Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Larry Stone must lurk here
DerekJohnson
Administrator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 63,591 
"...That has led to much saber-rattling in Husky Nation, which includes a vocal segment out for blood."
"...However, those who want Sark’s scalp — and I’m hearing from them, believe me — need to take a deep breath and remember just how low this program had fallen under Tyrone Willingham."
"...However, those who want Sark’s scalp — and I’m hearing from them, believe me — need to take a deep breath and remember just how low this program had fallen under Tyrone Willingham."
Comments
It took him 3 years. All it fucking takes is 3 years.
I've been a big fan of your baseball writing for years. Unlike most of your local peers, you are informed and thoughtful. You are open to the use of new metrics and seek to report the truth, not just the popular opinion.
I would encourage you to truly reexamine "just how low the program had fallen under Tyrone Willingham." You might be surprised by what you find. Here's a few things to consider:
First, that team certainly wouldn't have gone 0-12 if not for the injury to Jake Locker. Yes, Jake was flawed, but his running and enthusiasm brought real value. His replacement, Ronnie Fouch, brought nothing to the table. NOTHING. The Indianapolis Colts fell apart when Manning went down a couple seasons ago and they had to trot out the worst backup QB's in the league, but they magically bounced back when they drafted Andrew Luck. UW was similar - they were a lock for 3 or 4 wins at an absolute minimum in 2009 with a healthy Locker. Perhaps you can give Sark a little credit for keeping Jake healthy, but anyone who's watched our offensive line "protect" the passer in the Sarkisian era can tell you the difference in Jake's health between 08 and 09 was much more about randomness than it was about coaching.
Next, setting QB aside, how many future NFL players were on the roster Sark inherited? Probably more than you might think. Chris Polk, Mason Foster, Donald Butler, Alameda Ta'amu, Daniel Teo-Nesheim, Jermaine Kearse, Senio Kelemete, and Everette Thompson are in the league right now along with Locker - that's nine inherited pros. And there are others like Jonathan Amosa who have had a cup of coffee or at least made a practice squad. The point is, despite the lack of player development under Ty and the often spotty recruiting, there was still plenty of talent around for the new coach to work with. There's a reason Coach Sark was able to win 5 games in his first year and be extremely close in three others, and, as evidenced by the last four seasons, it's not because Sark is a miracle worker. That was not an 0-12 team, talent wise. Yes, Sark infused some confidence and enthusiasm, but don't you think a big chunk of that was simply due to the removal of Ty, no matter who the replacement was? Check out what's going on in Troy since they let Lane Kiffin go. I don't for a second think that Ed Orgeron suddenly became a great head coach. That team has surged because the coach they hated isn't there anymore. 2009 Washington was much the same.
Contrast all that talent Sark inherited, with say, Stanford when Jim Harbaugh arrived for the 2007 season. That was a program that truly had cratered, and a program that has far less historical advantages than UW does. But they hired a great coach, and he was able to turn them around, and quickly. He didn't make a quick surge and then plateau like Sark has done, he made consistent, steady progress, and by his fourth season they were 11-1, won a BCS bowl and finished #4 in the nation. Its year 5 for Sark who inherited, in my opinion, a far superior team. He isn't anywhere close to that type of success this year, and he's given us no real reason to think he will be next year either outside of blind hope. Hope, as you know Mr. Stone, is not a strategy.
One of those vocal posters who are out for blood went back and did the research and here's what he found - in nearly 100% of cases, a head coach who did not win 11 games or go to a BCS bowl in his first four years never went to a BCS bowl or won 11 games. Sark has had five years and failed to be within 3 games of either. Three conference wins is a mountain, and it would be foolish to expect Steve Sarkisian to scale that mountain anytime soon. Perhaps if we kept him long enough he would have a perfect storm season and win the conference ala Willingham at Stanford, but he will never be a coach who consistently challenges for the top of the conference.
I would argue that three years is enough to evaluate a coach, but four years is certainly enough. Five years is more than enough. As you can see here, without even addressing his inability to instill discipline or prevent penalties, without mentioning his annually horrific special teams, without discussing his dreadful in state recruiting, we have been able to establish that we know what Steve Sarkisian is, and what he is not. He is not a championship coach. Not because of Tyrone's inadequacies, but because of his own. Washington should aspire to have a coach who at least gives them a chance at a championship any given season. Sark is not, nor will he ever be that guy.
Fire Sark. Every season you wait is another wasted season.
I've been a big fan of your baseball writing for years. Unlike most of your local peers, you are informed and thoughtful. You are open to the use of new metrics and seek to report the truth, not just the popular opinion.
I would encourage you to truly reexamine "just how low the program had fallen under Tyrone Willingham." You might be surprised by what you find. Here's a few things to consider:
First, that team certainly wouldn't have gone 0-12 if not for the injury to Jake Locker. Yes, Jake was flawed, but his running and enthusiasm brought real value. His replacement, Ronnie Fouch, brought nothing to the table. NOTHING. The Indianapolis Colts fell apart when Manning went down a couple seasons ago and they had to trot out the worst backup QB's in the league and then they magically bounced back when they drafted Andrew Luck. UW was similar - they were a lock for 3 or 4 wins at an absolute minimum in 2009 with a healthy Locker. Perhaps you can give Sark a little credit for keeping Jake healthy, but anyone who's watched our offensive line "protect" the passer in the Sarkisian era can tell you the difference in Jake's health between 08 and 09 was much more about randomness than it was about coaching.
