At the Pac-12 Poker Table, is Washington's Sark an Easy Mark?

Hardcore_Husky

At the Pac-12 Poker Table, is Washington's Sark an Easy Mark?

This brief summation gives voice to the concerns that Sark isn't the genius so many believe him to be. In fact, he may be an easy mark. That's why many who yearn to see Husky Football return to dominance struggle to accept him as head coach -- because we don't want Husky Football to embrace mediocrity.

Read the full story here

TommySQC

Free Pub!!1!

RoadDawg55

Nice job, Derek. One thing, we did not beat Oregon State in 2011. I believe you are talking about the Arizona game we won the week after getting throttled by Stanford. Oregon State was the infamous Nick Montana game that was a complete debacle.

WhiskeyDawg

Good article and one that needed to be written. Hi Scott Woodward.

Meek

anyone know who that Asian chick is?

DerekJohnson

RoadDawg55 said:

Nice job, Derek. One thing, we did not beat Oregon State in 2011. I believe you are talking about the Arizona game we won the week after getting throttled by Stanford. Oregon State was the infamous Nick Montana game that was a complete debacle.

Thank you. I made the correction.

Steve_Bowman

Anyone one that wanted Cream Puff to fail from the beginning just to say they're right is seriously F'ed up. I have a hard time believing that was the case.

Going forward I hope he lays a big egg...this year is good. My fear is if he hovers above 500, he'll be here a long time. Get to the inevitable and loose him now rather than later. A good coach could have this program humming in a couple of years.

Oh, and like Derek says, 10 - 2 would give me reason to take all this back as well.

MikeDamone

Steve_Bowman said:

Anyone one that wanted Cream Puff to fail from the beginning just to say they're right is seriously F'ed up. I have a hard time believing that was the case.

Going forward I hope he lays a big egg...this year is good. My fear is if he hovers above 500, he'll be here a long time. Get to the inevitable and loose him now rather than later. A good coach could have this program humming in a couple of years.

Oh, and like Derek says, 10 - 2 would give me reason to take all this back as well.

No one here wants Sark to fail so they can be right. That is a standard line about us from the dawgman.com posters who chose to ignore facts, and cling to "hope" and Sarks Kick ass pressers where he does things like prediciting no home losses.

It's an unthoughtful and desperate comeback when they have nothing no facts to back up their claim that Sark is the right coach.

volcanodawg

yep, exactly. i like to spend countless hours and money on something i really want to be miserable and pathetic. yep, that's right. #hikim

Steve_Bowman

I believe this to be true.

I was a dogboy customer for years. Me and many others I knew never said this about people connected with this site, although it was the party line. Many, many of us told the party line groupies and the dogboy bosses they had their heads up their asses starting in 2011. Granted, we may have been a little slow, but we figured it out.

MikeDamone said:

Steve_Bowman said:

Anyone one that wanted Cream Puff to fail from the beginning just to say they're right is seriously F'ed up. I have a hard time believing that was the case.

Going forward I hope he lays a big egg...this year is good. My fear is if he hovers above 500, he'll be here a long time. Get to the inevitable and loose him now rather than later. A good coach could have this program humming in a couple of years.

Oh, and like Derek says, 10 - 2 would give me reason to take all this back as well.

No one here wants Sark to fail so they can be right. That is a standard line about us from the dawgman.com posters who chose to ignore facts, and cling to "hope" and Sarks Kick ass pressers where he does things like prediciting no home losses.

It's an unthoughtful and desperate comeback when they have nothing no facts to back up their claim that Sark is the right coach.

TommySQC

I like to call this 2006

Steve_Bowman said:

I believe this to be true.

I was a dogboy customer for years. Me and many others I knew never said this about people connected with this site, although it was the party line. Many, many of us told the party line groupies and the dogboy bosses they had their heads up their asses starting in 2011. Granted, we may have been a little slow, but we figured it out.

MikeDamone said:

Steve_Bowman said:

Anyone one that wanted Cream Puff to fail from the beginning just to say they're right is seriously F'ed up. I have a hard time believing that was the case.

Going forward I hope he lays a big egg...this year is good. My fear is if he hovers above 500, he'll be here a long time. Get to the inevitable and loose him now rather than later. A good coach could have this program humming in a couple of years.

Oh, and like Derek says, 10 - 2 would give me reason to take all this back as well.

No one here wants Sark to fail so they can be right. That is a standard line about us from the dawgman.com posters who chose to ignore facts, and cling to "hope" and Sarks Kick ass pressers where he does things like prediciting no home losses.

It's an unthoughtful and desperate comeback when they have nothing no facts to back up their claim that Sark is the right coach.

I like to call this 2007

MikeDamone

TommySQC said:

I like to call this 2006

Steve_Bowman said:

I believe this to be true.

I was a dogboy customer for years. Me and many others I knew never said this about people connected with this site, although it was the party line. Many, many of us told the party line groupies and the dogboy bosses they had their heads up their asses starting in 2011. Granted, we may have been a little slow, but we figured it out.

