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 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.
I think we can all agree that the team Sark took over was a) much better than 0-12 b) still worse than the team's most new UW coaches have inherited. Given that context, I'm not necessarily "win a Rose Bowl in your first five years or GTFO".
My big problems with Sark are two-fold. First, we that we haven't moved towards that, at all. If we had knocked on the RB door just finishing a game behind Oregon the last year or two, I'd think we are headed in the right direction. Secondly, and probably more importantly, while doogs want to talk about two field goals from 9-4, the truth is UW has been worse than it's record almost every season under Sark. It's not that we're close and making a mistake here or there, it's that we're lucky to be a .500 team.
That's scary, and it's why I'm more than ready for UW to hire a real coach.
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".
It's hard reading posts when you are doing 90 on 1-5 doing blow off of a hooker's ass. My bad.
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.)
Anderson was actually his recruit but he was a shitty coach. That 1994, 1996 and 1997 teams had top 10 talent and lost 4, 3 and 4 games.
His personally cost us a Rose Bowl in 1995 with his coaching blunders against Notre Dame, USC and Oregon that year.
Also that 2000 team may have been his guys but if he were head coach that team goes 8-4 at best.
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 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.
I think we can all agree that the team Sark took over was a) much better than 0-12 b) still worse than the team's most new UW coaches have inherited. Given that context, I'm not necessarily "win a Rose Bowl in your first five years or GTFO".
My big problems with Sark are two-fold. First, we that we haven't moved towards that, at all. If we had knocked on the RB door just finishing a game behind Oregon the last year or two, I'd think we are headed in the right direction. Secondly, and probably more importantly, while doogs want to talk about two field goals from 9-4, the truth is UW has been worse than it's record almost every season under Sark. It's not that we're close and making a mistake here or there, it's that we're lucky to be a .500 team.
That's scary, and it's why I'm more than ready for UW to hire a real coach.
Agree 100%. I thought by now Sark should have us competing for a Rose Bowl. Look Oregon and recently Stanford has been nationally good I accept that. Still we aren't even close to being in the Rose Bowl hunt.
Only Doogs think this team has a shot at the Roses. Also you are right he's been very lucky to have the shitty record that he has.
In 2010 that team won four games on the final play or inside the final 30 seconds. That team could have easily gone 2-10.
In fact the WSU game was the first close game he had lost in over two years. That's pretty damn lucky and we were due to lose one of those. Plus the Cougs out gained us by over 100 yards.
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.)
Anderson was actually his recruit but he was a shitty coach. That 1994, 1996 and 1997 teams had top 10 talent and lost 4, 3 and 4 games.
His personally cost us a Rose Bowl in 1995 with his coaching blunders against Notre Dame, USC and Oregon that year.
Also that 2000 team may have been his guys but if he were head coach that team goes 8-4 at best.
Bingo. Think Lambright would have been flexible enough to switch to the option because two of his players suggested it? Hell no. That team won because of Lambo's players and Rick's coaching.
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.)
Anderson was actually his recruit but he was a shitty coach. That 1994, 1996 and 1997 teams had top 10 talent and lost 4, 3 and 4 games.
His personally cost us a Rose Bowl in 1995 with his coaching blunders against Notre Dame, USC and Oregon that year.
Also that 2000 team may have been his guys but if he were head coach that team goes 8-4 at best.
Bingo. Think Lambright would have been flexible enough to switch to the option because two of his players suggested it? Hell no. That team won because of Lambo's players and Rick's coaching.
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
it showed Sark's lack of faith in his offensive line. On some level, the players know this and it will impact their performance.
'94 Apple Cup....wasn't on tv (except for Fleenor's private feed) but they lost 23-6. Rondeau didn't say it but you could sense it. Also, see '95 Sun Bowel and a couple games in '98.
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.)
Anderson was actually his recruit but he was a shitty coach. That 1994, 1996 and 1997 teams had top 10 talent and lost 4, 3 and 4 games.
His personally cost us a Rose Bowl in 1995 with his coaching blunders against Notre Dame, USC and Oregon that year.
Also that 2000 team may have been his guys but if he were head coach that team goes 8-4 at best.
Bingo. Think Lambright would have been flexible enough to switch to the option because two of his players suggested it? Hell no. That team won because of Lambo's players and Rick's coaching.
Bull. Gilby never ran option before RN made the switch after starting 0-2. Sure they all worked together, but if you really think Gilby was the OC on that team I have a bright shiny Kiesau to sell you.
Also, TUFF teams don't got beaten by lesser teams on a regular basis.
As Pat Hill should have already taught you, the stache doesn't make the man.
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.)
