At the 2012 recruiting dinner Fleenor and Aandy said that if Sark took another job, Woodward's first choice would be Mora.
If Fleenor and AANDY said it, it's bullshit.
Who is AANDY anyway? DM acts like he is a CIA agent.
AANDY and Fleenor are just a couple of old guys who get their bullshit info from Kim. Kim likes to say they're connected, but they're no more connected than if you or I went to an away game and hung out with a few ex-players and had beers with them.
If anyone thinks AANDY, Fleenor, or Kim are "insiders" to some kind of Priory of Scion society of UW Football boosters, they need to stick two pencils in their eyes, a Sharpie in their ass, and quit on the motherfucking spot.
Wow, just wow. You may want to think before you post. The last thing we want to do is revoke your posting privileges for a couple of days.
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.
Wilcox was there for one recruiting class, so I am not sure what kind of impact he could have left. Tennessee's defense got much worse without him. UW's got much better with him. He also did well at Boise State. All signs point to him being a pretty good coach. You can twist that if you want to be skeptical, but I don't really see the point. Below are some stats so you can see what kind of impact Wilcox had. Tennessee gave up 11 more points a game in 2012 without Wilcox vs 2011 with Wilcox.
I have stats that say Sark is a good coach too. Again, I'm not saying Wilcox is bad or even average. I would just like to see UW actually win something, be in the top 20 in anything, and have some consistency before saying coach X is great and should be the head coach. So far, Wilcox has shown incremental progress. YAY!!!
Yeah, because going from the 10th ranked defense in the Pac 12 to the 3rd ranked is incremental progress. Shaving 10 points off per game isn't great progress either. Did you expect Wilcox to take these shitty players and dominate? Have you seen our DL? Did you realize our LB's last year were two freshmen and a sophomore who was absolutely, fucking terrible (Timu) as a freshman? I agree that there is still work to be done, but Wilcox has proven himself at three different stops to be a very good defensive coordinator. Like I said, the early returns have been about as good as one could expect.
Lets see...Sark went from last in the league to beating USC twice, 3rd place and winning the Holiday bowl in just two seasons. Early returns were good. About as good as one could expect.
I've been burned before. I'm waiting for something better than 31st, having the defense not get off the bus three times a year, and not be able to shut down a crappy team in the fourth quarter of a rivalry game. yes, there has been progress. Now Doog on.
I fully understand being cautious about praising Wilcox too much, but I don't think it is dooging to admit he has been really good so far and has an impressive resume. Hopefully, we continue to make progress.
In 2010 the same could have been said about sark. And many people did. And still do.
There's at least three differences that I can see.
1) All the alleged Sarkisian progress was from the baseline of 0-12, which would not have possible to achieve without Ronnie Fouch at the helm. Sark never coached a game with Fouch as his QB. Say what you want about Jake's true position, but he was worth at least 4 wins over Fouch. The massive improvement was an illusion created by Jake's injury, and many were there to point that out before it even happened. Wilcox didn't add one player who completely turned the defense around from the year before. That's not even possible to do on the defensive side of the ball. The importance of QB is unlike anything else in the game.
2) Point differential is the best predictor of record (even better than W-L), and Sark's point differential in year 2 was -97. That team was worse than his first team, and was clearly moving in the wrong direction. Again, many were pointing this out at the time. Wilcox's stats support that there was real improvement, not just perceived improvement.
3) Sark didn't have a track record of success. Wilcox does.
I'm all for being skeptical, but when a guy has demonstrated that he's good at what he does, then comes in and he's good at what he does here, I think it's fair to conclude he knows what he's doing.
None of those things apply to Sark.
The improvement from -97 to -33 happened when Holt was still around.
Right, but it didn't happen because of the defense.
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.
Wilcox was there for one recruiting class, so I am not sure what kind of impact he could have left. Tennessee's defense got much worse without him. UW's got much better with him. He also did well at Boise State. All signs point to him being a pretty good coach. You can twist that if you want to be skeptical, but I don't really see the point. Below are some stats so you can see what kind of impact Wilcox had. Tennessee gave up 11 more points a game in 2012 without Wilcox vs 2011 with Wilcox.
