Destroying the myth that UW is no longer young in 2013 (deserves own thread)

TierbsHsotBoobs

I did some research on offensive and defensive starters.

The 2010 opening day depth chart, by class:
9 seniors
9 juniors
5 sophomores
0 freshmen

The 2013 opening day depth chart, by class:
6 seniors
11 juniors
4 sophomores
1 freshman

NOTE: The numbers add up to 23 because Sark likes listing an extra WR on the depth chart.

Summary: If UW was too young in 2010, it's still too young in 2013.

MikeDamone

we're so fucking young

HuskyJW

Who said they were young?

[Deleted User]

I remember bringing that up in 2010 when Doogs would shout how young we were cause Sark played 16 true freshman even though he could have played just 8-9.

I remember after Nebraska Doogs were especially bringing up youth cause Kohler started.

Want to know a young team? Go look at the 1990 team that finished 10-2 ranked 5th in the nation.

PurpleReign

HuskyJW said:

Who said they were young?

I don't remember what he said, but earlier this season Sark gave some convoluted statement about being young but without directly saying it. Though everyone understood it to mean we are still young.

Tailgater

I swear I've heard Sark speaking publically about how happy he is to have so many veterans or at least returning starters with valuable experience in the depth especially on offense this season. Sark may be silly or unfortunately mealy-mouthed in too many of his public comments, but I don't think even he can ever go to that Y&E well of excuses again. It's Sark's apologists who seem to find it necessary to make excuses for some of what we see on Saturdays. That's obviously going to continue forever until great coaching is back getting the most possible without excuses out of what they have to work with.

TierbsHsotBoobs

HuskyJW said:

Who said they were young?

Everybody.

HTH

Auburndawg

We weren't too young in 2010, although we got younger as the season went on and Sark replaced Ty's guys with his freshmen.

TierbsHsotBoobs

Auburndawg said:

We weren't too young in 2010, although we got younger as the season went on and Sark replaced Ty's guys with his freshmen.

That's supposed to be an excuse for Sark?

MisterEm

Alabama played 12 freshmen last year, including 4 starters. T.J. Yeldon made SEC defenses filled with NFL talent look silly last year as a true-frosh.

Alabama has played 11 true freshmen this year and 3 starters (2 defense, 1 offense).

The we are young bullshit needs to stop.

Auburndawg

My argument is this: There are logical reasons to believe 2013 can be different. Therefore, LIFPO

Auburndawg

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

Auburndawg said:

We weren't too young in 2010, although we got younger as the season went on and Sark replaced Ty's guys with his freshmen.

That's supposed to be an excuse for Sark?

Yes. It is a legitimate reason why we only won the Holiday Bowl in Sarks second year

Mad_Son

Auburndawg said:

My argument is this: There are logical reasons to believe 2013 can be different. Therefore, LIFPO

How can it be different? We are already 25% done and have done nothing to show that there is anything different. There would have been logical reasons before the season started - or even before BSU was exposed as just another middling (at best) team. Now though, the odds of us being a good team are pretty much non-existent.

Rancid

Auburndawg said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

Auburndawg said:

We weren't too young in 2010, although we got younger as the season went on and Sark replaced Ty's guys with his freshmen.

That's supposed to be an excuse for Sark?

Yes. It is a legitimate reason why we only won the Holiday Bowl in Sarks second year

You won the Holiday Bowl in 2010 because Sark put freshmen in. However, those freshmen have been coached up since then to go 7-6, 7-6.

But now they're seniors. Let's just hope senioritis doesn't kick in. "lol"

Fire_Marshall_Bill

The Seahawks went 11-5 last yr. and will probably win 12 + games this year with their young team. it's not exactly the same thing but close.

Doogs love to blame youth, the schedule and injuries.... you could use it least one of those excuses for 120/125 "FBS" teams. The good programs get it done or find someone who can get it done.

TierbsHsotBoobs

Rancid said:

Auburndawg said:

TierbsHsotBoobs said:

Auburndawg said:

We weren't too young in 2010, although we got younger as the season went on and Sark replaced Ty's guys with his freshmen.

That's supposed to be an excuse for Sark?

Yes. It is a legitimate reason why we only won the Holiday Bowl in Sarks second year

You won the Holiday Bowl in 2010 because Sark put freshmen in. However, those freshmen have been coached up since then to go 7-6, 7-6.

But now they're seniors. Let's just hope senioritis doesn't kick in. "lol"

I liked the take, but the REAL reason UW won that Holiday Bowl is because they were the only team on the field that cared.

[Deleted User]

Only reason UW made the bowl game is because Sark finally made the offense about Polk instead of Locker.

Steve_Bowman

There are really two issues with the actual players:
1- No offensive linemen (quality and sheer numbers)
2- No defensive linemen. (quality and sheer numbers)

Youth and all the other variables are side shows for the real, and most likely fatal flaws for this team. This team is very limited for these two reasons. The other players can not compensate for this. This is a simple game, not easy but simple.