Here is the problem with Sark.....

[Deleted User]

He is what we feared Ty was going to be. Nobody thought Ty was going to be the disaster that he was when he was hired. Most were pissed because we feared Ty would be just good enough to keep our idiot Doogs happy but never good enough to lead us to a Rose Bowl.

That is what Sark is. I can't see the Huskies going through a bowl drought under him but I honestly can't ever picture him leading us to a Rose Bowl. This year he might win 9 games or 10. Next year he might win 10 or 11 only because our schedule is a joke. Both years we'll get plunger raped 2-3 times if not more. Not even come close to winning the conference title.

When Sark gets a 6th year he'll be the first Husky coach to see a year six without winning a conference title since Ralph Welch did who coached from 1942-1947. He did however lose a Rose Bowl in 1943.

I guess Sark is hoping to be on the James Phelan plan who coached at UW from 1930-1941 and didn't win a conference title until 1936 when he lost the Rose Bowl to finished the season ranked 5th in the nation.

You have to go back almost 80 years the last time a UW coach received a sixth year who didn't win a conference title or go to a Rose Bowl within his first five years on the job.

We know what we have in Sark. He's not "learning on the job" still. His mistakes in year one are still here. He still doesn't know how to take the 3 points, instead goes for it on fourth and short out of the shot gun so it's stuffed, his OL is actually worse the longer he's been here, the defense has been shaky to downright terrible during his tenure.

Why are we "letting it play out" ? We know Sark fucking blows. This team at best will go 8-4 in the regular season. Fans wanted Lambo fired for going 8-4 in 1997, fans weren't jacked up when Rick went 8-4 in 2001 either.

Sark is what we all feared Ty was going to be. I can't believe so many of you are falling into this Doog trap.

dnc

If you really think Sark could win 20 or 21 games between this year and next you can't really want to fire him. No way that (20 wins) happens.

14-12.

DAO.

I agree Sark is what we feared Ty would be but I never feared Ty winning double digit games in back to back years. Dreckfest scheduling or not, that's an impressive achievement.

It's also an achievement Sark will never sniff.

MikeDamone

This year he might win 9 games or 10. Next year he might win 10 or 11

LOL..no

[Deleted User]

dnc said:

If you really think Sark could win 20 or 21 games between this year and next you can't really want to fire him. No way that (20 wins) happens.

14-12.

DAO.

I agree Sark is what we feared Ty would be but I never feared Ty winning double digit games in back to back years. Dreckfest scheduling or not, that's an impressive achievement.

It's also an achievement Sark will never sniff.

I was going high marks on those totals. This year I think we win 8 regular season games and who knows about crap tier bowl games?

Next year even Ty could start off 4-0 so if he goes 5-4 in conference which is what he usually does that's 9-4 and again who knows about crap tier bowl games?

Point is we are nowhwere closer to competing for a conference title now than we were in 2009.

greenblood

If Oregon were to go 11-2 with those 2 losses being beatdowns, it would have been 2011 without the 2nd half comeback to USC. I and many Duck fans would have taken that.

[Deleted User]

greenblood said:

If Oregon were to go 11-2 with those 2 losses being beatdowns, it would have been 2011 without the 2nd half comeback to USC. I and many Duck fans would have taken that.

In 2014 UW is playing 13 regular season games. They will go 4-0 in OOC, if they manage to go 5-4 in conference play which is what Sark does that's a 9-4 regular season. Win some bull shit bowl game and that is 10 wins and 4 losses.

It's not that far fetched guys.

Steve_Bowman

Your premise is sound. But win 10 regular season games? Not in a million years.

He might be able to eak out 9 games (9 - 3) some year, but that's it. There's a once in a decade up side of 10 - 3 with a bowl game. That I wouldn't hold my breath for.

[Deleted User]

Steve_Bowman said:

Your premise is sound. But win 10 regular season games? Not in a million years.

He might be able to eak out 9 games (9 - 3) some year, but that's it. There's a once in a decade up side of 10 - 3 with a bowl game. That I wouldn't hold my breath for.

Look I never said 10 regular season wins. I was just putting out some outliers is all. I actually think this team wins 8 regular season this year and 9 next year.

I don't predict minor bowl games because typically who wants to be there the most will win that game.

