I don't think it's bullshit, the defense played better and more consistently last year. But he has been over hyped for sure.
The WSU and Boise losses stemmed from one man: Sark
Wilcox deserves a ton of shit for blowing the 18 point lead in the Apple Cup.
Absolutely. But when you look at Keith Price smiling at the coin flip, the softness of the team in the fourth quarter of the WSU and Boise games, the image of our guys doing the Lawn Mower, that all stems from the top-- Sark.
Spot on. I don't think we will ever see a Sark team that isn't soft and undisciplined.
I don't think it's bullshit, the defense played better and more consistently last year. But he has been over hyped for sure.
The WSU and Boise losses stemmed from one man: Sark
Wilcox deserves a ton of shit for blowing the 18 point lead in the Apple Cup.
Absolutely. But when you look at Keith Price smiling at the coin flip, the softness of the team in the fourth quarter of the WSU and Boise games, the image of our guys doing the Lawn Mower, that all stems from the top-- Sark.
Spot on. I don't think we will ever see a Sark team that isn't soft and undisciplined.
Are you saying he Rick without the Rosebowl? How dare you!
I don't think anyone here thinks that we're a 3-8 program right now. I think what bothers most of us is that UW is not putting its best foot forward. That we're doomed to win 5-8 games a year in perpetuity.
I disagree.....the new stadium? paying top dollar for assistants?
I don't think Wilcox sucks, but I'm not ready to heap as much praise as you. Saying that Texas wanted him isn't proof. Did you know Sark rebuffed several teams this year? You're making a lot of the same arguments for Wilcox that doogs make for Sark. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. And as always, let it play out.
The same arguments?
The defense improving from 106th to 31st? Holding 8 of the first 11 teams to less than 20 points? There's a similar fact-based argument for Sark?
The doogs were the ones saying if we had an average defense we'd win 9 or 10 games. Well, we had an above average defense and only won 7 because the brains behind the offense (Nuss) left and Sark is a fuckhead.
I don't think Wilcox sucks, but I'm not ready to heap as much praise as you. Saying that Texas wanted him isn't proof. Did you know Sark rebuffed several teams this year? You're making a lot of the same arguments for Wilcox that doogs make for Sark. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. And as always, let it play out.
The same arguments?
The defense improving from 106th to 31st? Holding 8 of the first 11 teams to less than 20 points? There's a similar fact-based argument for Sark?
The doogs were the ones saying if we had an average defense we'd win 9 or 10 games. Well, we had an above average defense and only won 7 because the brains behind the offense (Nuss) left and Sark is a fuckhead.
Yes, very similar argument. In 2008, Saragin had UW at 129, the next year they were 52. Wilcox replaced an abysmal coach and got them to average. Just like Sark. Just like Sark, Wilcox was crowned a great coach, recruiter, staff builder etc. before actually doing anything. We hear how other schools want him, just like we hear about Sark. All I'm saying is I've heard this one before. Let it play out.
I don't think anyone here thinks that we're a 3-8 program right now. I think what bothers most of us is that UW is not putting its best foot forward. That we're doomed to win 5-8 games a year in perpetuity.
I disagree.....the new stadium? paying top dollar for assistants?
I don't think Wilcox sucks, but I'm not ready to heap as much praise as you. Saying that Texas wanted him isn't proof. Did you know Sark rebuffed several teams this year? You're making a lot of the same arguments for Wilcox that doogs make for Sark. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. And as always, let it play out.
The same arguments?
The defense improving from 106th to 31st? Holding 8 of the first 11 teams to less than 20 points? There's a similar fact-based argument for Sark?
The doogs were the ones saying if we had an average defense we'd win 9 or 10 games. Well, we had an above average defense and only won 7 because the brains behind the offense (Nuss) left and Sark is a fuckhead.
Yes, very similar argument. In 2008, Saragin had UW at 129, the next year they were 52. Wilcox replaced an abysmal coach and got them to average. Just like Sark. Just like Sark, Wilcox was crowned a great coach, recruiter, staff builder etc. before actually doing anything. We hear how other schools want him, just like we hear about Sark. All I'm saying is I've heard this one before. Let it play out.
I've never heard anyone call Wilcox a great recruiter.