I have stats that say Sark is a good coach too. Again, I'm not saying Wilcox is bad or even average. I would just like to see UW actually win something, be in the top 20 in anything, and have some consistency before saying coach X is great and should be the head coach. So far, Wilcox has shown incremental progress. YAY!!!
Yeah, because going from the 10th ranked defense in the Pac 12 to the 3rd ranked is incremental progress. Shaving 10 points off per game isn't great progress either. Did you expect Wilcox to take these shitty players and dominate? Have you seen our DL? Did you realize our LB's last year were two freshmen and a sophomore who was absolutely, fucking terrible (Timu) as a freshman? I agree that there is still work to be done, but Wilcox has proven himself at three different stops to be a very good defensive coordinator. Like I said, the early returns have been about as good as one could expect.
Lets see...Sark went from last in the league to beating USC twice, 3rd place and winning the Holiday bowl in just two seasons. Early returns were good. About as good as one could expect.
I've been burned before. I'm waiting for something better than 31st, having the defense not get off the bus three times a year, and not be able to shut down a crappy team in the fourth quarter of a rivalry game. yes, there has been progress. Now Doog on.
I fully understand being cautious about praising Wilcox too much, but I don't think it is dooging to admit he has been really good so far and has an impressive resume. Hopefully, we continue to make progress.
In 2010 the same could have been said about sark. And many people did. And still do.
There's at least three differences that I can see.
1) All the alleged Sarkisian progress was from the baseline of 0-12, which would not have possible to achieve without Ronnie Fouch at the helm. Sark never coached a game with Fouch as his QB. Say what you want about Jake's true position, but he was worth at least 4 wins over Fouch. The massive improvement was an illusion created by Jake's injury, and many were there to point that out before it even happened. Wilcox didn't add one player who completely turned the defense around from the year before. That's not even possible to do on the defensive side of the ball. The importance of QB is unlike anything else in the game.
2) Point differential is the best predictor of record (even better than W-L), and Sark's point differential in year 2 was -97. That team was worse than his first team, and was clearly moving in the wrong direction. Again, many were pointing this out at the time. Wilcox's stats support that there was real improvement, not just perceived improvement.
3) Sark didn't have a track record of success. Wilcox does.
I'm all for being skeptical, but when a guy has demonstrated that he's good at what he does, then comes in and he's good at what he does here, I think it's fair to conclude he knows what he's doing.
None of those things apply to Sark.
The improvement from -97 to -33 happened when Holt was still around.
Right, but it didn't happen because of the defense.
Then why did you write this stupid shit?
2) Point differential is the best predictor of record (even better than W-L), and Sark's point differential in year 2 was -97. That team was worse than his first team, and was clearly moving in the wrong direction. Again, many were pointing this out at the time. Wilcox's stats support that there was real improvement, not just perceived improvement.
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.
Wilcox was there for one recruiting class, so I am not sure what kind of impact he could have left. Tennessee's defense got much worse without him. UW's got much better with him. He also did well at Boise State. All signs point to him being a pretty good coach. You can twist that if you want to be skeptical, but I don't really see the point. Below are some stats so you can see what kind of impact Wilcox had. Tennessee gave up 11 more points a game in 2012 without Wilcox vs 2011 with Wilcox.
I have stats that say Sark is a good coach too. Again, I'm not saying Wilcox is bad or even average. I would just like to see UW actually win something, be in the top 20 in anything, and have some consistency before saying coach X is great and should be the head coach. So far, Wilcox has shown incremental progress. YAY!!!
Yeah, because going from the 10th ranked defense in the Pac 12 to the 3rd ranked is incremental progress. Shaving 10 points off per game isn't great progress either. Did you expect Wilcox to take these shitty players and dominate? Have you seen our DL? Did you realize our LB's last year were two freshmen and a sophomore who was absolutely, fucking terrible (Timu) as a freshman? I agree that there is still work to be done, but Wilcox has proven himself at three different stops to be a very good defensive coordinator. Like I said, the early returns have been about as good as one could expect.
Lets see...Sark went from last in the league to beating USC twice, 3rd place and winning the Holiday bowl in just two seasons. Early returns were good. About as good as one could expect.