Anderson was actually his recruit but he was a shitty coach. That 1994, 1996 and 1997 teams had top 10 talent and lost 4, 3 and 4 games.
His personally cost us a Rose Bowl in 1995 with his coaching blunders against Notre Dame, USC and Oregon that year.
Also that 2000 team may have been his guys but if he were head coach that team goes 8-4 at best.
Bingo. Think Lambright would have been flexible enough to switch to the option because two of his players suggested it? Hell no. That team won because of Lambo's players and Rick's coaching.
Bull. Gilby never ran option before RN made the switch after starting 0-2. Sure they all worked together, but if you really think Gilby was the OC on that team I have a bright shiny Kiesau to sell you.
Also, TUFF teams don't got beaten by lesser teams on a regular basis.
As Pat Hill should have already taught you, the stache doesn't make the man.
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.)
Anderson was actually his recruit but he was a shitty coach. That 1994, 1996 and 1997 teams had top 10 talent and lost 4, 3 and 4 games.
His personally cost us a Rose Bowl in 1995 with his coaching blunders against Notre Dame, USC and Oregon that year.
Also that 2000 team may have been his guys but if he were head coach that team goes 8-4 at best.
Bingo. Think Lambright would have been flexible enough to switch to the option because two of his players suggested it? Hell no. That team won because of Lambo's players and Rick's coaching.
Bull. Gilby never ran option before RN made the switch after starting 0-2. Sure they all worked together, but if you really think Gilby was the OC on that team I have a bright shiny Kiesau to sell you.
Also, TUFF teams don't got beaten by lesser teams on a regular basis.
As Pat Hill should have already taught you, the stache doesn't make the man.
It was Tui and Coniff's idea. Whether Gilby or RN heard it first is irrelevant. RN was the one who gave it the okay. Lambo never displayed that type of flexibility in 7 years or however long he was at the helm. RN did it in game 3.
Enoch Bagshaw (c. 1884 – October 3, 1930) was an American football player and coach. From 1921 to 1929, he served as the head football coach at the University of Washington, compiling a 63–22–6 record. His 1923 and 1926 squads went 10–1–1, equaling the best marks of his career. Despite his success, Bagshaw was fired in 1929 after his team went 2–6–1.
'94 Apple Cup....wasn't on tv (except for Fleenor's private feed) but they lost 23-6. Rondeau didn't say it but you could sense it. Also, see '95 Sun Bowel and a couple games in '98.
Even his "good" teams got plunger raped like in 1996 at Notre Dame, 1997 at UCLA, 1998 he had a few including the Nebraska one.
From 1984-2013 the Cougars have only defeated the Huskies by more than a touchdown one time and that was the 26-6 win in 1994.
Comments
My big problems with Sark are two-fold. First, we that we haven't moved towards that, at all. If we had knocked on the RB door just finishing a game behind Oregon the last year or two, I'd think we are headed in the right direction. Secondly, and probably more importantly, while doogs want to talk about two field goals from 9-4, the truth is UW has been worse than it's record almost every season under Sark. It's not that we're close and making a mistake here or there, it's that we're lucky to be a .500 team.
That's scary, and it's why I'm more than ready for UW to hire a real coach.
His personally cost us a Rose Bowl in 1995 with his coaching blunders against Notre Dame, USC and Oregon that year.
Also that 2000 team may have been his guys but if he were head coach that team goes 8-4 at best.
Only Doogs think this team has a shot at the Roses. Also you are right he's been very lucky to have the shitty record that he has.
In 2010 that team won four games on the final play or inside the final 30 seconds. That team could have easily gone 2-10.
In fact the WSU game was the first close game he had lost in over two years. That's pretty damn lucky and we were due to lose one of those. Plus the Cougs out gained us by over 100 yards.
Another crappy head coach, but one hell of O coordinator.
The one thing I give Jim, is his teams were tough. None of the pussy soft crap we see now.
Also, TUFF teams don't got beaten by lesser teams on a regular basis.
As Pat Hill should have already taught you, the stache doesn't make the man.
Gilby listened to Tui. Not his idea.
Crisped that up for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Bagshaw
Enoch Bagshaw (c. 1884 – October 3, 1930) was an American football player and coach. From 1921 to 1929, he served as the head football coach at the University of Washington, compiling a 63–22–6 record. His 1923 and 1926 squads went 10–1–1, equaling the best marks of his career. Despite his success, Bagshaw was fired in 1929 after his team went 2–6–1.
First bad year he had and he got DAO.
From 1984-2013 the Cougars have only defeated the Huskies by more than a touchdown one time and that was the 26-6 win in 1994.