Sark's problems becoming clear
Comments
-
Great fucking post.He_Needs_More_Time said:The big difference between Sark and Petersen is already obvious to anyone with half a brain from how they both handled their first recruiting season at Washington.
Sark chose to stay at USC for another month for FREE PUB! and put off the rebuilding job. After 0-12 it was important he came up here from day one and busted his ass. Instead he got nothing out of that class and we kept hearing from Doogs well you can't expect him to sign a good class in only two months time.
That class produced Keith Price, Desmond Trufant, Nate Fellner, Will Shamburger, and James Johnson. Literally only five guys in the class who really ever saw the field.
Sark always viewed this job as internship which again everyone pointed this out way back when despite what Doogs were saying. Then Sark basically admitted that a few weeks back.
Sark is lazy, the same problems his teams had in year one were still very much alive in year five. Tells me he doesn't try to fix his problems, sure he may patch up a problem here and there. Fundamentally his problems were consistent every year and that is because he is simply a lazy coach. This is why coaches like him won't succeed because he doesn't have the drive. He was on staff for the greatest dynasty we've seen in a while and probably took it all for granted not realizing how much hard work Carroll put into that.
As for Petersen, he built Boise State some little school with poor academics in Butt Fuck Egypt into a national known powerhouse. Go to a major city like a Las Vegas, LA or even NYC and people will recognize Boise State over sadly even the Washington Huskies.
He was hired at UW and went to work immediately. Doogman was on his ass after two days as was Passion about not signing enough recruits. There was no "You can't expect a good class after only two months" for Petersen because he doesn't give out FREE PUB! or allow Kim to blow him.
Petersen salvaged a shitty class that Sark had destroyed by already having one foot out the door to a conference rival. Still baffles me Doogs aren't pissed at Sark for that.
Petersen is a good who will be up all night studying film, recruiting, making changes to his program for the better. Sark will be up all night downing shots with Nansen and trying to find some whore to fuck in the bathroom.
When you watch Boise State they were always a fundamentally good team. Even the UW ass kicking of Boise State you saw Boise only had one turnover and two penalties the whole game. They were well coached just UW given the first game at the new stadium and the talent gap wasn't going to lose that game.
I'm glad the Dude Brah era is over and can't wait to see him sink the biggest giant in the conference. With Helfrich I don't trust Oregon either going forward.
I have a feeling Petersen vs Mora will be a match up we'll see quite a bit in the Pac-12 championship game.
Like you said despite losing 38-6 Boise reflected a well coached team. Very few mistakes. They also had no business winning the bowl game but that just goes to show you how superior CP is to Dude Brah. -
RoadDawg,
Petey won/tied for 7 in 9 years at SC.
John McKay coached 16 years at SC - he won/tied 9 out 16.
Just two examples ... but two of the better ones at SC. -
The O/U on Sloppy Steve at USC has to be around 4.5. He'll have a reduced roster for a few more years and though he'll get great skill guys, he probably won't have the QB he wants to run his ideal offense (hurry-up spread with a dual threat QB) for a few years as well (Kessler is pretty good but not the best fit, Browne isn't a running threat, and Greene is a skinny true frosh).
I'll also be curious to see how their OL does in 2014 and 2015 as Marcus Martin left early for the NFL and Kevin Graf ran out of eligibility (3 other RS-SRs on their depth chart are gone too). Will also be interesting to see how long Wilcox stays there (probably just a year or two) and if he takes Sirmon and Heyward with him.
I honestly see USC going 7-5 or 8-4 next year while UW should go 9-4 or 10-3 so the Doogs everywhere may be devastated. -
I think people are making the same mistake now with Carroll and forget just how terrible the situation looked when he got here. The team was 9-23 the previous two years with no young stars at all on the roster. Old QB, nothing at RB, old defense, etc.Dardanus said:
One of the things you hear people say about Carroll is that he makes the job look easy or effortless. Something about his personality, energy, and positive outlook makes it appear like his job is easy, even though it's not.He_Needs_More_Time said:....He was on staff for the greatest dynasty we've seen in a while and probably took it all for granted not realizing how much hard work Carroll put into that. ....
I could see Sark watching Carroll and thinking "man, that guy makes it look easy. It should be easy for me too!" This would explain a lot of the laziness and details getting overlooked.
The funny thing is there are other people who have the same mentality (Kimmy) and don't understand that laziness and arrogance are a terrible combination.
He turned it around in only three years despite only having one top 10 picks(Okung). It wasn't like he pulled a Dallas under Jimmy Johnson where you suck a few years stock pile top 10 picks then all of a sudden you are loaded in talent.
Seahawks like with Sark were undisciplined as they led the NFL in penalties. Difference is they don't make stupid mistakes during the game with turnovers, getting burned deep when the situation calls for you to keep them in front of you, have good special teams, etc. Pete may not look like it but you can tell he's a details guy. He was even organizing the parade after the game celebration that is how detailed oriented he is.
While dude brah just saw a fun loving coach and thought "Shit this is easy!" he probably still thinks that. Probably thinks the problem wasn't his coaching but up at downtrodden Warshington they can't get blue chippers to come here so at USC he'll be the next Carroll. That's what Kiffin thought too. Sark will crash and burn just like Kiffin and I actually think Kiffin is a better coach than Sark too. -
Sark gaining 50 lbs in 5 years shows the laziness.