I've been burned before. I'm waiting for something better than 31st, having the defense not get off the bus three times a year, and not be able to shut down a crappy team in the fourth quarter of a rivalry game. yes, there has been progress. Now Doog on.
I fully understand being cautious about praising Wilcox too much, but I don't think it is dooging to admit he has been really good so far and has an impressive resume. Hopefully, we continue to make progress.
In 2010 the same could have been said about sark. And many people did. And still do.
There's at least three differences that I can see.
1) All the alleged Sarkisian progress was from the baseline of 0-12, which would not have possible to achieve without Ronnie Fouch at the helm. Sark never coached a game with Fouch as his QB. Say what you want about Jake's true position, but he was worth at least 4 wins over Fouch. The massive improvement was an illusion created by Jake's injury, and many were there to point that out before it even happened. Wilcox didn't add one player who completely turned the defense around from the year before. That's not even possible to do on the defensive side of the ball. The importance of QB is unlike anything else in the game.
2) Point differential is the best predictor of record (even better than W-L), and Sark's point differential in year 2 was -97. That team was worse than his first team, and was clearly moving in the wrong direction. Again, many were pointing this out at the time. Wilcox's stats support that there was real improvement, not just perceived improvement.
3) Sark didn't have a track record of success. Wilcox does.
I'm all for being skeptical, but when a guy has demonstrated that he's good at what he does, then comes in and he's good at what he does here, I think it's fair to conclude he knows what he's doing.
None of those things apply to Sark.
The improvement from -97 to -33 happened when Holt was still around.
Right, but it didn't happen because of the defense.
Then why did you write this stupid shit?
2) Point differential is the best predictor of record (even better than W-L), and Sark's point differential in year 2 was -97. That team was worse than his first team, and was clearly moving in the wrong direction. Again, many were pointing this out at the time. Wilcox's stats support that there was real improvement, not just perceived improvement.
look we get it, you love Wilcox. Obviously there was improvement, just like there was improvement from Tyrone Willingham to Sark. Wilcox has shown some promise but no more promise than any other half decent coaching change ever shows. Im not ready to suck off Wilcox yet but I dont think anyone here is saying he hasnt shown a tiny bit of promise. If the defense continues to improve on the same or better pace I will be singing Wilcox's praises all the way to the head coaching job he will have won himself by the end of the year.
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.
Wilcox was there for one recruiting class, so I am not sure what kind of impact he could have left. Tennessee's defense got much worse without him. UW's got much better with him. He also did well at Boise State. All signs point to him being a pretty good coach. You can twist that if you want to be skeptical, but I don't really see the point. Below are some stats so you can see what kind of impact Wilcox had. Tennessee gave up 11 more points a game in 2012 without Wilcox vs 2011 with Wilcox.
I have stats that say Sark is a good coach too. Again, I'm not saying Wilcox is bad or even average. I would just like to see UW actually win something, be in the top 20 in anything, and have some consistency before saying coach X is great and should be the head coach. So far, Wilcox has shown incremental progress. YAY!!!
Yeah, because going from the 10th ranked defense in the Pac 12 to the 3rd ranked is incremental progress. Shaving 10 points off per game isn't great progress either. Did you expect Wilcox to take these shitty players and dominate? Have you seen our DL? Did you realize our LB's last year were two freshmen and a sophomore who was absolutely, fucking terrible (Timu) as a freshman? I agree that there is still work to be done, but Wilcox has proven himself at three different stops to be a very good defensive coordinator. Like I said, the early returns have been about as good as one could expect.
Lets see...Sark went from last in the league to beating USC twice, 3rd place and winning the Holiday bowl in just two seasons. Early returns were good. About as good as one could expect.
I've been burned before. I'm waiting for something better than 31st, having the defense not get off the bus three times a year, and not be able to shut down a crappy team in the fourth quarter of a rivalry game. yes, there has been progress. Now Doog on.
I fully understand being cautious about praising Wilcox too much, but I don't think it is dooging to admit he has been really good so far and has an impressive resume. Hopefully, we continue to make progress.
In 2010 the same could have been said about sark. And many people did. And still do.