And the defense Wilcox inherited made much bigger strides in year 1 than Sark's team did. Most importantly, Wilcox has a track record and resume that massively trumps Sark's. There's a REASON to believe in Wilcox, and it's not just his first year at UW. He's succeeded at a smaller conference school and at an SEC school. He's been successful with defenses with great talent and defenses without great talent.
Sark was sort of a success as an OC at the school with the most offensive talent in the country. There was plenty of reason to be skeptical about him as HC, and he needed to do a lot more than have one 5 win season to overcome that. There's no such reason to be skeptical about Wilcox. He's legit. The only question is why he hasn't been promoted to HC.
I don't think Wilcox sucks, but I'm not ready to heap as much praise as you. Saying that Texas wanted him isn't proof. Did you know Sark rebuffed several teams this year? You're making a lot of the same arguments for Wilcox that doogs make for Sark. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. And as always, let it play out.
The same arguments?
The defense improving from 106th to 31st? Holding 8 of the first 11 teams to less than 20 points? There's a similar fact-based argument for Sark?
The doogs were the ones saying if we had an average defense we'd win 9 or 10 games. Well, we had an above average defense and only won 7 because the brains behind the offense (Nuss) left and Sark is a fuckhead.
Yes, very similar argument. In 2008, Saragin had UW at 129, the next year they were 52. Wilcox replaced an abysmal coach and got them to average. Just like Sark. Just like Sark, Wilcox was crowned a great coach, recruiter, staff builder etc. before actually doing anything. We hear how other schools want him, just like we hear about Sark. All I'm saying is I've heard this one before. Let it play out.
I've never heard anyone call Wilcox a great recruiter.
And the defense Wilcox inherited made much bigger strides in year 1 than Sark's team did. Most importantly, Wilcox has a track record and resume that massively trumps Sark's. There's a REASON to believe in Wilcox, and it's not just his first year at UW. He's succeeded at a smaller conference school and at an SEC school. He's been successful with defenses with great talent and defenses without great talent.
Sark was sort of a success as an OC at the school with the most offensive talent in the country. There was plenty of reason to be skeptical about him as HC, and he needed to do a lot more than have one 5 win season to overcome that. There's no such reason to be skeptical about Wilcox. He's legit. The only question is why he hasn't been promoted to HC.
Don't get me wrong, I like Wilcox. But did he really SUCCEED at a SEC school? Wasn't Tenn's defense ranked around 35th?
I don't think Wilcox sucks, but I'm not ready to heap as much praise as you. Saying that Texas wanted him isn't proof. Did you know Sark rebuffed several teams this year? You're making a lot of the same arguments for Wilcox that doogs make for Sark. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. And as always, let it play out.
The same arguments?
The defense improving from 106th to 31st? Holding 8 of the first 11 teams to less than 20 points? There's a similar fact-based argument for Sark?
The doogs were the ones saying if we had an average defense we'd win 9 or 10 games. Well, we had an above average defense and only won 7 because the brains behind the offense (Nuss) left and Sark is a fuckhead.
Yes, very similar argument. In 2008, Saragin had UW at 129, the next year they were 52. Wilcox replaced an abysmal coach and got them to average. Just like Sark. Just like Sark, Wilcox was crowned a great coach, recruiter, staff builder etc. before actually doing anything. We hear how other schools want him, just like we hear about Sark. All I'm saying is I've heard this one before. Let it play out.
I've never heard anyone call Wilcox a great recruiter.
And the defense Wilcox inherited made much bigger strides in year 1 than Sark's team did. Most importantly, Wilcox has a track record and resume that massively trumps Sark's. There's a REASON to believe in Wilcox, and it's not just his first year at UW. He's succeeded at a smaller conference school and at an SEC school. He's been successful with defenses with great talent and defenses without great talent.
Sark was sort of a success as an OC at the school with the most offensive talent in the country. There was plenty of reason to be skeptical about him as HC, and he needed to do a lot more than have one 5 win season to overcome that. There's no such reason to be skeptical about Wilcox. He's legit. The only question is why he hasn't been promoted to HC.
Don't get me wrong, I like Wilcox. But did he really SUCCEED at a SEC school? Wasn't Tenn's defense ranked around 35th?
