At the Pac-12 Poker Table, is Washington's Sark an Easy Mark?
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.
Comments
-
Free Pub!!1!
-
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.
-
Good article and one that needed to be written. Hi Scott Woodward.
-
anyone know who that Asian chick is?
-
Thank you. I made the correction.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.
-
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.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.
It's an unthoughtful and desperate comeback when they have nothing no facts to back up their claim that Sark is the right coach.
-
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
-
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:
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.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.
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 2006Steve_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:
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.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.
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