There's at least three differences that I can see.
1) All the alleged Sarkisian progress was from the baseline of 0-12, which would not have possible to achieve without Ronnie Fouch at the helm. Sark never coached a game with Fouch as his QB. Say what you want about Jake's true position, but he was worth at least 4 wins over Fouch. The massive improvement was an illusion created by Jake's injury, and many were there to point that out before it even happened. Wilcox didn't add one player who completely turned the defense around from the year before. That's not even possible to do on the defensive side of the ball. The importance of QB is unlike anything else in the game.
2) Point differential is the best predictor of record (even better than W-L), and Sark's point differential in year 2 was -97. That team was worse than his first team, and was clearly moving in the wrong direction. Again, many were pointing this out at the time. Wilcox's stats support that there was real improvement, not just perceived improvement.
3) Sark didn't have a track record of success. Wilcox does.
I'm all for being skeptical, but when a guy has demonstrated that he's good at what he does, then comes in and he's good at what he does here, I think it's fair to conclude he knows what he's doing.
None of those things apply to Sark.
The improvement from -97 to -33 happened when Holt was still around.
Right, but it didn't happen because of the defense.
Then why did you write this stupid shit?
2) Point differential is the best predictor of record (even better than W-L), and Sark's point differential in year 2 was -97. That team was worse than his first team, and was clearly moving in the wrong direction. Again, many were pointing this out at the time. Wilcox's stats support that there was real improvement, not just perceived improvement.
look we get it, you love Wilcox. Obviously there was improvement, just like there was improvement from Tyrone Willingham to Sark. Wilcox has shown some promise but no more promise than any other half decent coaching change ever shows. Im not ready to suck off Wilcox yet but I dont think anyone here is saying he hasnt shown a tiny bit of promise. If the defense continues to improve on the same or better pace I will be singing Wilcox's praises all the way to the head coaching job he will have won himself by the end of the year.
+ a million. ( I like or say + a million so everyone knows I not only agree with the post, I really really agree. More than just a little agree, but a lot of agree. I like to say that)
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.
Wilcox was there for one recruiting class, so I am not sure what kind of impact he could have left. Tennessee's defense got much worse without him. UW's got much better with him. He also did well at Boise State. All signs point to him being a pretty good coach. You can twist that if you want to be skeptical, but I don't really see the point. Below are some stats so you can see what kind of impact Wilcox had. Tennessee gave up 11 more points a game in 2012 without Wilcox vs 2011 with Wilcox.
I have stats that say Sark is a good coach too. Again, I'm not saying Wilcox is bad or even average. I would just like to see UW actually win something, be in the top 20 in anything, and have some consistency before saying coach X is great and should be the head coach. So far, Wilcox has shown incremental progress. YAY!!!
Yeah, because going from the 10th ranked defense in the Pac 12 to the 3rd ranked is incremental progress. Shaving 10 points off per game isn't great progress either. Did you expect Wilcox to take these shitty players and dominate? Have you seen our DL? Did you realize our LB's last year were two freshmen and a sophomore who was absolutely, fucking terrible (Timu) as a freshman? I agree that there is still work to be done, but Wilcox has proven himself at three different stops to be a very good defensive coordinator. Like I said, the early returns have been about as good as one could expect.
Lets see...Sark went from last in the league to beating USC twice, 3rd place and winning the Holiday bowl in just two seasons. Early returns were good. About as good as one could expect.
I've been burned before. I'm waiting for something better than 31st, having the defense not get off the bus three times a year, and not be able to shut down a crappy team in the fourth quarter of a rivalry game. yes, there has been progress. Now Doog on.
I fully understand being cautious about praising Wilcox too much, but I don't think it is dooging to admit he has been really good so far and has an impressive resume. Hopefully, we continue to make progress.
In 2010 the same could have been said about sark. And many people did. And still do.
There's at least three differences that I can see.
1) All the alleged Sarkisian progress was from the baseline of 0-12, which would not have possible to achieve without Ronnie Fouch at the helm. Sark never coached a game with Fouch as his QB. Say what you want about Jake's true position, but he was worth at least 4 wins over Fouch. The massive improvement was an illusion created by Jake's injury, and many were there to point that out before it even happened. Wilcox didn't add one player who completely turned the defense around from the year before. That's not even possible to do on the defensive side of the ball. The importance of QB is unlike anything else in the game.