Tennessee's defense was horrible without him this year. Tennessee's offense had some really good players, but they got shredded every time I watched them. It is still too early to say if Wilcox is great, but the early returns are about as good as anyone could expect.
I don't think Wilcox sucks, but I'm not ready to heap as much praise as you. Saying that Texas wanted him isn't proof. Did you know Sark rebuffed several teams this year? You're making a lot of the same arguments for Wilcox that doogs make for Sark. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. And as always, let it play out.
The same arguments?
The defense improving from 106th to 31st? Holding 8 of the first 11 teams to less than 20 points? There's a similar fact-based argument for Sark?
The doogs were the ones saying if we had an average defense we'd win 9 or 10 games. Well, we had an above average defense and only won 7 because the brains behind the offense (Nuss) left and Sark is a fuckhead.
Yes, very similar argument. In 2008, Saragin had UW at 129, the next year they were 52. Wilcox replaced an abysmal coach and got them to average. Just like Sark. Just like Sark, Wilcox was crowned a great coach, recruiter, staff builder etc. before actually doing anything. We hear how other schools want him, just like we hear about Sark. All I'm saying is I've heard this one before. Let it play out.
I've never heard anyone call Wilcox a great recruiter.
And the defense Wilcox inherited made much bigger strides in year 1 than Sark's team did. Most importantly, Wilcox has a track record and resume that massively trumps Sark's. There's a REASON to believe in Wilcox, and it's not just his first year at UW. He's succeeded at a smaller conference school and at an SEC school. He's been successful with defenses with great talent and defenses without great talent.
Sark was sort of a success as an OC at the school with the most offensive talent in the country. There was plenty of reason to be skeptical about him as HC, and he needed to do a lot more than have one 5 win season to overcome that. There's no such reason to be skeptical about Wilcox. He's legit. The only question is why he hasn't been promoted to HC.
If you can't see the parallels of irrational exuberance between the the two then I can't help you. I wonder if he was promoted to head coach if he would give a kick ass presser. As always, let it play out.
I don't think Wilcox sucks, but I'm not ready to heap as much praise as you. Saying that Texas wanted him isn't proof. Did you know Sark rebuffed several teams this year? You're making a lot of the same arguments for Wilcox that doogs make for Sark. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. And as always, let it play out.
The same arguments?
The defense improving from 106th to 31st? Holding 8 of the first 11 teams to less than 20 points? There's a similar fact-based argument for Sark?
The doogs were the ones saying if we had an average defense we'd win 9 or 10 games. Well, we had an above average defense and only won 7 because the brains behind the offense (Nuss) left and Sark is a fuckhead.
Yes, very similar argument. In 2008, Saragin had UW at 129, the next year they were 52. Wilcox replaced an abysmal coach and got them to average. Just like Sark. Just like Sark, Wilcox was crowned a great coach, recruiter, staff builder etc. before actually doing anything. We hear how other schools want him, just like we hear about Sark. All I'm saying is I've heard this one before. Let it play out.
I've never heard anyone call Wilcox a great recruiter.
And the defense Wilcox inherited made much bigger strides in year 1 than Sark's team did. Most importantly, Wilcox has a track record and resume that massively trumps Sark's. There's a REASON to believe in Wilcox, and it's not just his first year at UW. He's succeeded at a smaller conference school and at an SEC school. He's been successful with defenses with great talent and defenses without great talent.
Sark was sort of a success as an OC at the school with the most offensive talent in the country. There was plenty of reason to be skeptical about him as HC, and he needed to do a lot more than have one 5 win season to overcome that. There's no such reason to be skeptical about Wilcox. He's legit. The only question is why he hasn't been promoted to HC.
Don't get me wrong, I like Wilcox. But did he really SUCCEED at a SEC school? Wasn't Tenn's defense ranked around 35th?
Tennessee's defense was horrible without him this year. Tennessee's offense had some really good players, but they got shredded every time I watched them. It is still too early to say if Wilcox is great, but the early returns are about as good as anyone could expect.
Then the argument could be made that he didn't really leave much of an impact after leaving there.
I don't think Wilcox sucks, but I'm not ready to heap as much praise as you. Saying that Texas wanted him isn't proof. Did you know Sark rebuffed several teams this year? You're making a lot of the same arguments for Wilcox that doogs make for Sark. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. And as always, let it play out.