MikeDamone said:

Steve_Bowman said:

Anyone one that wanted Cream Puff to fail from the beginning just to say they're right is seriously F'ed up. I have a hard time believing that was the case.

Going forward I hope he lays a big egg...this year is good. My fear is if he hovers above 500, he'll be here a long time. Get to the inevitable and loose him now rather than later. A good coach could have this program humming in a couple of years.

Oh, and like Derek says, 10 - 2 would give me reason to take all this back as well.

No one here wants Sark to fail so they can be right. That is a standard line about us from the dawgman.com posters who chose to ignore facts, and cling to "hope" and Sarks Kick ass pressers where he does things like prediciting no home losses.

It's an unthoughtful and desperate comeback when they have nothing no facts to back up their claim that Sark is the right coach.

I like to call this 2007

Is that what you like to call it?

RoadDawg55

The over the top defending of all that relates to Sark got really old on Dawgman. The OL has not sucked all 4 years under Sark, the game plan against Arizona was solid, the OL issues have been fixed, Sark is a tough guy because he got up in '96 after Chorak and co sacked him a bunch of times, Cozzetto is a good coach because you would not want to see him angry, this year is going to be special, etc. All of that has been said by the staff or a fanboy. The shit that the staff and the fanboys on that site spew in the face of facts has gotten old.

I guess there is a market for being a delusional, moronic fanboy because people still post over there. It really has become a pro Sark circle jerk. Anyone who does not follow their mantra and is critical of Sark and the program are told they are miserable, jerks, need to take it to the vent board, or the OL board.

How fucking hard is it to call it like it is? We all watch the games, our eyes are not lying. This is an average program with a lot of flaws that point straight to the head coach. The head coach in college football is more important and influential than a coach in any other sport. It is crucial to have a great coach in order to be great. It's obvious Sark is not better than average. Stability means almost nothing without the right coach. I don't get why some have such a hard time admitting that.

This thread does pose an interesting dilemma. Is it better to go 8-5 and continue with Sark (there'es no way he gets fired from 8-5) or 5-7 and Sark gets fired. Or would 5-7 even get Sark fired?

DerekJohnson

My favorite was when Arizona beat Washington 52-17, Dawgman customers were informed that it was a needed step backwards in order to go forward.

RoadDawg55

DerekJohnson said:

My favorite was when Arizona beat Washington 52-17, Dawgman customers were informed that it was a needed step backwards in order to go forward.

The days after the Arizona game were classic Kim. First, he says the game plan was solid and that the way to beat Arizona was by passing. What better way to get your QB on track? Never mind, that we were running the ball down their throats whenever we called running plays and Price was running for his life almost every time we called a pass. He kept pointing out that Arizona was one of the worst in the conference in passing defense. A poster later pointed out that Arizona was 11th in the Pac 12 in both rushing and passing defense, but Kim still wouldn't budge.

Thankfully, Sark admitted on the coaches show that while he thought it was a solid game plan, in hindsight it sucked. Oh yeah, UCLA ran for over 300 yards two weeks later against Arizona. That was my personal favorite moment of Kim's bullshit blowing up in his face.

CheersWestDawg

Kim defends Sark and Woodward to have access to both of them. I've seen it firsthand.

To call Kim's journalistic integrity compromised is to say that water is a tad bit damp.

RoadDawg55

CheersWestDawg said:

Kim defends Sark and Woodward to have access to both of them. I've seen it firsthand.

To call Kim's journalistic integrity compromised is to say that water is a tad bit damp. </blockquote

No doubt. He has been called out on it many times, but he acts like it is laughable. "I criticize when the situation calls for it. Some of you criticize everything."

Calling Kim a journalist? Hahaha, that's some funny shit right there.

DerekJohnson

RoadDawg55 said:

CheersWestDawg said:

Kim defends Sark and Woodward to have access to both of them. I've seen it firsthand.

To call Kim's journalistic integrity compromised is to say that water is a tad bit damp.

in Kim's defense, I don't think he's ever claimed to be a journalist.

Meek

has Kim ever played football? (aside from that massive thing in his ad)

CheersWestDawg

DerekJohnson said:

RoadDawg55 said:

CheersWestDawg said:

Kim defends Sark and Woodward to have access to both of them. I've seen it firsthand.

To call Kim's journalistic integrity compromised is to say that water is a tad bit damp.

in Kim's defense, I don't think he's ever claimed to be a journalist.

Doesn't matter if he's ever claimed to be a journalist. He has claimed that his website is "independent" of the UW athletic dept. And we all know that's a fucking farce of the highest order.

Steve_Bowman

I don't believe the little squirt (Grinolds) ever claimed to be a journalist either.

What he is a terrible business man. Controversy sells. Rather than put a lid on it, he should have let it grow. There was enough controversy on dawgboy to grow the business. Instead, Grinolds thinks its more important to have Access (hang out with the AD lackies and Cream Puff) than be successful. His "access" produces nothing of value except ego gratification.

A lot of people have left the fold because of his temper tantrums and "access" freak needs.