So Sark could win 17 games next two years or win 19. I think you guys are underestimating that 4-0 OOC next year.

jmc84

Lesbianest. The problem with Sark is that he doesn't win enough games because his teams are LA soft and WSU stupid.

TTJ

He_Needs_More_Time said:

He is what we feared Ty was going to be. Nobody thought Ty was going to be the disaster that he was when he was hired. Most were pissed because we feared Ty would be just good enough to keep our idiot Doogs happy but never good enough to lead us to a Rose Bowl.

That is what Sark is. I can't see the Huskies going through a bowl drought under him but I honestly can't ever picture him leading us to a Rose Bowl. This year he might win 9 games or 10. Next year he might win 10 or 11 only because our schedule is a joke. Both years we'll get plunger raped 2-3 times if not more. Not even come close to winning the conference title.

When Sark gets a 6th year he'll be the first Husky coach to see a year six without winning a conference title since Ralph Welch did who coached from 1942-1947. He did however lose a Rose Bowl in 1943.

I guess Sark is hoping to be on the James Phelan plan who coached at UW from 1930-1941 and didn't win a conference title until 1936 when he lost the Rose Bowl to finished the season ranked 5th in the nation.

You have to go back almost 80 years the last time a UW coach received a sixth year who didn't win a conference title or go to a Rose Bowl within his first five years on the job.

We know what we have in Sark. He's not "learning on the job" still. His mistakes in year one are still here. He still doesn't know how to take the 3 points, instead goes for it on fourth and short out of the shot gun so it's stuffed, his OL is actually worse the longer he's been here, the defense has been shaky to downright terrible during his tenure.

Why are we "letting it play out" ? We know Sark fucking blows. This team at best will go 8-4 in the regular season. Fans wanted Lambo fired for going 8-4 in 1997, fans weren't jacked up when Rick went 8-4 in 2001 either.

Sark is what we all feared Ty was going to be. I can't believe so many of you are falling into this Doog trap.

Not that I really disagree with you. But the problem with your whole tantrum is the told-you-so bit. Take yourself out of it

He_Needs_More_Time said:

He is what we feared Ty was going to be. Nobody thought Ty was going to be the disaster that he was when he was hired. Most were pissed because we feared Ty would be just good enough to keep our idiot Doogs happy but never good enough to lead us to a Rose Bowl.

That is what Sark is. I can't see the Huskies going through a bowl drought under him but I honestly can't ever picture him leading us to a Rose Bowl. This year he might win 9 games or 10. Next year he might win 10 or 11 only because our schedule is a joke. Both years we'll get plunger raped 2-3 times if not more. Not even come close to winning the conference title.

When Sark gets a 6th year he'll be the first Husky coach to see a year six without winning a conference title since Ralph Welch did who coached from 1942-1947. He did however lose a Rose Bowl in 1943.

I guess Sark is hoping to be on the James Phelan plan who coached at UW from 1930-1941 and didn't win a conference title until 1936 when he lost the Rose Bowl to finished the season ranked 5th in the nation.

You have to go back almost 80 years the last time a UW coach received a sixth year who didn't win a conference title or go to a Rose Bowl within his first five years on the job.

We know what we have in Sark. He's not "learning on the job" still. His mistakes in year one are still here. He still doesn't know how to take the 3 points, instead goes for it on fourth and short out of the shot gun so it's stuffed, his OL is actually worse the longer he's been here, the defense has been shaky to downright terrible during his tenure.

Why are we "letting it play out" ? We know Sark fucking blows. This team at best will go 8-4 in the regular season. Fans wanted Lambo fired for going 8-4 in 1997, fans weren't jacked up when Rick went 8-4 in 2001 either.

Sark is what we all feared Ty was going to be. I can't believe so many of you are falling into this Doog trap.

TLDR. The problem with Seven is that he hasn't won enough games. Period. If he significantly improves the team's W-L record, starting this year, I'll get off his case.

MikeDamone

Lambright was fired for winning 7-9 games and losing to Oregon.

HTH

[Deleted User]

jmc84 said:

Lesbianest. The problem with Sark is that he doesn't win enough games because his teams are LA soft and WSU stupid.

Plus he will fuck up some games by himself with his terrible RZ play calling. It was the only reason the Boise game in the first half was only 10-3, same with Illinois.

I don't get how a team with ASJ, Sankey and Kasen can struggle so much in the RZ but it does. That's Sark fucking stupid for you.

