Official we dodged a bullet thread

RaceBannon

It may take several more seven win seasons before we know about Sark but Mora's epic failure 9 win debut sure has the doogs all fired up. I hate our fans. Including me

DerekJohnson

According to a self-righteous Doog who posted to my Facebook page 0.00000000007 seconds after the UCLA game ended, "Mora's a f'ing joke"

7-6 > 9-5.... Everybody says so.

section8

Doogs discussing about how poor OL play is why Hundley looked so bad and why Price looked so bad. Let's see, UCLA now has 8-9 OL verbals and few more interested in this next class and UW has 3.

MikeDamone

Doog facebook comment of the week:

"That's a big leap from my comment. Mora fans (husky ones like yourself) believe he would walk on water in college without any record and in-spite of his mediocre pro record. It remains to be seen if Mora achieves real success at UCLA. If he does, great! I assume he would be available to U-Dub as a proven coach if we made a respectable offer. If not, what's the point?
We're committed to Sark next year. 9 regular season wins would be my threshold but I fear Woodwards will be lower. Sark must overcome some deficiencies shown after 1st 4 yrs as HC; he can do it or we should move on. Either way, his tenure will have been positive in the wake of two overwhelmingly net negative tenures prior."



Ben Saxton reflects the husky fanbase well.

ACSlaterDawg

Mora did win 9 games but with one of the easiest schedules in the pac-12. He'll need to prove more. Yes, I like him and think he'll be a fine coach but that ship has sailed for the time being so you guys should stop the Mora circle jerk. Derek its hurting your credibility as a writer.

Not sure what the problem is with that fan. Hard to disagree with what Ben said. 9 wins is the threshold for most fans next year which is reasonable. We can at least thank Sark for 7 wins in year 2 which quickly raised the bar. He's not going anywhere in 2013-2014 because there is enough talent to win a minimum 8-9 games. But at least in 2013 we'll be back to proper expectations for the first time since the 2003 season. And Ben is exactly right, Sark has to overcome his own deficiencies because without that his teams will never be a consistent contender. 2013-2014 will be the first years his teams have the talent to be a contender.

MikeDamone said:

Doog facebook comment of the week:

"That's a big leap from my comment. Mora fans (husky ones like yourself) believe he would walk on water in college without any record and in-spite of his mediocre pro record. It remains to be seen if Mora achieves real success at UCLA. If he does, great! I assume he would be available to U-Dub as a proven coach if we made a respectable offer. If not, what's the point?
We're committed to Sark next year. 9 regular season wins would be my threshold but I fear Woodwards will be lower. Sark must overcome some deficiencies shown after 1st 4 yrs as HC; he can do it or we should move on. Either way, his tenure will have been positive in the wake of two overwhelmingly net negative tenures prior."



Ben Saxton reflects the husky fanbase well.

MikeDamone

AC. Here is the deal. Sark had the talent in 2012 to win 8 or 9, maybe even 10. Bit its always wait until next year. The same fans that love sark to death are the first ones on the hate Mora train. They apply a different set of standards and logic to sark as they do mora. It's excuse after excuse for Sark, but for a guy who wins two more games in year one than Sark could in each of the last three the accomplishment diminished. Yeah yeah..UCLAs schedule. Meanwhile, UW loses to perhaps the worst team in the nation in an epic 4th quarter collapse and shits the bed in a bowl game. Mora wins nine and plays for the PAC-12 title in year one. UW fans would have had a sarkgasam over that, but all we were left with were kick ass pressers, talk about how he is an offensive genius, has the best staff in the nation, recruiting master, and excuses as to why the team in no better in 2012 than it was when it was full of guys from an 0-12 team in 2010. Yes, the "jury" is still out on Mora. After one year, that might be fair. But so far he has shown more potential than sark in year 4 who the jury is no longer out on. He is not a good coach and we hired the wrong guy. Period.

DerekJohnson

I'm hearing a lot of knuckleheads insist that "Next year, 9 wins is the threshold" as if they're suddenly drawing a line in the sand. That's nonsense. You think if Sark goes 8-5, 7-6 or even 6-7 he's going to get fired? No way, not in a million years.

