Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
The case for LIFPO
Auburndawg
Member Posts: 362
This is what I hope is true:
We were “too young,” but not anymore.
Of our 25 "starters", 19 are from the 2011 and 2012 recruiting classes. Of those, 16 became starters their first or second year in the program.
Starting in 2010, and accelerating in 2011 and 2012, Sark has been playing his guys, rather than the guys he inherited from the classes of 2006-2008. Some of the players he inherited were major contributors, but he has had to play an inordinate number of first and second year players.
In 2011 we were starting 13 guys in their first or second year in the program. That really is “too young.” Last year we would have been much less young were it not for injuries to Kohler, Porter, Tanigawa, Callier, Riva, Kevin Smith, and Kikaha.
All of this can be used a reason to have patience with the inconsistency, the blow outs, and the lack of improvement the last three years. (although I still think bad coaching cost us a handful of games the past 4 years)
But now Sark has what every college coach wants: a roster dominated by kids he recruited who are upperclass veterans. 19 of 25 are JRs and SRs, and there is only one new starter, John Ross. Only 4 are in their first or second year in the program.
That’s why these next few weeks are so critical. This team should be dramatically and obviously better than the 2010-12 teams. So far it has been. If we keep winning we can conclude that Sark is building the program we all want. If not, there are no intellectually defensible excuses to fall back on.
Jim Owens and Don James reached their turning points in year 3. For Sark, that turning point has been reached. The argument will be over in a few weeks.
We were “too young,” but not anymore.
Of our 25 "starters", 19 are from the 2011 and 2012 recruiting classes. Of those, 16 became starters their first or second year in the program.
Starting in 2010, and accelerating in 2011 and 2012, Sark has been playing his guys, rather than the guys he inherited from the classes of 2006-2008. Some of the players he inherited were major contributors, but he has had to play an inordinate number of first and second year players.
In 2011 we were starting 13 guys in their first or second year in the program. That really is “too young.” Last year we would have been much less young were it not for injuries to Kohler, Porter, Tanigawa, Callier, Riva, Kevin Smith, and Kikaha.
All of this can be used a reason to have patience with the inconsistency, the blow outs, and the lack of improvement the last three years. (although I still think bad coaching cost us a handful of games the past 4 years)
But now Sark has what every college coach wants: a roster dominated by kids he recruited who are upperclass veterans. 19 of 25 are JRs and SRs, and there is only one new starter, John Ross. Only 4 are in their first or second year in the program.
That’s why these next few weeks are so critical. This team should be dramatically and obviously better than the 2010-12 teams. So far it has been. If we keep winning we can conclude that Sark is building the program we all want. If not, there are no intellectually defensible excuses to fall back on.
Jim Owens and Don James reached their turning points in year 3. For Sark, that turning point has been reached. The argument will be over in a few weeks.
Comments
Next excuse, please.
The "too young" excuse is the second worst excuse in college football only behind coaching stability. Take this weak shit back to Doogman.
Christ!
Then I shook my head and go when we go 7-6 you'll be blaming Price and claiming next year will be different. Doog on, Doog on.
Lather, rinse , repeat.
Wake me up when we win something.
Gonna
Doog.