2) Point differential is the best predictor of record (even better than W-L), and Sark's point differential in year 2 was -97. That team was worse than his first team, and was clearly moving in the wrong direction. Again, many were pointing this out at the time. Wilcox's stats support that there was real improvement, not just perceived improvement.
3) Sark didn't have a track record of success. Wilcox does.
I'm all for being skeptical, but when a guy has demonstrated that he's good at what he does, then comes in and he's good at what he does here, I think it's fair to conclude he knows what he's doing.
None of those things apply to Sark.
The improvement from -97 to -33 happened when Holt was still around.
Right, but it didn't happen because of the defense.
Then why did you write this stupid shit?
2) Point differential is the best predictor of record (even better than W-L), and Sark's point differential in year 2 was -97. That team was worse than his first team, and was clearly moving in the wrong direction. Again, many were pointing this out at the time. Wilcox's stats support that there was real improvement, not just perceived improvement.
look we get it, you love Wilcox. Obviously there was improvement, just like there was improvement from Tyrone Willingham to Sark. Wilcox has shown some promise but no more promise than any other half decent coaching change ever shows. Im not ready to suck off Wilcox yet but I dont think anyone here is saying he hasnt shown a tiny bit of promise. If the defense continues to improve on the same or better pace I will be singing Wilcox's praises all the way to the head coaching job he will have won himself by the end of the year.
You quoted the wrong guy. I think Wilcox is to Holt as Sark is to Ty.
When Woodward's replacement finally fires Sark, I don't want Wilcox.
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.
Wilcox was there for one recruiting class, so I am not sure what kind of impact he could have left. Tennessee's defense got much worse without him. UW's got much better with him. He also did well at Boise State. All signs point to him being a pretty good coach. You can twist that if you want to be skeptical, but I don't really see the point. Below are some stats so you can see what kind of impact Wilcox had. Tennessee gave up 11 more points a game in 2012 without Wilcox vs 2011 with Wilcox.
I have stats that say Sark is a good coach too. Again, I'm not saying Wilcox is bad or even average. I would just like to see UW actually win something, be in the top 20 in anything, and have some consistency before saying coach X is great and should be the head coach. So far, Wilcox has shown incremental progress. YAY!!!
Yeah, because going from the 10th ranked defense in the Pac 12 to the 3rd ranked is incremental progress. Shaving 10 points off per game isn't great progress either. Did you expect Wilcox to take these shitty players and dominate? Have you seen our DL? Did you realize our LB's last year were two freshmen and a sophomore who was absolutely, fucking terrible (Timu) as a freshman? I agree that there is still work to be done, but Wilcox has proven himself at three different stops to be a very good defensive coordinator. Like I said, the early returns have been about as good as one could expect.
Lets see...Sark went from last in the league to beating USC twice, 3rd place and winning the Holiday bowl in just two seasons. Early returns were good. About as good as one could expect.
I've been burned before. I'm waiting for something better than 31st, having the defense not get off the bus three times a year, and not be able to shut down a crappy team in the fourth quarter of a rivalry game. yes, there has been progress. Now Doog on.
I fully understand being cautious about praising Wilcox too much, but I don't think it is dooging to admit he has been really good so far and has an impressive resume. Hopefully, we continue to make progress.
In 2010 the same could have been said about sark. And many people did. And still do.
There's at least three differences that I can see.
1) All the alleged Sarkisian progress was from the baseline of 0-12, which would not have possible to achieve without Ronnie Fouch at the helm. Sark never coached a game with Fouch as his QB. Say what you want about Jake's true position, but he was worth at least 4 wins over Fouch. The massive improvement was an illusion created by Jake's injury, and many were there to point that out before it even happened. Wilcox didn't add one player who completely turned the defense around from the year before. That's not even possible to do on the defensive side of the ball. The importance of QB is unlike anything else in the game.