TommySQC

I believe 6-7 would get him fired. 7-6 would not and for anyone to declare 8-5 would is laughable. The bar remains @ 7.

this thread has some great posts. You guys are my favorite group of posters

RaceBannon

TommySQC said:

I believe 6-7 would get him fired. 7-6 would not and for anyone to declare 8-5 would is laughable. The bar remains @ 7.

this thread has some great posts. You guys are my favorite group of posters

Classy reply. I always enjoy your posts

ACSlaterDawg

MikeDamone said:

AC. Here is the deal. Sark had the talent in 2012 to win 8 or 9, maybe even 10. Bit its always wait until next year. The same fans that love sark to death are the first ones on the hate Mora train. They apply a different set of standards and logic to sark as they do mora. It's excuse after excuse for Sark, but for a guy who wins two more games in year one than Sark could in each of the last three the accomplishment diminished. Yeah yeah..UCLAs schedule. Meanwhile, UW loses to perhaps the worst team in the nation in an epic 4th quarter collapse and shits the bed in a bowl game. Mora wins nine and plays for the PAC-12 title in year one. UW fans would have had a sarkgasam over that, but all we were left with were kick ass pressers, talk about how he is an offensive genius, has the best staff in the nation, recruiting master, and excuses as to why the team in no better in 2012 than it was when it was full of guys from an 0-12 team in 2010. Yes, the "jury" is still out on Mora. After one year, that might be fair. But so far he has shown more potential than sark in year 4 who the jury is no longer out on. He is not a good coach and we hired the wrong guy. Period.

I get the same logic and standards. I totally agree with that. Ironically, Derek is guilty of the same thing. If Sark=Mora then he'd say he'd have gone 7-5 with UW's schedule and point out the two blowouts to a mediocre and bad team.

DerekJohnson said:

I'm hearing a lot of knuckleheads insist that "Next year, 9 wins is the threshold" as if they're suddenly drawing a line in the sand. That's nonsense. You think if Sark goes 8-5, 7-6 or even 6-7 he's going to get fired? No way, not in a million years.

You are stuck in 2007 with this fan base and admin. Expectations are much higher and the admin cares. Woodward got what was needed to allow the hiring of better asst coaches. You never would have expected that. In fact, you'd likely have predicted the opposite as you strongly doubted the stadium and thought in 2011 they'd go 5-7. After the pre and early season injuries I'm sure you thought 5-7 or 6-6 again.

Talk to fans now and its way different than 2007. Back then the consensus was 50-50 on Tyrone. Now it's clear. I road to and from the game with a group of some younger fans, two were students during Tyrone. After the game they said Sark needs to win at least 9 next year and win the north. My mailman is a big long-time husky fan but not unreasonable. Quiet guy. I asked him today what his expectations were for next year. I said 9? He said, they need to win 10 games or the conference.

What you call nonsense, I call UW finally being back to proper expectations. Finally. At least acknowledge that Woodward has done some good things and Sark going 7-6 in year two with wins over USC and Nebraska led to expectations increasing every year. Because you don't, it sadly limits your audience and further enhances the credibility of hacks like Grinolds and his lackeys. Sark knows he's behind the curve. Everyone does. He knows he has to win 9+ next year. If he's fired it will be in 2014 after he proves he can't be a championship coach in 2013-2014 with top 20 talent.

MikeDamone

Not a scientific poll, but as I spent time with family and friends over the last few weeks, almost every single one of them thinks sark is doing a great job and are shocked when I say he needs to be fired now. They point to things like graduation rates (myth), lack of off field problems (myth), and success on the field (myth) as reason to keep him. These conversations at astonishing and I really have no comeback. There are maybe 2 people that agree with my line of thinking. Bottom like is most people I know don't give a fuck. They like the Huskies, but are not invested in anyway. They are even Tyee members. They just don't care anymore.

jecornel

The Seattle times has been on fire of late. Epic entertainment.

Yes, Mora's disaster season of 9 wins, playing in the PAC-12 championship, and a bowl in year one with a freshman QB is clearly way worse than 7 wins in yr 4 with a loss two WSU and BSU to end the year of incremental progress.