The same arguments?
The defense improving from 106th to 31st? Holding 8 of the first 11 teams to less than 20 points? There's a similar fact-based argument for Sark?
The doogs were the ones saying if we had an average defense we'd win 9 or 10 games. Well, we had an above average defense and only won 7 because the brains behind the offense (Nuss) left and Sark is a fuckhead.
Yes, very similar argument. In 2008, Saragin had UW at 129, the next year they were 52. Wilcox replaced an abysmal coach and got them to average. Just like Sark. Just like Sark, Wilcox was crowned a great coach, recruiter, staff builder etc. before actually doing anything. We hear how other schools want him, just like we hear about Sark. All I'm saying is I've heard this one before. Let it play out.
I've never heard anyone call Wilcox a great recruiter.
And the defense Wilcox inherited made much bigger strides in year 1 than Sark's team did. Most importantly, Wilcox has a track record and resume that massively trumps Sark's. There's a REASON to believe in Wilcox, and it's not just his first year at UW. He's succeeded at a smaller conference school and at an SEC school. He's been successful with defenses with great talent and defenses without great talent.
Sark was sort of a success as an OC at the school with the most offensive talent in the country. There was plenty of reason to be skeptical about him as HC, and he needed to do a lot more than have one 5 win season to overcome that. There's no such reason to be skeptical about Wilcox. He's legit. The only question is why he hasn't been promoted to HC.
Don't get me wrong, I like Wilcox. But did he really SUCCEED at a SEC school? Wasn't Tenn's defense ranked around 35th?
Tennessee's defense was horrible without him this year. Tennessee's offense had some really good players, but they got shredded every time I watched them. It is still too early to say if Wilcox is great, but the early returns are about as good as anyone could expect.
Then the argument could be made that he didn't really leave much of an impact after leaving there.
I guess Holt had a nice impact on UW's defense, they were pretty good after he left.
I don't think Wilcox sucks, but I'm not ready to heap as much praise as you. Saying that Texas wanted him isn't proof. Did you know Sark rebuffed several teams this year? You're making a lot of the same arguments for Wilcox that doogs make for Sark. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. And as always, let it play out.
The same arguments?
The defense improving from 106th to 31st? Holding 8 of the first 11 teams to less than 20 points? There's a similar fact-based argument for Sark?
The doogs were the ones saying if we had an average defense we'd win 9 or 10 games. Well, we had an above average defense and only won 7 because the brains behind the offense (Nuss) left and Sark is a fuckhead.
Yes, very similar argument. In 2008, Saragin had UW at 129, the next year they were 52. Wilcox replaced an abysmal coach and got them to average. Just like Sark. Just like Sark, Wilcox was crowned a great coach, recruiter, staff builder etc. before actually doing anything. We hear how other schools want him, just like we hear about Sark. All I'm saying is I've heard this one before. Let it play out.
I've never heard anyone call Wilcox a great recruiter.
And the defense Wilcox inherited made much bigger strides in year 1 than Sark's team did. Most importantly, Wilcox has a track record and resume that massively trumps Sark's. There's a REASON to believe in Wilcox, and it's not just his first year at UW. He's succeeded at a smaller conference school and at an SEC school. He's been successful with defenses with great talent and defenses without great talent.
Sark was sort of a success as an OC at the school with the most offensive talent in the country. There was plenty of reason to be skeptical about him as HC, and he needed to do a lot more than have one 5 win season to overcome that. There's no such reason to be skeptical about Wilcox. He's legit. The only question is why he hasn't been promoted to HC.
Don't get me wrong, I like Wilcox. But did he really SUCCEED at a SEC school? Wasn't Tenn's defense ranked around 35th?
Tennessee's defense was horrible without him this year. Tennessee's offense had some really good players, but they got shredded every time I watched them. It is still too early to say if Wilcox is great, but the early returns are about as good as anyone could expect.
Then the argument could be made that he didn't really leave much of an impact after leaving there.
Our offense sputtered post-Nussmeier. Considering Nick Saban wanted him and he added like 17 points/game to Alabama's offense (I know that was the number at one point in the season) I think it is a testament to the fact that coordinators' impacts are felt when they are there.