Next, setting QB aside, how many future NFL players were on the roster Sark inherited? There were probably a lot more than you think. Chris Polk, Mason Foster, Donald Butler, Alameda Ta'amu, Daniel Teo-Nesheim, Jermaine Kearse, Senio Kelemete, Everette Thompson are in the league right now along with Locker - that's nine inherited pros. And there are others like Jonathan Amosa who have had a cup of coffee or at least made a practice squad. The point is, despite the lack of player development under Ty and the often spotty recruiting, there was still plenty of talent around for the new coach to work with. There's a reason Coach Sark was able to win 5 games in his first year and be extremely close in three others, and, as evidenced by the last four seasons, it's not because Sark is a miracle worker. That was not an 0-12 team, talent wise. Yes, Sark infused some confidence and enthusiasm, but don't you think a big chunk of that was simply due to the removal of Ty, no matter who the replacement was? Check out what's going on in Troy since they let Lane Kiffin go. I don't for a second think that Ed Orgeron suddenly became a great head coach. That team has surged because the coach they hated isn't there anymore. 2009 Washington was much the same.
Contrast all that talent Sark inherited, with say, Stanford when Jim Harbaugh arrived for the 2007 season. That was a program that truly had cratered, and a program that has far less historical advantages than UW does. But they hired a great coach, and he was able to turn them around, and quickly. He didn't make a quick surge and then plateau like Sark has done, he made consistent, steady progress, and by his fourth season they were 11-1, won a BCS bowl and finished #4 in the nation. Its year 5 for Sark who inherited, in my opinion, a far superior team. He isn't anywhere close to that type of success this year, and he's given us no real reason to think he will be next year either outside of blind hope. Hope, as you know Mr. Stone, is not a strategy.
One of those vocal posters who are out for blood went back and did the research and here's what he found - in nearly 100% of cases, a head coach who did not win 11 games or go to a BCS bowl in his first four years never went to a BCS bowl or won 11 games. Sark has had five years and failed to be within 3 games of either. Three conference wins is a mountain, and it would be foolish to expect Steve Sarkisian to scale that mountain anytime soon. Perhaps if we kept him long enough he would have a perfect storm season and win the conference ala Willingham at Stanford, but he will never be a coach who consistently challenges for the top of the conference.
I would argue that three years is enough to evaluate a coach, but four years is certainly enough. Five years is more than enough. As you can see here, without even addressing his inability to instill discipline or prevent penalties, without mentioning his annually horrific special teams, without discussing his dreadful in state recruiting, we have been able to establish that we know what Steve Sarkisian is, and what he is not. He is not a championship coach. Not because of Tyrone's inadequacies, but because of his own. Washington should aspire to have a coach who at least gives them a chance at a championship any given season. Sark is not, nor will he ever be that guy.
Fire Sark. Every season you wait is another wasted season.
As a Coug "He's right, he was handed a shitty situation and he's doing a damn fine job and just needs more time."
Statute of Limitations: Harbaugh didn't whine, Leach didn't whine, so why do Sarkisian and his minions whine and blame even past the 60 game milestone he has coached?
The wise Mike Holmgren has said that you really don't know if your QB is "the guy" until he's started 30 to 40 games. Generally, I'd say that's also the case with head coaches and in fact, some people were saying Sarkisian wasn't the guy after the Debacle In the Desert I last season (52-17 loss to Arizona). Others said so after the AC, and more said it after the BSU bowel loss. To be perfectly honest, I was about 70% sure he wasn't the guy but it was after the Debacle In The Desert II (in his 5th season!) that caused me to see Sloppy Steve for who he really is (better late than never, though).
So yes, Sarksian has coached the Huskies for 61 games so far and it's totally clear to most people who really comprehend the intricacies / nuances of football that he'll never be the guy.
Another wise man said it's better to fire a coach a year early rather than a year late. Firing Sarkisian too late would do massive damage to recruiting and the financial health of the program.
Larry,
I am saddened by your article in today's Seattle Times.
In it you state we must remember how far the program fell under Tyrone Willingham. Come on, when is that excuse going to be thrown into the garbage? We are in year five of Sark's tenure, and we continue to get the same results year in and year out. Five years dude ... five years. I don't think Harbaugh had it any easier at Stanford, and Leach, in year two (at Wazzu), has the same conference record as Sark ... AT WAZZU!!!! So put the card down ... it is time to start holding Sark to the Rose Bowls and championships he likes to say he is competing for.
It doesn't matter what Tyrone Willingham did six years ago. Sark is 2-4 against teams with winning records ... 2-4. And one of those teams is a mid-major having an off year. And Sark just completed his 5th straight three game losing streak, which, is always crowned with a massive blowout. Should we even discuss his road record? Or what about his penalty problem ... I know he is on record as saying penalties don't matter, but the facts prove him wrong.
The players deserve better, your readers deserve better, and frankly ... the tax payers deserve better. Sark is the highest paid public University coach in the Pac12 ... and he is the highest paid state employee. Sark needs to be accountable for his failure. It is not Tyrone Willingham's problem. Sark is paid very, very well to manage this program ... and he has failed.
In closing I would like to examine a quote you made:
The new aspiration, which falls into the category of baby steps, is to win the final two regular-season games against Oregon State and Washington State, and catapult past the 7-6 rut of the past three seasons.
Baby steps? Five years and we are still taking baby steps? Catapult? You consider 8-4 ... and staring down the barrel of a possible 8-5 season a catapult?
Bill Parcells once said "You are what your record says you are". Sark for the past 4 years has been at .500 ...
This is Washington. We expect more.
I'm entitled to not hold my breath.
We understand that winning doesn't just happen. All of our evidence points to schools who continually fired bad coaches until they got a good or great one. Nothing points to sticking with someone with Sark's record.
At all.
I thought you were a joke account until this post. The doog logic it contains has to be real. That kind of inanity can't be faked.