"Around-the-block" Coordinator Hires...lol
Comments
-
I'll allow itdnc said:
Yep, he wasn't perfect.RaceBannon said:Arizona hung 50 on him
So did Oregon in a 7-6 campaign with a loss to coog
He was a huge upgrade though.
Biggest reason 7 win Sark had a team win 9.
That wasn't happening with Holt. -
Yeah, I am fully expecting Kwat to become Sark's first scapegoat.RaceBannon said:
I expect Texas and Sark to still give up 50 to Oklahoma even with Kwat even with Herman playerschuck said:I think the overarching point is correct. It always comes back to the head coach.
You can tell good assistants from really bad ones in most cases though. Wilcox is a good defensive coach. It wasn't hard to see the immediate improvement over Holt.
My guess is that Petersen would have had similarly good defenses at UW with Wilcox as DC as he had with Kawasaki. There's a hell of a lot more to it than scheme. The HC is responsible for the culture, work ethic and all that other gay stuff but he's also ultimately responsible for the personnel. Petersen was a good roster builder. Sark was not.
Sounds like I agree with you -
Yes.CFetters_Nacho_Lover said:
8 wins. Tui got win number 9.dnc said:
Yep, he wasn't perfect.RaceBannon said:Arizona hung 50 on him
So did Oregon in a 7-6 campaign with a loss to coog
He was a huge upgrade though.
Biggest reason 7 win Sark had a team win 9.
That wasn't happening with Holt.
But who was Tui's DC?
They weren't winning that game with Holt either.
Wilcox was the biggest reason that team was better than all Sark's others. It wasn't like Price took a step forward under Tui. -
The mantra was that the offense would keep scoring and Wilcocks would fix the defense and rainbows and unicorns would appeardnc said:
Yes.CFetters_Nacho_Lover said:
8 wins. Tui got win number 9.dnc said:
Yep, he wasn't perfect.RaceBannon said:Arizona hung 50 on him
So did Oregon in a 7-6 campaign with a loss to coog
He was a huge upgrade though.
Biggest reason 7 win Sark had a team win 9.
That wasn't happening with Holt.
But who was Tui's DC?
They weren't winning that game with Holt either.
Wilcox was the biggest reason that team was better than all Sark's others. It wasn't like Price took a step forward under Tui.
Like any bad team the defense did improve, not against Oregon and nothing else matters, but the offense was worse
So 7 > 7 -
-
Sark was a great OC for Carrol and Saban, he was an average to below average OC at UW and with the Atlanta Falcons. Wilcox was a great DC (top ten defenses) under Peterman and Chryst and good(UW)/average(USC) DC under Sark and Derek Dooley at UT. I fully expect that the bend but don’t break, twelve play drive, hold em to a FG defense of Kwat will be a poor match with the all gas no breaks offense of Sark. Unless Kwat runs a defense completely different from what he ran at Bose/UW or Sark runs an offense completely different from what got him his job at Texas the two styles can’t mesh. Ive got my popcorn ready though.
CantwaitGIF -
I don't think Sark was a great OC for Carroll. It was a big reason I wasn't a big fan of the hire.theknowledge said:Sark was a great OC for Carrol and Saban, he was an average to below average OC at UW and with the Atlanta Falcons. Wilcox was a great DC (top ten defenses) under Peterman and Chryst and good(UW)/average(USC) DC under Sark and Derek Dooley at UT. I fully expect that the bend but don’t break, twelve play drive, hold em to a FG defense of Kwat will be a poor match with the all gas no breaks offense of Sark. Unless Kwat runs a defense completely different from what he ran at Bose/UW or Sark runs an offense completely different from what got him his job at Texas the two styles can’t mesh. Ive got my popcorn ready though.
CantwaitGIF
-
Sark also cost Bama a title against Clemson with his three and out attack killing the D
Tried to make Hurts a passer when he could have just run the damn option and run out the clock
Learned nothing from Locker -
Two dives and then play action from under center on 3rd and long is modern?whatshouldicareabout said:JonDon can be an underwhelming hire and still be an upgrade over what we had every year of Pete's tenure (minus the year Tedford was here). That's because Lake has a better philosophy for a modern offense than what we watched under Pete
-
Looks like you and I are alone on this island. He surrendered three blowout losses every year as DC at UW (usually right in a row just to really piss you off). His defense in 2013 gave up 53 points to fucking ASU. That defense featured:RaceBannon said:Arizona hung 50 on him
So did Oregon in a 7-6 campaign with a loss to coog
Unanimous All-American and second round draft pick Hau'oli Kikaha rushing the passer.
All-American, first round draft pick, and speaks-pretty-good-English-for-a-Hawaiian Danny Shelton at DT.
Second team all-conference, physical freak, and still irreplaceable Travis Feeney at OLB.
John Timu, who kicked around the NFL for a while and even started a few games at MLB.
Cory Littleton, also irreplaceable, NFL Pro Bowler, and very rich man at LB.
Some guy named Shaq Thompson.
Marcus Peters at corner. No big deal.
Very underrated (as a #2 corner), and with an NFL interception to his credit, Greg Ducre at the other corner.
Parker and Shamburger were an alright safety tandem.
So Wilcox took damned near an NFL roster and got boatraced by every ranked team they faced not called Boise and surrendered 129 points in back-to-back-to-back weeks. Think Kwiatkowski is going to do that under Sark at Texas (and don't even give him the talent excuse; look at the above list)?
I don't measure coaches by wins and losses. I measure by wins and losses vs. expected wins and losses. In other words, do they overperform or underperform the roster's talent level? By that metric, 2013 and 2019 have to be the most disappointing seasons from my Huskie fandom that I can remember. Somebody should do a shitpoll...
