Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Hey, I have some honest questions to all lurking Dawgman and Pro-Sark people
Gladstone
Member Posts: 16,419
1. Sarkisian himself has stated that the standard for him is Rose Bowls and championships. How do you reconcile Sark's own comments with your belief that he shouldn't be fired?
2. Woodward is on record saying that he "obviously" expects better than 7-6 this year. How do you reconcile our AD's own expectations with your belief that he shouldn't be fired?
3. What does Sarkisian do well? What do we hang our hats on if we're going to go forward with him? Remember that every BCS-winning coach not named Frank Beamer established himself as a top tier guy (11 wins and/or Conference Championship) in four years. What do we point to as evidence that he's remotely near turning a corner? Where can we look and say 'wow maybe he isn't what his record says he is'? What does the evidence tell you that it doesn't tell us?
What aspect of his coaching is elite and worthy of this program?
Recruiting?
No. Good skill position recruiting mixed with the complete OL failure = average.
Toughness?
No. Our teams rarely, if ever, have imposed their will on other teams in the 2nd half. We try to be both finesse and tough at certain times and accomplish neither.
Penalties and discipline?
No. We have consistently ranked in the bottom in the conference in penalties and boneheaded plays.
Fundamentals?
No. Wilcox's arrival cleaned up some form tackling issues, but there are still far too many missed tackles, lazily ran routes, failure to engage blocks, and many other fundamental failures.
Success against PNW rivals?
No. An embarrassing 0-5 against Oregon with five blowouts. 2-2 against Oregon State. 3-1 against WSU including one of the most inexcusable meltdown losses in program history.
Offensive identity?
No. We aren't a power football team. We aren't a spread team. We aren't a fun-and-gun. Sark first tried to emulate the balanced USC offensive approach, but defaulted to the pass at any adversity. He then tried incorporating spread principles. Now this year he has tried to implement the Oregon spread, with mixed results.
Special teams?
No. Some of the worst nationally, as a matter of fact.
Clock management?
No. Sark getting booed at halftime in his own stadium is reason enough.
Tangible yearly improvement?
No. 4-5, 5-4, 5-4, 5-4, 3-X
Play on road?
No. A disgrace. 7-19, most wins against crap opponents.
Playcalling?
No. Actually, given his reputation I'd label him a complete failure as a playcaller. Exhibit #2389, from the UCLA game: 4th and 2 - instead of giving the ball to his superstar tailback, one of the best to ever attend UW, he has his freshman QB throw a very tough slant route in traffic. With predictable results.
Week to week gameplanning?
No. Many have commented that he was a "scared" playcaller against Oregon in 2011 and 2013. Lots of whimpy lateral passes and panicked decisions. Refusal to commit to the run game has had wide-ranging disastrous consequences, from the 52-17 desert beatdown to the Apple Cup meltdown choke.
Quality assistant coaches?
No. All but two of his original coaching crew has been fired. The remaining two, Cozetto and Nansen, are much maligned, even by Sark supporters. Wilcox has brought the defense from NCAA worst to slightly above average. Check the statistics. Hardly elite.
Kids sent to the NFL?
No. Right in the middle of the conference.
Eloquence?
No. He gives off a frat boy/slacker stoner vibe in his interviews. Sort of the anti-Willingham in this respect. "What a great week to be a Huuuusky, man! How you doin' brah? Bro be my friend on facebook, why wouldn't my players be my friends on facebook? You there bro?"
Integrity?
No. First, that our coach be someone of integrity should be assumed, not praised. Second, there is enough smoke out there about him now to safely put him out of the 'elite' category when it comes to integrity.
What is it? What aspect of his coaching makes you excited?
2. Woodward is on record saying that he "obviously" expects better than 7-6 this year. How do you reconcile our AD's own expectations with your belief that he shouldn't be fired?
3. What does Sarkisian do well? What do we hang our hats on if we're going to go forward with him? Remember that every BCS-winning coach not named Frank Beamer established himself as a top tier guy (11 wins and/or Conference Championship) in four years. What do we point to as evidence that he's remotely near turning a corner? Where can we look and say 'wow maybe he isn't what his record says he is'? What does the evidence tell you that it doesn't tell us?
What aspect of his coaching is elite and worthy of this program?
Recruiting?
No. Good skill position recruiting mixed with the complete OL failure = average.
Toughness?
No. Our teams rarely, if ever, have imposed their will on other teams in the 2nd half. We try to be both finesse and tough at certain times and accomplish neither.
Penalties and discipline?
No. We have consistently ranked in the bottom in the conference in penalties and boneheaded plays.
Fundamentals?
No. Wilcox's arrival cleaned up some form tackling issues, but there are still far too many missed tackles, lazily ran routes, failure to engage blocks, and many other fundamental failures.
Success against PNW rivals?
No. An embarrassing 0-5 against Oregon with five blowouts. 2-2 against Oregon State. 3-1 against WSU including one of the most inexcusable meltdown losses in program history.
Offensive identity?
No. We aren't a power football team. We aren't a spread team. We aren't a fun-and-gun. Sark first tried to emulate the balanced USC offensive approach, but defaulted to the pass at any adversity. He then tried incorporating spread principles. Now this year he has tried to implement the Oregon spread, with mixed results.
Special teams?
No. Some of the worst nationally, as a matter of fact.
Clock management?
No. Sark getting booed at halftime in his own stadium is reason enough.
Tangible yearly improvement?
No. 4-5, 5-4, 5-4, 5-4, 3-X
Play on road?
No. A disgrace. 7-19, most wins against crap opponents.
Playcalling?
No. Actually, given his reputation I'd label him a complete failure as a playcaller. Exhibit #2389, from the UCLA game: 4th and 2 - instead of giving the ball to his superstar tailback, one of the best to ever attend UW, he has his freshman QB throw a very tough slant route in traffic. With predictable results.
Week to week gameplanning?
No. Many have commented that he was a "scared" playcaller against Oregon in 2011 and 2013. Lots of whimpy lateral passes and panicked decisions. Refusal to commit to the run game has had wide-ranging disastrous consequences, from the 52-17 desert beatdown to the Apple Cup meltdown choke.
Quality assistant coaches?
No. All but two of his original coaching crew has been fired. The remaining two, Cozetto and Nansen, are much maligned, even by Sark supporters. Wilcox has brought the defense from NCAA worst to slightly above average. Check the statistics. Hardly elite.
Kids sent to the NFL?
No. Right in the middle of the conference.
Eloquence?
No. He gives off a frat boy/slacker stoner vibe in his interviews. Sort of the anti-Willingham in this respect. "What a great week to be a Huuuusky, man! How you doin' brah? Bro be my friend on facebook, why wouldn't my players be my friends on facebook? You there bro?"
Integrity?
No. First, that our coach be someone of integrity should be assumed, not praised. Second, there is enough smoke out there about him now to safely put him out of the 'elite' category when it comes to integrity.
What is it? What aspect of his coaching makes you excited?
Comments
Maybe if you weren't in such awe at all the lipstick, you'd see that the pig is still looking pretty ugly.
and... The judges will accept 6 wins honey boo boo
He's the best playcaller in the cuntry but yet had to copy Oregon's offense just a few years later....