Shades of Sark
KO return for TD
Onside kick
WR running completely free for TD
General soft play
That game was a textbook example of a better coach buttfucking the other guy.
Comments
-
Soft?
-
Agreed. They were hitting hard and did a great job in containing Henry. Big plays and ST were the difference for Bama.doogsinparadise said:Soft?
-
Didn't make plays when it mattered.doogsinparadise said:Soft?
-
Which is why I titled this thread "Shades of Sark."Southerndawg said:
Agreed. They were hitting hard and did a great job in containing Henry. Big plays and ST were the difference for Bama.doogsinparadise said:Soft?
-
Clemson didn't play soft and they didn't get plungered. Give credit where credit is due. They did get out coached, but that shouldn't be a shocker. Swinney isn't Saban, nor is just about any other coach short of Meyer.RoadDawg55 said:
Which is why I titled this thread "Shades of Sark."Southerndawg said:
Agreed. They were hitting hard and did a great job in containing Henry. Big plays and ST were the difference for Bama.doogsinparadise said:Soft?
-
Ok, but that's not soft.RoadDawg55 said:
Didn't make plays when it mattered.doogsinparadise said:Soft?
-
General soft play?
Have another drink.
-
I agree with you and was thinking the same thing except the soft play comment. Clemson did a great job of defending Henry in the second half.RoadDawg55 said:Other than being 13-0 entering the game, but still...
KO return for TD
Onside kick
WR running completely free for TDGeneral soft play
That game was a textbook example of a better coach buttfucking the other guy. -
Clemson came back and took the lead at one point. Sark teams never come back and wilt once they lose a lead.
-
Shades of Sark? Sark hardly ever lost close, when Sark lost he got destroyed. Shades of Peterman maybe.
Clemson played a damn good game. Perhaps you're just bitter because you decided Bama was shit once they lost to Ole Miss? That was nothing like a Sark game. -
I don't think Clemson played soft, but I had the thought that Dabo's general heart on the slave antics were Sarkish. He was bitching and whining the whole game. His players believe in him, which is more than I can say for Sark, but there is a lot of sizzle with Dabo.
He would never do better than 7-6 at Washington. -
Two plays saved that game for Bama.
Interception
On side
Clemson matched every score but those two.
Reality. If Bama doesn't do the onside, the game is likely won by Clemson.
Dabo realized that and is why he freaked out.
Clemson got out coached, but was well prepared. -
I specifically asked for no racist crap!Doogles said:I don't think Clemson played soft, but I had the thought that Dabo's general heart on the slave antics were Sarkish. He was bitching and whining the whole game. His players believe in him, which is more than I can say for Sark, but there is a lot of sizzle with Dabo.
He would never do better than 7-6 at Washington. -
Some things aren't worth editing.PurpleBaze said:
I specifically asked for no racist crap!Doogles said:I don't think Clemson played soft, but I had the thought that Dabo's general heart on the slave antics were Sarkish. He was bitching and whining the whole game. His players believe in him, which is more than I can say for Sark, but there is a lot of sizzle with Dabo.
He would never do better than 7-6 at Washington. -
Surely you don't think Clemson is a job where a 7 win coach at UW can win 13 games?Doogles said:I don't think Clemson played soft, but I had the thought that Dabo's general heart on the slave antics were Sarkish. He was bitching and whining the whole game. His players believe in him, which is more than I can say for Sark, but there is a lot of sizzle with Dabo.
He would never do better than 7-6 at Washington.
Dabo might not win a title here but he could win double digits rather easily. He's not a great coach but he doesn't suck. -
lulz at the idea that Clemson isn't an ACC Washington. The team history is basically exactly the same. They've had ONE natty team ('81) and have gone up/down the rungs of good mediocrity sometimes having runs where they are consistently in the top 25.dnc said:
Surely you don't think Clemson is a job where a 7 win coach at UW can win 13 games?Doogles said:I don't think Clemson played soft, but I had the thought that Dabo's general heart on the slave antics were Sarkish. He was bitching and whining the whole game. His players believe in him, which is more than I can say for Sark, but there is a lot of sizzle with Dabo.
He would never do better than 7-6 at Washington.
Dabo might not win a title here but he could win double digits rather easily. He's not a great coach but he doesn't suck.
I'm not a big Dabo guy, but what he's done is undeniable IMO. He took a program that was being run by a Sark-like guy (Tommy B.) and built this shit into a space where we were in a Natty and are poised to be really fucking good next year. -
Exactly. Very similar program profiles.Dennis_DeYoung said:
lulz at the idea that Clemson isn't an ACC Washington. The team history is basically exactly the same. They've had ONE natty team ('81) and have gone up/down the rungs of good mediocrity sometimes having runs where they are consistently in the top 25.dnc said:
Surely you don't think Clemson is a job where a 7 win coach at UW can win 13 games?Doogles said:I don't think Clemson played soft, but I had the thought that Dabo's general heart on the slave antics were Sarkish. He was bitching and whining the whole game. His players believe in him, which is more than I can say for Sark, but there is a lot of sizzle with Dabo.
He would never do better than 7-6 at Washington.
Dabo might not win a title here but he could win double digits rather easily. He's not a great coach but he doesn't suck.
