain confidence. If ASJ had caught that pass when he was wide open down the Huskies sideline, the outcome may have been very different. Then again, Holt may not have been canned. Shudder the thought.
I forgot to add this to myth subject I had a month ago. Montana stunk the whole game and finally for whatever reason ASJ was running down the sidelines open. Every other pass didn't travel further than 5 yards.
Polk had 13 carries in the first quarter then 12 the rest of the game. Not to mention our defense was fucking terrible and it was capped by the 99 yard TD drive to put the game out of reach for good.
Even if ASJ catches that pass that wouldn't have changed the outcome. The team wasn't prepared mentally for that game like they weren't for WSU or even Colorado(only up 7-0 at halftime??).
Sark's teams get plunger raped on the road to a decent to good opponent and take crappy opponents lightly.
Point taken, especially about the chronic lack of preparedness. Sark is soft. It is evident he emulates USC under Carroll and now seems to aspire to being like Oregon. I want the wins and titles, but I want smash mouth, smack down football. I want talented behemoths on both lines. Sark doesn't share this vision.
This should be the year beyond no excuses. No excuses should have resulted in Sark being fired last year.
If we are blown out by BSU, I vote we fire him before the post-game interview. I am not predicting being blown out, and surely don't want that outcome. I am just excessively impatient about the lack of progress under Sark.
So when did you career negas decide Sark needed to be fired? Just curious.
Stanford 2010
That was the first real warning sign, but he redeemed himself with the 4 game winning streak to end the year.
There were warning signs in October 2009
I know you thought that at the time, but that team was bound to lose some close games. I do agree that ASU and UCLA games were poorly coached, but was it something to be really alarmed about? Are you alarmed by Mora and UCLA getting blown out by Cal last year? How about the UCLA bowl game?
Some mistakes had to be expected. All in all, he did fine in 2009. After that season, if you would have told even the most ardent Sark supporters that in 2013, we would be ranked 45th in the coaches poll and 3rd or 4th in the North, they would want Sark fired. That's the problem.
So when did you career negas decide Sark needed to be fired? Just curious.
Stanford 2010
That was the first real warning sign, but he redeemed himself with the 4 game winning streak to end the year.
There were warning signs in October 2009
I know you thought that at the time, but that team was bound to lose some close games. I do agree that ASU and UCLA games were poorly coached, but was it something to be really alarmed about? Are you alarmed by Mora and UCLA getting blown out by Cal last year? How about the UCLA bowl game?
Some mistakes had to be expected. All in all, he did fine in 2009. If you would have told even the most ardent Sark supporters that in 2013, we would be ranked 45th in the coaches poll and 3rd or 4th in the North, they would want Sark fired. That's the problem.
That's what pisses me off the most. In 2009 during his KICK ASS presser if someone said in four years Sark will be 26-25, 1-2 in bowl games and closest game vs the Ducks was 17 points not one person would sign up for that.
In fact every person even the doogs would suggest Sark would then need to be fired. Yet they accept it now. I remember Softy going into 2010 saying this program will be playing games in November for the right to play in the Rose Bowl by 2012.
UW under Sark has never been in the Rose Bowl picture, going into our "special" season we aren't even ranked or talked about for a Rose Bowl berth. Yet these doogs still defend Sark yet back in 2009 or 2010 if someone told them what Sark would be they wouldn't have tolerated that scenario one bit.
I think the one thing that kept me out of the "fire Sark" camp for so long is the fact that even Nick Saban wasn't Nick Saban when he first took over a BCS conference team (or whatever we're going to be calling those after this season). Even at Michigan State, he had 4 years of mediocrity, with middle of the conference records and several blow out losses, and it wasn't until year 5 that he finally had his 9 win season, was snatched up by LSU, and the rest is history. I guess that's what you call being hopeful.
But damn it all if those last two games of 2012 didn't just about kill any hope possible for this season. Not to beat a dead horse but talk about completely indefensible losses. The year of no excuses? How about the year of NO blowout losses and at least 9 regular season wins to keep your job at MINIMUM! There's too much talent on this team for this not to be achievable with a coach that wants deserves to be employed in Seattle long-term. Unfortunately, my best case scenario has this team realistically at 8 regular season wins, so I suppose I should prepare myself for a new coach next season, or to be watching from home. But on the plus side, thank god it's football season again, yeah?
At 8 wins not only will Sark be here next year but the fucker will be extended.
That is why 8-5 is the worst possible outcome for this season.
