Washington Football: Is Steve Sarkisian Circling the Wagons?
Comments
-
It's a winning argument to the uneducated masses.
It's worked for BHO. -
Come on, you're not that simple minded. It's completely different, pal. Look at where unemployment was when dubbya took over, the debt, deficit, and credit markets.
Then look at where unemployment was when BHO took over, the debt, deficit, and credit markets. Banks weren't lending (those that were surviving), the economy was bleeding jobs, and foreclosure rates were at an all-time. Oh yah, and we were mired in 2 very expensive wars (1 of which was unnecessary).
In stark contrast, Sark inherited a bunch of talented players that simply underachieved under his predecessor. All he had to do was instill some enthusiasm (i.e., "fun") and the rest took care of itself.
The President and a football coach are not even comparable. A President does not have "complete control of the world," meaning that he/she cannot force banks to restructure home loans, and he cannot force companies to hire, and he cannot not force consumers to increase their confidence. Obama only had 2 years with a Democratic House, so he did not have the power to implement his policies.
But Sark was the dictator - he got to do whatever he wanted (call plays, recruit players, etc etc etc).
Sark inherited a good situation. Obama did not. -
Listen fella...if you can't see the damage Willingham did then I can't help you.Passion said:Come on, you're not that simple minded. It's completely different, pal. Look at where unemployment was when dubbya took over, the debt, deficit, and credit markets.
Then look at where unemployment was when BHO took over, the debt, deficit, and credit markets. Banks weren't lending (those that were surviving), the economy was bleeding jobs, and foreclosure rates were at an all-time. Oh yah, and we were mired in 2 very expensive wars (1 of which was unnecessary).
In stark contrast, Sark inherited a bunch of talented players that simply underachieved under his predecessor. All he had to do was instill some enthusiasm (i.e., "fun") and the rest took care of itself.
The President and a football coach are not even comparable. A President does not have "complete control of the world," meaning that he/she cannot force banks to restructure home loans, and he cannot force companies to hire, and he cannot not force consumers to increase their confidence. Obama only had 2 years with a Democratic House, so he did not have the power to implement his policies.
But Sark was the dictator - he got to do whatever he wanted (call plays, recruit players, etc etc etc).
Sark inherited a good situation. Obama did not.
I heard the wars were not only expensive and the reason for the high debt, but they were ILLEGAL. Staff? True?
-
Pussy. I'm already hoping for 0-12 this year.DerekJohnson said:The only point where I could start actually hoping for the Huskies to lose is if we're 3-7 or something like that. Just like 2007.
-
Boise St lost quite a few seniors and they are not a great road team. We'll win that.Steve_Bowman said:We just might be able to eak out 7 wins.
BOISE STATE - L
at Illinois
IDAHO STATE
CALIFORNIA
Stanford - L
OREGON - L
Oregon State - L
UCLA - L
ARIZONA
Arizona State
COLORADO
WASHINGTON STATE
We might win one of the five games marked as a loss. We'll lose a game to some high school team like WSU so there's five loses in all likely hood. If anything goes wrong, we're 6 - 6 or worse. Anybody on this schedule can beat us other than Idaho St and perhaps Colorado and Illinois.
At this stage, I'm hoping for less than 6 wins.....it's the only way we eradicate this cancer.
This season will be a microcosm of 2011. We'll start out 4-0 and be ranked like 15th, then lose 3 in a row to Stanford, Oregon and ASU and the season will basically be over. We'll finish 8-5 and theres no way Sark will get fired for that. Worst case scenario fellas, 8 wins. 7 and its 50-50 he gets fired. 9 wins means expectations are for 10 and north title in 2014. -
I agree that we should beat Boise State, but it is far from a sure thing. We have played poorly in every opener under Sark except the LSU game in 2009. The real dilemma is that Sark is not in Chris Peterson's league as a coach. Boise State will be ready to play, it is debatable if UW will be. I think it will be a very close game.ACSlaterDawg said:
Boise St lost quite a few seniors and they are not a great road team. We'll win that.Steve_Bowman said:We just might be able to eak out 7 wins.
BOISE STATE - L
at Illinois
IDAHO STATE
CALIFORNIA
Stanford - L
OREGON - L
Oregon State - L
UCLA - L
ARIZONA
Arizona State
COLORADO
WASHINGTON STATE
We might win one of the five games marked as a loss. We'll lose a game to some high school team like WSU so there's five loses in all likely hood. If anything goes wrong, we're 6 - 6 or worse. Anybody on this schedule can beat us other than Idaho St and perhaps Colorado and Illinois.
At this stage, I'm hoping for less than 6 wins.....it's the only way we eradicate this cancer.
This season will be a microcosm of 2011. We'll start out 4-0 and be ranked like 15th, then lose 3 in a row to Stanford, Oregon and ASU and the season will basically be over. We'll finish 8-5 and theres no way Sark will get fired for that. Worst case scenario fellas, 8 wins. 7 and its 50-50 he gets fired. 9 wins means expectations are for 10 and north title in 2014.
-
With the stadium debuting, UW will be excited by default. It will be a close game, and intense.
-
After the standford beat down we will hear "can't you just be happy with 4-1?" Then after the Oregon beat down we will hear "honestly, at the beginning of the year did you expect to beat Oregon?"
-
Agreed, although being excited and being ready to play can be two entirely different things.DerekJohnson said:With the stadium debuting, UW will be excited by default. It will be a close game, and intense.
-
that's a good pointRoadDawg55 said:
Agreed, although being excited and being ready to play can be two entirely different things.DerekJohnson said:With the stadium debuting, UW will be excited by default. It will be a close game, and intense.
