The standards of success for Husky Football 2013
Comments
-
Check the rules at the top of the board. TierbsHsotBoobs works hard on his outdated talking points and we're lucky to have them here.
Little early to claim pool boy isn't who we thought he was. He has UW on the hook for a quarter billion and a shitty team that won't fill it -
Please feel free to cite any outdated talking points.ACSlaterDawg said:
I like to stick to my talking points even though they are wrong and outdated.TierbsHsotBoobs said:Woodward is Emmert's pool boy. Trying to separate the two is Doogtarded.
Woodward is the guy who hired Sark and has defended his consistent mediocrity for the past four years.
Woodward himself is the guy who inspired the incremental progress joke of 7-6 > 7-6 > 7-6. That talking point is completely relevant. -
The incremental progress comment after the AC is fucking stupid but what is he supposed to say publicly? We haven't improved in 3 years and need to win 9-10 next year? Other teams would use it against UW in recruiting. Again, actions > words.
Like I said, Woodie has actually done some good things and the pool boy moniker is silly at this point.
Going forward, its his #1 job to make sure there is a strong football program and that stadium is filled and I'm less confident about that. -
ACSlaterDawg said:
The incremental progress comment after the AC is fucking stupid but what is he supposed to say publicly? We haven't improved in 3 years and need to win 9-10 next year? Other teams would use it against UW in recruiting. Again, actions > words.
Like I said, Woodie has actually done some good things and the pool boy moniker is silly at this point.
Going forward, its his #1 job to make sure there is a strong football program and that stadium is filled and I'm less confident about that.
A real AD would have actually fired Sark's sorry ass at midfield of Martin Vandal Stadium after the Apple Cup to address that problem.
Woodward got his job by being a pool boy and continues to tolerate mediocrity because he's a pool boy.
HTH
-
The key to a good season is not so much wins and losses, but how the dawgs compete against the tough teams. Even if they loose to Stanford, Oregon, ASU, Arizona, Ucla, if they make it competitive and close then it will be a sign that the program is on an upward spiral. If the blowouts continue , then Sark will really be on the hot seat. I see as most likely an 8-4 season. The key in the losses is how close are they.
-
73dawg said:
The key to a good season is not so much wins and losses, but how the dawgs compete against the tough teams. Even if they loose to Stanford, Oregon, ASU, Arizona, Ucla, if they make it competitive and close then it will be a sign that the program is on an upward spiral. If the blowouts continue , then Sark will really be on the hot seat. I see as most likely an 8-4 season. The key in the losses is how close are they.
Some here will mock you for saying this, but I agree. While I do think Sark should have 4-6 more wins during his reign, the blowouts are what really piss me off. They are happening multiple times every season and they need to stop.
8-4 with no blowouts would be a huge step in the rifht direction where I could actually believe we could win 10 or 11 in 2014. Unfortunately, I know we will get blown out at least a couple times.
-
RoadDawg55 said:73dawg said:
The key to a good season is not so much wins and losses, but how the dawgs compete against the tough teams. Even if they loose to Stanford, Oregon, ASU, Arizona, Ucla, if they make it competitive and close then it will be a sign that the program is on an upward spiral. If the blowouts continue , then Sark will really be on the hot seat. I see as most likely an 8-4 season. The key in the losses is how close are they.
Some here will mock you for saying this, but I agree. While I do think Sark should have 4-6 more wins during his reign, the blowouts are what really piss me off. They are happening multiple times every season and they need to stop.
8-4 with no blowouts would be a huge step in the rifht direction where I could actually believe we could win 10 or 11 in 2014. Unfortunately, I know we will get blown out at least a couple times.
8-4 with this schedule is still mediocre bullshit.
Hope this helps.
-
Actually boobs, it really depends. Say UW makes two more FGs and is 9-4 last year. Everyone would be saying its a top 20 team that would go 9-3 or 10-2. But, that would overlook the stats and metrics (like point differential) that say it was a mediocre, 7-5 team that would not be ready to improve in terms of W/L.
Texas A&M was 7-6 in 2011 but their point differential was +11ppg. They had numerous very close losses. Thus, they were in position to make a significant jump in W/L the next season.
If you are 8-4 and +5ppg then thats mediocre. But if UW is 8-4 and average +13ppg then that is considerable improvement.
However, 8 wins is the worst fucking outcome possible. 7 and theres a decent chance Sark is gone. 9 and thats enough to have another solid recruiting class which would give you two in a row (09-12 classes were mediocre as a whole, last one was good) and raise expectations to 10 wins & Pac12 north title in 2014. 8 wins placates the fag fans, the media, takes pressure off the AD and confirms that mushrooms will grow out of my ass before Sark ever catches a whiff of whats needed to field and coach a championship squad.
-
Exactly. In 2011 the doogs said 7 wins showed progress. They were ecstatic hat the team started 6-2. The metics said bullshit. The schedule was front loaded with the easier games. The Arizona game was won with the luckiest, most improbable interception ever that got them to "house money". They were crushed by Nebraska , Stanford Oregon, USC, And Oregon State. Sark wasn't the problem they said, it was Holt who previously was known as the best DC in America. But they got 7 wins. You're right, this year if they get to 8, you should start farming mushrooms from your ass. I would even say start that up if they get to 7.ACSlaterDawg said:Actually boobs, it really depends. Say UW makes two more FGs and is 9-4 last year. Everyone would be saying its a top 20 team that would go 9-3 or 10-2. But, that would overlook the stats and metrics (like point differential) that say it was a mediocre, 7-5 team that would not be ready to improve in terms of W/L.
Texas A&M was 7-6 in 2011 but their point differential was +11ppg. They had numerous very close losses. Thus, they were in position to make a significant jump in W/L the next season.
If you are 8-4 and +5ppg then thats mediocre. But if UW is 8-4 and average +13ppg then that is considerable improvement.
However, 8 wins is the worst fucking outcome possible. 7 and theres a decent chance Sark is gone. 9 and thats enough to have another solid recruiting class which would give you two in a row (09-12 classes were mediocre as a whole, last one was good) and raise expectations to 10 wins & Pac12 north title in 2014. 8 wins placates the fag fans, the media, takes pressure off the AD and confirms that mushrooms will grow out of my ass before Sark ever catches a whiff of whats needed to field and coach a championship squad. -
Any way you look at it, Sark is not likely to meet any of our expectations. Does anybody really believe we will start playing well on the road? Does anyone believe we won't get blown out a couple of times this year? This year is going to be no different than any other year under Sark. We will win a really tough game or two, lose an unfathomable game, get blown out a couple times and call it a season with a record of 7-6. All we can do is pray a change happens after the season.