[Deleted User]

MikeDamone said:

Lambright was fired for winning 7-9 games and losing to Oregon.

HTH

I'm advocating for Sark to be fired so I don't get your point. I think most of us in here agree that Lambo was a shitty coach but a better coach than Sark.

[Deleted User]

TTJ said:

He_Needs_More_Time said:

He is what we feared Ty was going to be. Nobody thought Ty was going to be the disaster that he was when he was hired. Most were pissed because we feared Ty would be just good enough to keep our idiot Doogs happy but never good enough to lead us to a Rose Bowl.

That is what Sark is. I can't see the Huskies going through a bowl drought under him but I honestly can't ever picture him leading us to a Rose Bowl. This year he might win 9 games or 10. Next year he might win 10 or 11 only because our schedule is a joke. Both years we'll get plunger raped 2-3 times if not more. Not even come close to winning the conference title.

When Sark gets a 6th year he'll be the first Husky coach to see a year six without winning a conference title since Ralph Welch did who coached from 1942-1947. He did however lose a Rose Bowl in 1943.

I guess Sark is hoping to be on the James Phelan plan who coached at UW from 1930-1941 and didn't win a conference title until 1936 when he lost the Rose Bowl to finished the season ranked 5th in the nation.

You have to go back almost 80 years the last time a UW coach received a sixth year who didn't win a conference title or go to a Rose Bowl within his first five years on the job.

We know what we have in Sark. He's not "learning on the job" still. His mistakes in year one are still here. He still doesn't know how to take the 3 points, instead goes for it on fourth and short out of the shot gun so it's stuffed, his OL is actually worse the longer he's been here, the defense has been shaky to downright terrible during his tenure.

Why are we "letting it play out" ? We know Sark fucking blows. This team at best will go 8-4 in the regular season. Fans wanted Lambo fired for going 8-4 in 1997, fans weren't jacked up when Rick went 8-4 in 2001 either.

Sark is what we all feared Ty was going to be. I can't believe so many of you are falling into this Doog trap.

Not that I really disagree with you. But the problem with your whole tantrum is the told-you-so bit. Take yourself out of it

He_Needs_More_Time said:

He is what we feared Ty was going to be. Nobody thought Ty was going to be the disaster that he was when he was hired. Most were pissed because we feared Ty would be just good enough to keep our idiot Doogs happy but never good enough to lead us to a Rose Bowl.

That is what Sark is. I can't see the Huskies going through a bowl drought under him but I honestly can't ever picture him leading us to a Rose Bowl. This year he might win 9 games or 10. Next year he might win 10 or 11 only because our schedule is a joke. Both years we'll get plunger raped 2-3 times if not more. Not even come close to winning the conference title.

When Sark gets a 6th year he'll be the first Husky coach to see a year six without winning a conference title since Ralph Welch did who coached from 1942-1947. He did however lose a Rose Bowl in 1943.

I guess Sark is hoping to be on the James Phelan plan who coached at UW from 1930-1941 and didn't win a conference title until 1936 when he lost the Rose Bowl to finished the season ranked 5th in the nation.

You have to go back almost 80 years the last time a UW coach received a sixth year who didn't win a conference title or go to a Rose Bowl within his first five years on the job.

We know what we have in Sark. He's not "learning on the job" still. His mistakes in year one are still here. He still doesn't know how to take the 3 points, instead goes for it on fourth and short out of the shot gun so it's stuffed, his OL is actually worse the longer he's been here, the defense has been shaky to downright terrible during his tenure.

Why are we "letting it play out" ? We know Sark fucking blows. This team at best will go 8-4 in the regular season. Fans wanted Lambo fired for going 8-4 in 1997, fans weren't jacked up when Rick went 8-4 in 2001 either.

Sark is what we all feared Ty was going to be. I can't believe so many of you are falling into this Doog trap.

TLDR. The problem with Seven is that he hasn't won enough games. Period. If he significantly improves the team's W-L record, starting this year, I'll get off his case.

Not telling anyone "I told you so". Was just showing how rare it is for a UW coach to see a 6th year without winning a conference title or going to a Rose Bowl. You have to go back to the 1930's for the last time that happened.

jmc84

He_Needs_More_Time said:

jmc84 said:

Lesbianest. The problem with Sark is that he doesn't win enough games because his teams are LA soft and WSU stupid.