Sadly, I agree and it is what I fear most. If not 9 regular season wins this season, I would prefer only 5 or 6 to remove all doubt about where the program is headed under Sark. I hope to hell I am surprised and that Sark and the program turn the corner and that he earns an extension.
So when did you career negas decide Sark needed to be fired? Just curious.
Stanford 2010
That was the first real warning sign, but he redeemed himself with the 4 game winning streak to end the year.
There were warning signs in October 2009
I know you thought that at the time, but that team was bound to lose some close games. I do agree that ASU and UCLA games were poorly coached, but was it something to be really alarmed about? Are you alarmed by Mora and UCLA getting blown out by Cal last year? How about the UCLA bowl game?
Some mistakes had to be expected. All in all, he did fine in 2009. After that season, if you would have told even the most ardent Sark supporters that in 2013, we would be ranked 45th in the coaches poll and 3rd or 4th in the North, they would want Sark fired. That's the problem.
How many games did his coaching cost UW in 2009? 3 that I can think of: ASU, UCLA and ND.
I'll play along and say the team was 0-12 and need to learn how to win and can concede that maybe, 2-1 is a likely result against those 3 teams. Hell, I'll give you 1-2.
The point is that the Fat Armenian gave away likely UW wins and should have finished .500 or better in his first season.
The LSU game made me okay with it. The Arizona game had me making drunken posts on FB demanding it. There's Just no excuse for getting beaten down by five touchdowns by a team with the same talent level.
Comments
Polk had 13 carries in the first quarter then 12 the rest of the game. Not to mention our defense was fucking terrible and it was capped by the 99 yard TD drive to put the game out of reach for good.
Even if ASJ catches that pass that wouldn't have changed the outcome. The team wasn't prepared mentally for that game like they weren't for WSU or even Colorado(only up 7-0 at halftime??).
Sark's teams get plunger raped on the road to a decent to good opponent and take crappy opponents lightly.
This should be the year beyond no excuses. No excuses should have resulted in Sark being fired last year.
If we are blown out by BSU, I vote we fire him before the post-game interview. I am not predicting being blown out, and surely don't want that outcome. I am just excessively impatient about the lack of progress under Sark.
Some mistakes had to be expected. All in all, he did fine in 2009. After that season, if you would have told even the most ardent Sark supporters that in 2013, we would be ranked 45th in the coaches poll and 3rd or 4th in the North, they would want Sark fired. That's the problem.
Complacency and mediocrity is what I fear most. No more bullshit rationalizations. Sark has not met expectations and there have been too many excuses.
Let's hope a new chapter, toward dominance and supremacy, begins with the new Husky Stadium August 31, 2013.
Go Dawgs!
In fact every person even the doogs would suggest Sark would then need to be fired. Yet they accept it now. I remember Softy going into 2010 saying this program will be playing games in November for the right to play in the Rose Bowl by 2012.
UW under Sark has never been in the Rose Bowl picture, going into our "special" season we aren't even ranked or talked about for a Rose Bowl berth. Yet these doogs still defend Sark yet back in 2009 or 2010 if someone told them what Sark would be they wouldn't have tolerated that scenario one bit.
But damn it all if those last two games of 2012 didn't just about kill any hope possible for this season. Not to beat a dead horse but talk about completely indefensible losses. The year of no excuses? How about the year of NO blowout losses and at least 9 regular season wins to keep your job at MINIMUM! There's too much talent on this team for this not to be achievable with a coach that
wantsdeserves to be employed in Seattle long-term. Unfortunately, my best case scenario has this team realistically at 8 regular season wins, so I suppose I should prepare myself for a new coach next season, or to be watching from home. But on the plus side, thank god it's football season again, yeah?That is why 8-5 is the worst possible outcome for this season.
Do you really think he wanted Wilcox more than Holt until he was forced to can Holt?
I do think it unlikely that he wants Kiesau more than the guy who ran off to Alabama because Sark felt the need to lord over his playcalling domain.
I think Aubs ridiculed me for making that point at the time.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Husky Legend Jack Lockner 4-20 2 ints
Nebraska had 3 100 yard rushers
I'll play along and say the team was 0-12 and need to learn how to win and can concede that maybe, 2-1 is a likely result against those 3 teams. Hell, I'll give you 1-2.
The point is that the Fat Armenian gave away likely UW wins and should have finished .500 or better in his first season.
That was one of the worst four-game winning streaks in the history of sports that aren't beisbol.