2) Point differential is the best predictor of record (even better than W-L), and Sark's point differential in year 2 was -97. That team was worse than his first team, and was clearly moving in the wrong direction. Again, many were pointing this out at the time. Wilcox's stats support that there was real improvement, not just perceived improvement.
3) Sark didn't have a track record of success. Wilcox does.
I'm all for being skeptical, but when a guy has demonstrated that he's good at what he does, then comes in and he's good at what he does here, I think it's fair to conclude he knows what he's doing.
None of those things apply to Sark.
The improvement from -97 to -33 happened when Holt was still around.
Right, but it didn't happen because of the defense.
Then why did you write this stupid shit?
2) Point differential is the best predictor of record (even better than W-L), and Sark's point differential in year 2 was -97. That team was worse than his first team, and was clearly moving in the wrong direction. Again, many were pointing this out at the time. Wilcox's stats support that there was real improvement, not just perceived improvement.
look we get it, you love Wilcox. Obviously there was improvement, just like there was improvement from Tyrone Willingham to Sark. Wilcox has shown some promise but no more promise than any other half decent coaching change ever shows. Im not ready to suck off Wilcox yet but I dont think anyone here is saying he hasnt shown a tiny bit of promise. If the defense continues to improve on the same or better pace I will be singing Wilcox's praises all the way to the head coaching job he will have won himself by the end of the year.
You quoted the wrong guy. I think Wilcox is to Holt as Sark is to Ty.
When Woodward's replacement finally fires Sark, I don't want Wilcox.
There won't be a Woodward or Sark replacement. HTH
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.
Wilcox was there for one recruiting class, so I am not sure what kind of impact he could have left. Tennessee's defense got much worse without him. UW's got much better with him. He also did well at Boise State. All signs point to him being a pretty good coach. You can twist that if you want to be skeptical, but I don't really see the point. Below are some stats so you can see what kind of impact Wilcox had. Tennessee gave up 11 more points a game in 2012 without Wilcox vs 2011 with Wilcox.
I have stats that say Sark is a good coach too. Again, I'm not saying Wilcox is bad or even average. I would just like to see UW actually win something, be in the top 20 in anything, and have some consistency before saying coach X is great and should be the head coach. So far, Wilcox has shown incremental progress. YAY!!!
Yeah, because going from the 10th ranked defense in the Pac 12 to the 3rd ranked is incremental progress. Shaving 10 points off per game isn't great progress either. Did you expect Wilcox to take these shitty players and dominate? Have you seen our DL? Did you realize our LB's last year were two freshmen and a sophomore who was absolutely, fucking terrible (Timu) as a freshman? I agree that there is still work to be done, but Wilcox has proven himself at three different stops to be a very good defensive coordinator. Like I said, the early returns have been about as good as one could expect.
Lets see...Sark went from last in the league to beating USC twice, 3rd place and winning the Holiday bowl in just two seasons. Early returns were good. About as good as one could expect.
I've been burned before. I'm waiting for something better than 31st, having the defense not get off the bus three times a year, and not be able to shut down a crappy team in the fourth quarter of a rivalry game. yes, there has been progress. Now Doog on.
I fully understand being cautious about praising Wilcox too much, but I don't think it is dooging to admit he has been really good so far and has an impressive resume. Hopefully, we continue to make progress.
In 2010 the same could have been said about sark. And many people did. And still do.
There's at least three differences that I can see.
1) All the alleged Sarkisian progress was from the baseline of 0-12, which would not have possible to achieve without Ronnie Fouch at the helm. Sark never coached a game with Fouch as his QB. Say what you want about Jake's true position, but he was worth at least 4 wins over Fouch. The massive improvement was an illusion created by Jake's injury, and many were there to point that out before it even happened. Wilcox didn't add one player who completely turned the defense around from the year before. That's not even possible to do on the defensive side of the ball. The importance of QB is unlike anything else in the game.
2) Point differential is the best predictor of record (even better than W-L), and Sark's point differential in year 2 was -97. That team was worse than his first team, and was clearly moving in the wrong direction. Again, many were pointing this out at the time. Wilcox's stats support that there was real improvement, not just perceived improvement.
3) Sark didn't have a track record of success. Wilcox does.