Dick_B

RaceBannon said:

TommySQC said:

I believe 6-7 would get him fired. 7-6 would not and for anyone to declare 8-5 would is laughable. The bar remains @ 7.

this thread has some great posts. You guys are my favorite group of posters

Classy reply. I always enjoy your posts

SQCKA

ACSlaterDawg

MikeDamone said:

Not a scientific poll, but as I spent time with family and friends over the last few weeks, almost every single one of them thinks sark is doing a great job and are shocked when I say he needs to be fired now. They point to things like graduation rates (myth), lack of off field problems (myth), and success on the field (myth) as reason to keep him. These conversations at astonishing and I really have no comeback. There are maybe 2 people that agree with my line of thinking. Bottom like is most people I know don't give a fuck. They like the Huskies, but are not invested in anyway. They are even Tyee members. They just don't care anymore.

Well, maybe its the typical fans who have returned expectations to normal but perhaps those on the edges who are not invested approve of Sark so far.

MelloDawg

RaceBannon said:

TommySQC said:

I believe 6-7 would get him fired. 7-6 would not and for anyone to declare 8-5 would is laughable. The bar remains @ 7.

this thread has some great posts. You guys are my favorite group of posters

Classy reply. I always enjoy your posts

Lots of sexual tension going on right here.

DerekJohnson

I sat with my dad today and talked with him. He and I disagreed, as he thinks if Sark goes 7-6 next year his job will be in jeopardy.

TierbsHsotBoobs

ACSlaterDawg said:

You are stuck in 2007 with this fan base and admin. Expectations are much higher and the admin cares. Woodward got what was needed to allow the hiring of better asst coaches. You never would have expected that.

[citation needed]


Tighten it up Tequilla.

ACSlaterDawg

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

ACSlaterDawg said:

You are stuck in 2007 with this fan base and admin. Expectations are much higher and the admin cares. Woodward got what was needed to allow the hiring of better asst coaches. You never would have expected that.

[citation needed]


Tighten it up Tequilla.

Citation? Extra money for new asst coaches, pushing through a new stadium. To say there hasn't been a change there is just ignoring facts.

Yes, we all know Sark wasn't a great hire but at the time EVERYONE said no (Muschamp, Kelly, Meyer, Wittingham, etc), leaving few options.......we can lay that at the feet of a man who was born ballless, Mark Emmert who was responsible for 0-12.

Now the next step for Woodward is 1) push Sark out and promote Wilcocks ala what Oregon did with Chip/Belotti or 2) tell Sark he has to give up the OC position because he fucking sucks.

As for Sark, I think his seat will be very hot if he only wins 8 next year.

MikeDamone

The myth is everyone said no.

Wilcox? Why in the hell would we want another experiment? Wilcox hasn't proven anything. Just like the team sark inherited, Wilcox inherited talent that was being coached by the bottom of the barrel. Most average DCs could have done what Wilcox did.

CaptainPJ

DerekJohnson said:

I sat with my dad today and talked with him. He and I disagreed, as he thinks if Sark goes 7-6 next year his job will be in jeopardy.

My Wife turned to me after we lost the AC and Bowel Game and said, "thank gawd, we have Sark as our coach."

Two very special moments, of which I will have classy, fond memories from the 2012 season.

bitches

CaptainPJ

MikeDamone said:

The myth is everyone said no.

Wilcox? Why in the hell would we want another experiment? Wilcox hasn't proven anything. Just like the team sark inherited, Wilcox inherited talent that was being coached by the bottom of the barrel. Most average DCs could have done what Wilcox did.

Agree. Part 1 of this argument makes zero sense. If the myth is true that no one wanted the job, at least you can credit Sark with getting us to a point that top coaches would at least consider? Why the fuck would we hire ANOTHER coordinator with zero head coaching experience?

Leach? Did he say no, and then agree to live in fucking Pulman?

We know what happened with fag boy and his lawn jockey - they threw out insulting offers to coaches worth more, per upper campus's request, and the job quickly became unattractive to those in the know.

You are correct on point 2: Sark has to hire an OC. This should be non-negotiable. We'll see - not sure what the timeline is on hiring AC's.