I don't think Wilcox sucks, but I'm not ready to heap as much praise as you. Saying that Texas wanted him isn't proof. Did you know Sark rebuffed several teams this year? You're making a lot of the same arguments for Wilcox that doogs make for Sark. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. And as always, let it play out.
The same arguments?
The defense improving from 106th to 31st? Holding 8 of the first 11 teams to less than 20 points? There's a similar fact-based argument for Sark?
The doogs were the ones saying if we had an average defense we'd win 9 or 10 games. Well, we had an above average defense and only won 7 because the brains behind the offense (Nuss) left and Sark is a fuckhead.
Yes, very similar argument. In 2008, Saragin had UW at 129, the next year they were 52. Wilcox replaced an abysmal coach and got them to average. Just like Sark. Just like Sark, Wilcox was crowned a great coach, recruiter, staff builder etc. before actually doing anything. We hear how other schools want him, just like we hear about Sark. All I'm saying is I've heard this one before. Let it play out.
I've never heard anyone call Wilcox a great recruiter.
And the defense Wilcox inherited made much bigger strides in year 1 than Sark's team did. Most importantly, Wilcox has a track record and resume that massively trumps Sark's. There's a REASON to believe in Wilcox, and it's not just his first year at UW. He's succeeded at a smaller conference school and at an SEC school. He's been successful with defenses with great talent and defenses without great talent.
Sark was sort of a success as an OC at the school with the most offensive talent in the country. There was plenty of reason to be skeptical about him as HC, and he needed to do a lot more than have one 5 win season to overcome that. There's no such reason to be skeptical about Wilcox. He's legit. The only question is why he hasn't been promoted to HC.
Don't get me wrong, I like Wilcox. But did he really SUCCEED at a SEC school? Wasn't Tenn's defense ranked around 35th?
Tennessee's defense was horrible without him this year. Tennessee's offense had some really good players, but they got shredded every time I watched them. It is still too early to say if Wilcox is great, but the early returns are about as good as anyone could expect.
Then the argument could be made that he didn't really leave much of an impact after leaving there.
I guess Holt had a nice impact on UW's defense, they were pretty good after he left.
Woodward tried to hire other guys (Muschamp, Meyer, Mora) and they all said no. Sark was clearly not the first choice. We weren't a 0 win team but the perception of UW then was quite lousy and it affected the pool of candidates.
Not saying I have confidence in him but getting the stadium done was huge and the school kept raising the bar until Tosh said yes. We'll see how he deals with Sark after this year. At the 2012 recruiting dinner Fleenor and Aandy said that if Sark took another job, Woodward's first choice would be Mora.
I don't think Wilcox sucks, but I'm not ready to heap as much praise as you. Saying that Texas wanted him isn't proof. Did you know Sark rebuffed several teams this year? You're making a lot of the same arguments for Wilcox that doogs make for Sark. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. And as always, let it play out.
The same arguments?
The defense improving from 106th to 31st? Holding 8 of the first 11 teams to less than 20 points? There's a similar fact-based argument for Sark?
The doogs were the ones saying if we had an average defense we'd win 9 or 10 games. Well, we had an above average defense and only won 7 because the brains behind the offense (Nuss) left and Sark is a fuckhead.
Yes, very similar argument. In 2008, Saragin had UW at 129, the next year they were 52. Wilcox replaced an abysmal coach and got them to average. Just like Sark. Just like Sark, Wilcox was crowned a great coach, recruiter, staff builder etc. before actually doing anything. We hear how other schools want him, just like we hear about Sark. All I'm saying is I've heard this one before. Let it play out.
I've never heard anyone call Wilcox a great recruiter.
And the defense Wilcox inherited made much bigger strides in year 1 than Sark's team did. Most importantly, Wilcox has a track record and resume that massively trumps Sark's. There's a REASON to believe in Wilcox, and it's not just his first year at UW. He's succeeded at a smaller conference school and at an SEC school. He's been successful with defenses with great talent and defenses without great talent.
Sark was sort of a success as an OC at the school with the most offensive talent in the country. There was plenty of reason to be skeptical about him as HC, and he needed to do a lot more than have one 5 win season to overcome that. There's no such reason to be skeptical about Wilcox. He's legit. The only question is why he hasn't been promoted to HC.
Bingo....big strides in year 1 and previous track record at multiple stops. Sark had no track record.