Plus he will fuck up some games by himself with his terrible RZ play calling. It was the only reason the Boise game in the first half was only 10-3, same with Illinois.

I don't get how a team with ASJ, Sankey and Kasen can struggle so much in the RZ but it does. That's Sark fucking stupid for you.

It's really easy to struggle in the red zone when you don't throw/hand off to ASJ, Sankey, and Kasen. That bullshit at the end of the 2nd quarter against Illinois was a perfect example. Twice to Smith, once to Mickens. Smith and Mickens have been pretty good, but they aren't the red zone threats that ASJ, Sankey, and Kasen are. You're spot on. SFS

dnc

He_Needs_More_Time said:

MikeDamone said:

Lambright was fired for winning 7-9 games and losing to Oregon.

HTH

I'm advocating for Sark to be fired so I don't get your point. I think most of us in here agree that Lambo was a shitty coach but a better coach than Sark.

SteelPuppy!!! True??

Steve_Bowman

Lambo may not have been a great coach, but but shitty? His teams we're tough....they still hurt people. Ask Shark's sorry BYU ass about how shitty his teams were.

Plus, Jim could recruit. I believe the 2000 team were mostly his guys except for Alexis and John Anderson (the kicker.)

[Deleted User]

dnc said:

He_Needs_More_Time said:

MikeDamone said:

Lambright was fired for winning 7-9 games and losing to Oregon.

HTH

I'm advocating for Sark to be fired so I don't get your point. I think most of us in here agree that Lambo was a shitty coach but a better coach than Sark.

SteelPuppy!!! True??

Why I had to put "most of us" instead of all of us because of him specifically. Although I'm sure Irish would argue Sark over Lambo too.

[Deleted User]

jmc84 said:

He_Needs_More_Time said:

jmc84 said:

Lesbianest. The problem with Sark is that he doesn't win enough games because his teams are LA soft and WSU stupid.

Plus he will fuck up some games by himself with his terrible RZ play calling. It was the only reason the Boise game in the first half was only 10-3, same with Illinois.

I don't get how a team with ASJ, Sankey and Kasen can struggle so much in the RZ but it does. That's Sark fucking stupid for you.

It's really easy to struggle in the red zone when you don't throw/hand off to ASJ, Sankey, and Kasen. That bullshit at the end of the 2nd quarter against Illinois was a perfect example. Twice to Smith, once to Mickens. Smith and Mickens have been pretty good, but they aren't the red zone threats that ASJ, Sankey, and Kasen are. You're spot on. SFS

Yea they are good WR's but both under 6 foot. In the RZ you want size. I'd just pound it to Sankey and if they overload for the run do a play action roll out to ASJ or Kasen. Kasen is a great leaper and good hands so a jump ball to him wouldn't be too bad.

MikeDamone

He_Needs_More_Time said:

MikeDamone said:

Lambright was fired for winning 7-9 games and losing to Oregon.

HTH

I'm advocating for Sark to be fired so I don't get your point. I think most of us in here agree that Lambo was a shitty coach but a better coach than Sark.

It wasn't about "you".

jmc84

He_Needs_More_Time said:

jmc84 said:

He_Needs_More_Time said:

jmc84 said:

Lesbianest. The problem with Sark is that he doesn't win enough games because his teams are LA soft and WSU stupid.

Plus he will fuck up some games by himself with his terrible RZ play calling. It was the only reason the Boise game in the first half was only 10-3, same with Illinois.

I don't get how a team with ASJ, Sankey and Kasen can struggle so much in the RZ but it does. That's Sark fucking stupid for you.

It's really easy to struggle in the red zone when you don't throw/hand off to ASJ, Sankey, and Kasen. That bullshit at the end of the 2nd quarter against Illinois was a perfect example. Twice to Smith, once to Mickens. Smith and Mickens have been pretty good, but they aren't the red zone threats that ASJ, Sankey, and Kasen are. You're spot on. SFS

Yea they are good WR's but both under 6 foot. In the RZ you want size. I'd just pound it to Sankey and if they overload for the run do a play action roll out to ASJ or Kasen. Kasen is a great leaper and good hands so a jump ball to him wouldn't be too bad.

Agree. A jump ball to Kasen or ASJ is basically a gimme. ASJ is 6'6" with good athleticism when he isn't fat, and Kasen can jump like no other. Just throw that shit up where only they can get to it. Most of the time, they will.