Shades of Sark
Comments
-
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.