I don't think Wilcox sucks, but I'm not ready to heap as much praise as you. Saying that Texas wanted him isn't proof. Did you know Sark rebuffed several teams this year? You're making a lot of the same arguments for Wilcox that doogs make for Sark. Check yourself before you wreck yourself. And as always, let it play out.
The same arguments?
The defense improving from 106th to 31st? Holding 8 of the first 11 teams to less than 20 points? There's a similar fact-based argument for Sark?
The doogs were the ones saying if we had an average defense we'd win 9 or 10 games. Well, we had an above average defense and only won 7 because the brains behind the offense (Nuss) left and Sark is a fuckhead.
Yes, very similar argument. In 2008, Saragin had UW at 129, the next year they were 52. Wilcox replaced an abysmal coach and got them to average. Just like Sark. Just like Sark, Wilcox was crowned a great coach, recruiter, staff builder etc. before actually doing anything. We hear how other schools want him, just like we hear about Sark. All I'm saying is I've heard this one before. Let it play out.
I've never heard anyone call Wilcox a great recruiter.
And the defense Wilcox inherited made much bigger strides in year 1 than Sark's team did. Most importantly, Wilcox has a track record and resume that massively trumps Sark's. There's a REASON to believe in Wilcox, and it's not just his first year at UW. He's succeeded at a smaller conference school and at an SEC school. He's been successful with defenses with great talent and defenses without great talent.
Sark was sort of a success as an OC at the school with the most offensive talent in the country. There was plenty of reason to be skeptical about him as HC, and he needed to do a lot more than have one 5 win season to overcome that. There's no such reason to be skeptical about Wilcox. He's legit. The only question is why he hasn't been promoted to HC.
Bingo....big strides in year 1 and previous track record at multiple stops. Sark had no track record.
Ok. This is getting into Doog territory. Call me when we have a top 10, 15, or even 20 defense. Until then, meh, maybe he's awesome and the best coordinator we've ever had, or maybe not.
Woodward tried to hire other guys (Muschamp, Meyer, Mora) and they all said no. Sark was clearly not the first choice. We weren't a 0 win team but the perception of UW then was quite lousy and it affected the pool of candidates.
Not saying I have confidence in him but getting the stadium done was huge and the school kept raising the bar until Tosh said yes. We'll see how he deals with Sark after this year. At the 2012 recruiting dinner Fleenor and Aandy said that if Sark took another job, Woodward's first choice would be Mora.
Woodward tried to hire Meyer? That was Turner that interviewed Meyer and I think Meyer said something about Turner being a little weird.
Woodward gets a shit ton of credit for moving the stadium forward and getting it done and I will be the first to say that but you only need to look at his recent comments in the Baghdad Gregg article to see that the guy is Turner-lite.
While he might want a winner, he's a lot like Sark in that he has very little practical experience. He was Emmert political lackey before getting the AD job - he didn't grow up as an AD and doesn't have the depth of experience that comes from years of working for different ADs and different schools. Sark is similar in that except for a year or two at a JC and a year on the Raiders staff, he only knows how Pete Carroll operated and that was with some of the best talent in the country. He has nothing to fall back on when things go south.
Wilcox isn't perfect but he's damn good. The guy has a strong track record at multiple schools and Texas tried to hire him two years ago. It's fucking Texas. The defense went from 106th to 31st or whatever it was. Up until the last two games it held 7 teams under 20 points, plus USC technically because their offense only scored 17. Yes WSU rallied late but it was the defense that accounted for most of our points. Arizona game? Well genius Sark tried to pass all over a team that had a high school run defense. You think the defense gives up 50 if we run Sankey 35 times and control the clock? (BTW, UCLA gave up 28ppg last year, we gave up 24ppg).
Also a few days ago I read something and I think it mentioned that Wilcox is very strict and detail oriented in his practices. He's clearly a 180 from Sark.
The D coaches are quite good. And Sirmon and Tosh are great recruiters. They immediately bolstered the 2012 class which was basically average before they showed up. Tosh brought in a strong D-line class this year and the LB's also look good. The problem is 7-6 is holding them back.
I know its not the company line but everything doesn't suck about the program. New stadium and strong d coaches are big strengthes. Nuss was hired at Alabama. Do you think the offense would have been better last year with Nuss there?
