Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Scott EklundFS
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 11,453
So I'll paraphrase what he said which was a classic.
We shouldn't fire Sark because he and other Dawg fans wanted Lambright fired. Then we got stuck with Rick and we all know how that turned out.
He doesn't necessarily think Sark is the guy but what if we hire someone worse? Then he guarantees that he'll be here no matter what next year.
I sent the link to @BiggusDickus already.
Throughout the thread dumb fuck Doogs keep bringing up"What about Cal? We could be like them". Nevermind they are too stupid to realize that by retaining Sark that is more like Cal than firing Sark.
You see Tedford was sliding starting in 2007 he went 7-6(3-6), 2008 goes 9-4(6-3), 2009 goes 8-5(5-4) and 2010 goes 5-7(3-6) the warning signs were there had they fired him then perhaps they would be in a much better spot today. Instead he is brought back to go 7-6(4-5) then brought back again to go 3-9(2-7).
Doogs always take data the wrong way every fucking time. Cal is the example of why retaining Sark is bad as Cal ignored the warning signs of Tedford and now it's too late.
We shouldn't fire Sark because he and other Dawg fans wanted Lambright fired. Then we got stuck with Rick and we all know how that turned out.
He doesn't necessarily think Sark is the guy but what if we hire someone worse? Then he guarantees that he'll be here no matter what next year.
I sent the link to @BiggusDickus already.
Throughout the thread dumb fuck Doogs keep bringing up"What about Cal? We could be like them". Nevermind they are too stupid to realize that by retaining Sark that is more like Cal than firing Sark.
You see Tedford was sliding starting in 2007 he went 7-6(3-6), 2008 goes 9-4(6-3), 2009 goes 8-5(5-4) and 2010 goes 5-7(3-6) the warning signs were there had they fired him then perhaps they would be in a much better spot today. Instead he is brought back to go 7-6(4-5) then brought back again to go 3-9(2-7).
Doogs always take data the wrong way every fucking time. Cal is the example of why retaining Sark is bad as Cal ignored the warning signs of Tedford and now it's too late.
Comments
There is no fucking way that guy wanted Lambo fired after 1997 after back to back ranked seasons.
Now someone like myself who has standards yea I was all for Lambo being shit canned after 1997 but not some fuckhead like Section14AFS. Total revisionist history.
Also does anyone notice the longer time goes by the "better" Lambo became as a head coach? They all act like firing him was the wrong move. It was actually the right move, Rick got us to 2nd in conference in year one, then #3 in the nation in year two, then second in the conference in year three.
God forbid our coach after Sark can do what Rick did.
The better Lambo was.
The worse Rick was.
The worse Todd was.
The worse the mess
Gilby,Ty, Sark inherited was.The worse Ty was.
Etc.
Doogs gotta doog
"You have to give it Sark, he took us from 0-12 to a bowl game. He inherited an impossible situation and really gave it his all. I really like to thank him for what he did here. He just couldn't take us to the next step".
I actually think Sark's revisionist history will be played out like Lambrights.
"The worse James was" which is a new all-time Doog low.
I think if Sark is fired after this year revisionist history will be on his side. If he is retained and we continue to be average then he has a Tedford final year(like a 3-9) then he'll be trashed on by Doogs.
If he is fired now I bet he'll be remembered positively by most of our idiot fans.
Keeping sark will be bad for UW, Gilby and Willingham bad. Tedford comparisons are accurate. We need to thank the administration for putting him in a position to succeed, and give him his pink slip
For some reason, it's really unfair to judge Sark after only 5 years.
But Mora, in year 2 at only 8-2 can be judged a failure.
Simple fact.