-
It also shows that he got caught doing something he shouldn't have and now has no reason to keep up his looks for strange.CuntWaffle said:Sark gaining 50 lbs in 5 years shows the laziness.
-
Are you comparing sark to those two?Tequilla said:RoadDawg,
Petey won/tied for 7 in 9 years at SC.
John McKay coached 16 years at SC - he won/tied 9 out 16.
Just two examples ... but two of the better ones at SC. -
You've also gotta look at the South. You now have ASU who was runner up in the Pac and just pulled in a really good class. UCLA will obviously be a player. Arizona, despite being middling, has the ability to roll teams on a given weekend. It's pretty obvious Sark won't outwork these other coaches. Hard to see them winning the South at all, even with superior talent.
-
Race,
You want to roll? You want to take off the gloves?
You really think that I believe that SarkFS is in the same league as Petey or John McKay?
If so, you're RaceBannonFS and I should reconsider the kind of people that I hang out with.
The point was to RoadDawg's comment that expecting a USC coach that is worth a damn to win at least 5 conference titles in a 10 year period is ridiculous. Very clearly looking at 2 of SC's more successful coaches, it's not such a reach. -
CuntWaffle said:
All you Sark bashers I would like to see you put on a fucking headset and grab a clipboard.
Can I wear a cool hat, too?
-
What does that have to do with sark?Tequilla said:Race,
You want to roll? You want to take off the gloves?
You really think that I believe that SarkFS is in the same league as Petey or John McKay?
If so, you're RaceBannonFS and I should reconsider the kind of people that I hang out with.
The point was to RoadDawg's comment that expecting a USC coach that is worth a damn to win at least 5 conference titles in a 10 year period is ridiculous. Very clearly looking at 2 of SC's more successful coaches, it's not such a reach. -
Race,
You should pay more attention to others worthless opinions -
I thinks this is how Race feels about others' opinions.Tequilla said:Race,
You should pay more attention to others worthless opinions
-
If they hired the right coach, 5 out of 10 might be doable, but still very impressive. There's no chance Sark will do it. Mediocre coaches don't win conference titles 50% of the time. The Pac 12 is better now than it was when Carroll was coach. Lots of teams are much stronger now. The only team that has significantly dropped is Cal. Carroll and McKay also did not have to win the conference title game, although Carroll and USC most likely would have won all of those. 5 in 10 years would be a huge feat by anyone.Tequilla said:Race,
You want to roll? You want to take off the gloves?
You really think that I believe that SarkFS is in the same league as Petey or John McKay?
If so, you're RaceBannonFS and I should reconsider the kind of people that I hang out with.
The point was to RoadDawg's comment that expecting a USC coach that is worth a damn to win at least 5 conference titles in a 10 year period is ridiculous. Very clearly looking at 2 of SC's more successful coaches, it's not such a reach.
-
The sanctions will still bite USC for several years, hurting depth, while the 5 star recruits want to leave early, especially as they have little backup so they tend to play more than with a full roster.
That weakness, plus Sark not organizing, plus Sark calling plays, and USC will be probably Nine Win Steve instead of Seven Win Steve. He starts with a better base, and gets better raw athletes than the UW, so his ceiling is probably two games higher.
Wilcox will bolt after 1-2 years.
In the meantime, Sark will lose twice to UCLA, sometimes to the AZ schools, and lose 2 out of 3 to Stanford, Oregon and Washington.
It won't be pretty in three years. Except to those of us Washington who saw immediately when Sark was hired that he does not have "it". Never has and never will.
-
When Sark wins at SC because of superior player talent already coached-up in high school ready for college, and with a better staff of assistant coaches than he had the first three years at UW, the price of crow suitable for eating will rise around here. I could say that I believe Sark will fail at SC if I cared which I don't so I won't.
-
Jesse James (see what I did there?),
It almost seems like you think I'm disagreeing with you. Sark's got no chance in hell of winning 5 in 10 years at SC. That's why I'd take bets against any Sark lover that thinks he's a good enough coach to do so.
The only part that I disagreed with is that you CAN win at that level at SC if you have the right coach in place. That's unquestionably true. Not saying it's easy ... and you make a good point with the conference title game. But at the same time, to play in the conference title game you only have to be better than 5 other teams in your division and win a single game ... so is it easier or harder to win a conference title? That would actually be a great topic to consider. -
You have Coach A and Coach B. Coach A has a 65% winning percentage. Coach B has an 89% winning percentage. If we're talking about the same conference I can only give so much credit for superior players if that's what Coach A has. I'm going with Coach B every time. Winning consistently is a process and Coach B has proven that he knows this process well.
-
No, I didn't think you were disagreeing. That's a good point about the title game possibly making it easier.Tequilla said:Jesse James (see what I did there?),
It almost seems like you think I'm disagreeing with you. Sark's got no chance in hell of winning 5 in 10 years at SC. That's why I'd take bets against any Sark lover that thinks he's a good enough coach to do so.
The only part that I disagreed with is that you CAN win at that level at SC if you have the right coach in place. That's unquestionably true. Not saying it's easy ... and you make a good point with the conference title game. But at the same time, to play in the conference title game you only have to be better than 5 other teams in your division and win a single game ... so is it easier or harder to win a conference title? That would actually be a great topic to consider.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
