On a positive note...
Comments
-
DerekJohnson said:
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.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Wilcox deserves a ton of shit for blowing the 18 point lead in the Apple Cup.DerekJohnson said: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
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!RoadDawg55 said:DerekJohnson said:
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.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Wilcox deserves a ton of shit for blowing the 18 point lead in the Apple Cup.DerekJohnson said: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
Spot on. I don't think we will ever see a Sark team that isn't soft and undisciplined. -
I disagree.....the new stadium? paying top dollar for assistants?DerekJohnson said: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.
Sark is the biggest problem.
-
The same arguments?MikeDamone said:"Sirmon and Tosh are great recruiters"
Does everyone say so?
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 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.ACSlaterDawg said:
The same arguments?MikeDamone said:"Sirmon and Tosh are great recruiters"
Does everyone say so?
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 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. -
that's exactly what i've been sayingACSlaterDawg said:
I disagree.....the new stadium? paying top dollar for assistants?DerekJohnson said: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.
Sark is the biggest problem. -
I've never heard anyone call Wilcox a great recruiter.MikeDamone said:
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.ACSlaterDawg said:
The same arguments?MikeDamone said:"Sirmon and Tosh are great recruiters"
Does everyone say so?
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 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.
-
HillsboroDuck said:
I've never heard anyone call Wilcox a great recruiter.MikeDamone said:
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.ACSlaterDawg said:
The same arguments?MikeDamone said:"Sirmon and Tosh are great recruiters"
Does everyone say so?
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 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?
-
DerekJohnson said:HillsboroDuck said:
I've never heard anyone call Wilcox a great recruiter.MikeDamone said:
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.ACSlaterDawg said:
The same arguments?MikeDamone said:"Sirmon and Tosh are great recruiters"
Does everyone say so?
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 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.
-
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.HillsboroDuck said:
I've never heard anyone call Wilcox a great recruiter.MikeDamone said:
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.ACSlaterDawg said:
The same arguments?MikeDamone said:"Sirmon and Tosh are great recruiters"
Does everyone say so?
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 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.