90% of the problem is Sark.
I totally agree with you on the stadium and facilities. They are world class and potential game changers for the program, but color me jaded on the coaching staff. Sark is who he is, and at best, the jury is out on Wilcox and Co. I know you're throwing the UCLA defense comparison in for the HHB bunch, but it really doesn't mean much. They're just another PAC 12 team with a weak PAC 12 defense. In fact they ranked 73rd in total defense last year, which is downright pathetic. Mora is doing a good job of instilling toughness in that team, so they may break that mold in the future, but for now, if we're talking about defense, you have to compare the Huskies to programs outside the PAC 12 to see where the defense stands, and right now, it's mediocre at best.
In the past, what has set UW apart in this league has been tenacious defense, a balanced offense, disciplined special teams, and toughness across the board. Sark is a big part of the problem. The team lacks discipline and though there are a few tough players on this team, they are the exception not the rule. This team plays soft, it cannot rely on a tough nasty streak to help them punish opponents and overcome mistakes, and virtually every "big win" under Sark has had some qualifier, from opponent's key injuries, to bone headed moves by the opponent's coaching staff, to teams that just didn't care to be there. I have no doubt that until this team becomes disciplined, and the mental and physical toughness changes for the better, we're going to be stuck in that 5-8 win range Derek mentioned.
Comments
Spot on. I don't think we will ever see a Sark team that isn't soft and undisciplined.
Sark is the biggest problem.
The defense improving from 106th to 31st? Holding 8 of the first 11 teams to less than 20 points? There's a similar fact-based argument for Sark?
The doogs were the ones saying if we had an average defense we'd win 9 or 10 games. Well, we had an above average defense and only won 7 because the brains behind the offense (Nuss) left and Sark is a fuckhead.
And the defense Wilcox inherited made much bigger strides in year 1 than Sark's team did. Most importantly, Wilcox has a track record and resume that massively trumps Sark's. There's a REASON to believe in Wilcox, and it's not just his first year at UW. He's succeeded at a smaller conference school and at an SEC school. He's been successful with defenses with great talent and defenses without great talent.
Sark was sort of a success as an OC at the school with the most offensive talent in the country. There was plenty of reason to be skeptical about him as HC, and he needed to do a lot more than have one 5 win season to overcome that. There's no such reason to be skeptical about Wilcox. He's legit. The only question is why he hasn't been promoted to HC.
Don't get me wrong, I like Wilcox. But did he really SUCCEED at a SEC school? Wasn't Tenn's defense ranked around 35th?
Tennessee's defense was horrible without him this year. Tennessee's offense had some really good players, but they got shredded every time I watched them. It is still too early to say if Wilcox is great, but the early returns are about as good as anyone could expect.
Douche
Not saying I have confidence in him but getting the stadium done was huge and the school kept raising the bar until Tosh said yes. We'll see how he deals with Sark after this year. At the 2012 recruiting dinner Fleenor and Aandy said that if Sark took another job, Woodward's first choice would be Mora.
Woodward gets a shit ton of credit for moving the stadium forward and getting it done and I will be the first to say that but you only need to look at his recent comments in the Baghdad Gregg article to see that the guy is Turner-lite.
While he might want a winner, he's a lot like Sark in that he has very little practical experience. He was Emmert political lackey before getting the AD job - he didn't grow up as an AD and doesn't have the depth of experience that comes from years of working for different ADs and different schools. Sark is similar in that except for a year or two at a JC and a year on the Raiders staff, he only knows how Pete Carroll operated and that was with some of the best talent in the country. He has nothing to fall back on when things go south.
In the past, what has set UW apart in this league has been tenacious defense, a balanced offense, disciplined special teams, and toughness across the board. Sark is a big part of the problem. The team lacks discipline and though there are a few tough players on this team, they are the exception not the rule. This team plays soft, it cannot rely on a tough nasty streak to help them punish opponents and overcome mistakes, and virtually every "big win" under Sark has had some qualifier, from opponent's key injuries, to bone headed moves by the opponent's coaching staff, to teams that just didn't care to be there. I have no doubt that until this team becomes disciplined, and the mental and physical toughness changes for the better, we're going to be stuck in that 5-8 win range Derek mentioned.