I'm all for being skeptical, but when a guy has demonstrated that he's good at what he does, then comes in and he's good at what he does here, I think it's fair to conclude he knows what he's doing.
None of those things apply to Sark.
The improvement from -97 to -33 happened when Holt was still around.
Right, but it didn't happen because of the defense.
Then why did you write this stupid shit?
2) Point differential is the best predictor of record (even better than W-L), and Sark's point differential in year 2 was -97. That team was worse than his first team, and was clearly moving in the wrong direction. Again, many were pointing this out at the time. Wilcox's stats support that there was real improvement, not just perceived improvement.
WIlcox showed real progress, Sark has not.
The HC is responsible for the entire point differential, the DC is responsible for the points the defense gives up. Wilcox's 2012 defense gave up 153 points less than Holt's 2011 defense (from 467 to 314). Every other defensive metric shows similar improvement.
Trying to compare Wilcox to Holt? Jesus Christ. Wilcox has done a great job at three schools now. He has a good track record. Holt and Sark don't have any tangible track record.
I guess some guys don't even watch the fucking games. Let me rehash it for you...7 of the first 11 games, UW gives up less than 20 points. USC game the D actually gives up 17 (blocked punt) and the game is lost because of offensive turnovers. Apple Cup- the offense puts together one good drive the entire game (the other one was the missed FG). The D had its problems in the 4th but the offense did jack shit the entire game. The Boise game was lost bc Kasen dropped a TD and Price was horrid in the second half. The D played well enough for UW to win 9-10 games if it had an average offense.
Moreover, last season, UCLA & UW had nearly identical SOS according to Sagarin. UCLA gave up 58 more yards per game and 4 more points. Look, I'd take Mora right now as the HC, but Wilcox may be better suited to build a college defense.
I'm not ready to anoint him just yet but he did a damn good job with a defense that was not only young (7 frosh & sophs) but totally deficient on the D-line. The D-line has one guy who would start at every other school and Shirley might start at most but not all schools.
I agree, let it play out but I see Wilcox as one of few guys who can build a championship defense. DC's are more valuable than OC's.
alright clean it up guys. you're all risking time outs.
We don't like to take care of customer service issues in the middle of the store. If you or anyone else has a problem with this board, then send me a pm, im, text, sext, etc...
Comments
2) Point differential is the best predictor of record (even better than W-L), and Sark's point differential in year 2 was -97. That team was worse than his first team, and was clearly moving in the wrong direction. Again, many were pointing this out at the time. Wilcox's stats support that there was real improvement, not just perceived improvement.
When Woodward's replacement finally fires Sark, I don't want Wilcox.
Sark > Willingham
Wilcox > Holt
Sark sucks and Wilcox still has a little bit of time to go one way or the other
The HC is responsible for the entire point differential, the DC is responsible for the points the defense gives up. Wilcox's 2012 defense gave up 153 points less than Holt's 2011 defense (from 467 to 314). Every other defensive metric shows similar improvement.
Trying to compare Wilcox to Holt? Jesus Christ. Wilcox has done a great job at three schools now. He has a good track record. Holt and Sark don't have any tangible track record.
I guess some guys don't even watch the fucking games. Let me rehash it for you...7 of the first 11 games, UW gives up less than 20 points. USC game the D actually gives up 17 (blocked punt) and the game is lost because of offensive turnovers. Apple Cup- the offense puts together one good drive the entire game (the other one was the missed FG). The D had its problems in the 4th but the offense did jack shit the entire game. The Boise game was lost bc Kasen dropped a TD and Price was horrid in the second half. The D played well enough for UW to win 9-10 games if it had an average offense.
Moreover, last season, UCLA & UW had nearly identical SOS according to Sagarin. UCLA gave up 58 more yards per game and 4 more points. Look, I'd take Mora right now as the HC, but Wilcox may be better suited to build a college defense.
I'm not ready to anoint him just yet but he did a damn good job with a defense that was not only young (7 frosh & sophs) but totally deficient on the D-line. The D-line has one guy who would start at every other school and Shirley might start at most but not all schools.
I agree, let it play out but I see Wilcox as one of few guys who can build a championship defense. DC's are more valuable than OC's.