I'm not a big Dabo guy, but what he's done is undeniable IMO. He took a program that was being run by a Sark-like guy (Tommy B.) and built this shit into a space where we were in a Natty and are poised to be really fucking good next year. -
We?Dennis_DeYoung said:
lulz at the idea that Clemson isn't an ACC Washington. The team history is basically exactly the same. They've had ONE natty team ('81) and have gone up/down the rungs of good mediocrity sometimes having runs where they are consistently in the top 25.dnc said:
Surely you don't think Clemson is a job where a 7 win coach at UW can win 13 games?Doogles said:I don't think Clemson played soft, but I had the thought that Dabo's general heart on the slave antics were Sarkish. He was bitching and whining the whole game. His players believe in him, which is more than I can say for Sark, but there is a lot of sizzle with Dabo.
He would never do better than 7-6 at Washington.
Dabo might not win a title here but he could win double digits rather easily. He's not a great coach but he doesn't suck.
I'm not a big Dabo guy, but what he's done is undeniable IMO. He took a program that was being run by a Sark-like guy (Tommy B.) and built this shit into a space where we were in a Natty and are poised to be really fucking good next year. -
I watched Clemson win their national title in a Pasadena restaurant after watching our DAWGS win the Rose Bowl. That made our DAWGS the pre season #1 for 1982. Then Elway. And the Apple Cup. And I would have fired Don James
So last night would have been a second in a lifetime event. -
No, shades of Sark because Dabo was the sole reason Clemson lost. The game reminded me of when Sark lost to Stanford. The sole reason Clemson lost was discipline. If Saban and him switched rosters he would have lost by 21.dnc said:Shades of Sark? Sark hardly ever lost close, when Sark lost he got destroyed. Shades of Peterman maybe.
Clemson played a damn good game. Perhaps you're just bitter because you decided Bama was shit once they lost to Ole Miss? That was nothing like a Sark game.
Never once in my life said Bama was shit. I've always said they were good. I didn't think Coker could lead them to a title, but he stepped up. Pretty big difference from saying they were shit. I've said Ole Miss is shit because they are. -
Coker was frozen in the pocket but managed to make the plays. I thought he was going to blow it. When he is on like MSU Bama rolls. When he isn't, its a nailbiter.
Dabo may be Rick - let's see how he does when Watson isn't there. The Vince Young comparisons were apt -
Shades of sark? Show this to your team... Then promptly get plungered 41-3.
-
Fire dabo!!!1!!1!!!!RoadDawg55 said:
No, shades of Sark because Dabo was the sole reason Clemson lost. The game reminded me of when Sark lost to Stanford. The sole reason Clemson lost was discipline. If Saban and him switched rosters he would have lost by 21.dnc said:Shades of Sark? Sark hardly ever lost close, when Sark lost he got destroyed. Shades of Peterman maybe.
Clemson played a damn good game. Perhaps you're just bitter because you decided Bama was shit once they lost to Ole Miss? That was nothing like a Sark game.
Never once in my life said Bama was shit. I've always said they were good. I didn't think Coker could lead them to a title, but he stepped up. Pretty big difference from saying they were shit. I've said Ole Miss is shit because they are.
Sometimes you just lose. It's the national title game. They played pretty good and lost.
Bama is good. They do shit like score touchdowns on kick offs.
Clemson was good too. They do shit like score touchdowns with white walk on wr's vs the secondary that basically everyone in the south tried to recruit out of high school. -
People remember the blowouts and forget that Sark also lost close games squarely on his blunders and lack of detail at both UW and USC.
Clemson had so many blatant assignment errors and special teams gaffes. Alabama is a great team, but Clemson beat themselves. It was a poorly coached game. Don't be confused by Watson doing his best Vince Young comparison to make it look otherwise.
It's not comparing Dabo to Sark. Obviously Dabo is way better and he has built a very good program, maybe even a great one, but it was kind of amazing to watch a team in the title game be so undisciplined when all the talent was there to win the game. -
I'm still trying to remember when Sark went 14-0 and played for a natty
-
If you're not comparing Dabo to Sark then why the thread title "Shades of Sark"?
-
Despite all this Dabo-is-Sark talk, Bellevue High School beats PLU by 2 scores on neutral field. Simple fact.
-
I like to pretend that PLU's players could tackle Myles Jack, Budda Baker, and John Nguyen.GrundleStiltzkin said:Despite all this Dabo-is-Sark talk, Bellevue High School beats PLU by 2 scores on neutral field. Simple fact.
-
Because they lost simply because they didn't play fundamental football which is something that happens to coaches that are lacking in areas.Southerndawg said:If you're not comparing Dabo to Sark then why the thread title "Shades of Sark"?
I don't think it's really that hard to get. I forget some of you are such fucking stupid doogs who take everything literal.
Btw, how did LSU end up doing? I thought they were going to buttfuck everyone and didn't need a QB? What happened? -
Did you see whatever bowl LSU played in? 56 points.RoadDawg55 said:
Because they lost simply because they didn't play fundamental football which is something that happens to coaches that are lacking in areas.Southerndawg said:If you're not comparing Dabo to Sark then why the thread title "Shades of Sark"?
I don't think it's really that hard to get. I forget some of you are such fucking stupid doogs who take everything literal.
Btw, how did LSU end up doing? I thought they were going to buttfuck everyone and didn't need a QB? What happened?
My pick for next year's champs
