About the story, I don't really understand this guy. In the final paragraph he writes: "I realize that Illinois is not that good. I wrote last week that it didn’t matter if Illinois was good or not, it was the situation that was intriguing and potentially disastrous for UW. It was the type of game that Steve Sarkisian teams tend to let slip away. This team is different. There was no way they were leaving Chicago without a win. It was obvious in their body language and in the way they attacked every play of the game, even after a bad call or bad penalty (deserved or not). They didn’t panic; they handled their business on the road and acted like they expected to win as opposed to “hoping” that they would win. That’s what good teams do.
UW is a good team – finally."
So, in other words, UW is a "good team" because they got a road win against a team that "is not that good?"
I'm hearing the biggest improvement comes between the 2nd and 3rd games. We should see that Saturday. I wouldn't be surprised to see UW score 50 points and the defense shut them out.
Last year, UW would have lost to Illinois. Despite dominating physically and statistically, UW would have found a way to lose a game they should have won.
I don't remember us blowing any game where we outgained the other team by close to 300 yards. I'm not at all surprised the game was much closer than it should have been, but I don't think anyone deserves any pats on the back for winning the game. We won because we were way more talented than Illinois. Sark did everything he could to keep it close, and we saw some of the same issues we have seen the past five years.
This is the year for the third year in row. Awfully warm for November when next year becomes the year for you Aubs.
It played out. #FireSark
Amazing how similar this debate is to the Ty era. I am hoping it turns out differently this time. What I see:
2009 Improvement 2010 Improvement 2011 Less improvement, but we really were young 2012 No improvement, but a ton of injuries 2013 No excuses. We aren't young and we are deep. At least 9 wins
I turned on Ty after the 2007 Arizona game. Sometime this year I'll turn on Sark, one way or the other.
This is the year for the third year in row. Awfully warm for November when next year becomes the year for you Aubs.
It played out. #FireSark
Amazing how similar this debate is to the Ty era. I am hoping it turns out differently this time. What I see:
2009 Improvement 2010 Improvement 2011 Less improvement, but we really were young 2012 No improvement, but a ton of injuries 2013 No excuses. We aren't young and we are deep. At least 9 wins
I turned on Ty after the 2007 Arizona game. Sometime this year I'll turn on Sark, one way or the other.
Incremental progress, bitches!
By the way, 9 wins this year just keeps Sark on pace to be Chan Gailey.
If Chan Gailey Junior is the best this program can do, it's deader than any of us feared.
Comments
About the story, I don't really understand this guy. In the final paragraph he writes: "I realize that Illinois is not that good. I wrote last week that it didn’t matter if Illinois was good or not, it was the situation that was intriguing and potentially disastrous for UW. It was the type of game that Steve Sarkisian teams tend to let slip away. This team is different. There was no way they were leaving Chicago without a win. It was obvious in their body language and in the way they attacked every play of the game, even after a bad call or bad penalty (deserved or not). They didn’t panic; they handled their business on the road and acted like they expected to win as opposed to “hoping” that they would win. That’s what good teams do.
UW is a good team – finally."
So, in other words, UW is a "good team" because they got a road win against a team that "is not that good?"
They want Coach Sark fired more than I do.
LIFPO is right. This is the year it will play out.
It played out. #FireSark
2009 Improvement
2010 Improvement
2011 Less improvement, but we really were young
2012 No improvement, but a ton of injuries
2013 No excuses. We aren't young and we are deep. At least 9 wins
I turned on Ty after the 2007 Arizona game. Sometime this year I'll turn on Sark, one way or the other.
By the way, 9 wins this year just keeps Sark on pace to be Chan Gailey.
If Chan Gailey Junior is the best this program can do, it's deader than any of us feared.
Dumbasses just didn't notice.
But LIFPO
No extension.
Woodward will extend Sark for 8-5 though, so we're fucked.
By the way, 9-4 isn't special. We had that discussion in great detail before you joined this bored.